this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2024

726 points (90.5% liked)

People Twitter

5125 readers

2231 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

Mark NSFW content.
No doxxing people.
Must be a tweet or similar
No bullying or international politcs
Be excellent to each other.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

SendMeYourTaTas@sh.itjust.works

pelespirit@sh.itjust.works

726

Abortion. (feddit.org)

submitted 3 days ago by Dot@feddit.org to c/whitepeopletwitter@sh.itjust.works

139 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Mastodon.

(page 3) 41 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Spacehooks@reddthat.com 2 points 3 days ago

Seems like a classic case of if I can't have one you can't either.

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (6 children)

As one of the 21% who support abortion I think this statement is a little cavalier. The numbers tell more than one story.

load more comments (6 replies)

[–] TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com -3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

i think that we should start referring to it as child sacrifice++

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] Fleur_@lemm.ee -1 points 2 days ago (11 children)

99% of people who are opposed to murder will never be murdered, the numbers speak for themselves.

Pro choice just thought the argument was a little funny lol

load more comments (11 replies)

[–] dragonfucker@lemmy.nz -4 points 3 days ago

100% sounds like an exaggeration. Around half a percent of men can get pregnant. Some of those are surely anti-choice.

[–] fishos@lemmy.world -1 points 3 days ago

This just in, most people opposed to theft/murder/crime in general haven't been direct victims but want to see a better society. These numbers go to show that numbers pulled out of thin air are meaningless.

Make your point without being anti- another group. Stop the US vs THEM bs.

[–] xc2215x@lemmy.world -1 points 3 days ago

I believe it for sure.

[+] taladar@sh.itjust.works -6 points 3 days ago (2 children)

I don't see what the ability to treat women as people who get control over their own bodies has to do with being a woman yourself or being able to become pregnant yourself.

[–] SquirtleHermit@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Well, assuming the 79% statistic is accurate, you could start from that discrepancy and extrapolate from there?

[–] taladar@sh.itjust.works -3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Those 79% are irrelevant, what would be relevant is the opposite, which percentage of men are opposed to abortion, not how many of the people opposed to abortion are men.

[–] SquirtleHermit@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Irrelevant to what? It's fair to say she is clearly Pro-Choice, so understanding the demographics of those who are anti-choice is very relevant. Especially if your point is that "since 4 out of 5 people opposed to abortion rights are men, who will not be directly affected by these laws, their opinion is functionally irrelevant".

Or are you just upset that this fails to acknowledge that just because men are more likely to be anti-abortion then women, that does not mean that men are likely to be anti-abortion in general? Because I would argue the latter is irrelevant to the fact that the majority of people who are against abortion rights will never be directly affected by it.

[–] taladar@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It is irrelevant because it would also be true if there were millions of anti-abortion people and just 100 pro-abortion people from some tiny sect that happens to be anti-abortion. Or, if the number was 80% instead of 79% it could also just be 5 people, 4 of which were men. The relevant number is how most men and how most women feel about this, not if the people who feel a certain way about it are mostly men or mostly women.

[–] SquirtleHermit@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago

hmmm.... that's a good point.

Oh, wait a minute, no it's not! Knowing the demographics of a group is extremely relevant.

Would you say it's irrelevant if 79% of people who got a specific disease were men, just because less than 0.01% of the population ever got the disease?

What about if 79% of a prison population was of a certain ethnicity, even though only 1 out of 100 people were incarcerated?

What about if 98% of school shooters were men, even if they are only a tiny fraction of the population?

Obviously not, these are key data sets to understanding the underlying causes. Sure, it helps to know how those stats compare to the general makeup of the population, and understanding what percentage of a population is effected is another useful piece of data depending on the questions you want answered. But to write off the makeup of a group as irrelevant is... dumb.

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world -1 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Some (maybe most?) people are selfish and only care about policies which directly affect them?

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments