I don't usually cross-post from other political blog sites, however, this one hit me in a way that's hard to explain, or maybe not.
It may end up going viral. There seem to be more and more posts about how we can disagree about politics and individual politicians and still be friends.
Or, maybe they take the politics out and say that we SHOULD be able to disagree and still be friends.
And, sure, yeah, we SHOULD. But, no, we can't. Not anymore.
Because this isn't a question of whether you prefer chocolate ice cream or vanilla.
This is a question of fundamental civil rights. And can be a question of life and death.
(snip)
If this was a "we disagree, but we can be friends" stance, your conservative friend would be saying, "Abortion isn't right for me, but, hey, you do what's right for you."
They're not saying that.
They are saying "abortion isn't right for me, therefore, abortion should be illegal for you".
(snip)
They may modify their hypothetical to incorporate particular arguments, like, rape and incest, or to save your life if they think that will make things more palatable for now.
But it doesn't matter how they modify their hypothetical to win you over. However, they modify their stance now can change again tomorrow. Because it isn't real. And while you are trying to pin them down on precisely which rights you are allowed in which circumstances, NONE OF THAT IS THE POINT.
The point is: THEIR HYPOTHETICAL IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN YOUR REALITY.
There is more but I think you get the point. The slow encroachment of taking away personal liberties is the point. I should have to have a justification for getting an abortion. just because it might hurt someone else's feelings. No one should stay in the closet to protect another's feelings. That's not politics, it is morality and it should never be policed as such.
So, at a certain point, no we cannot be friends. I refuse to accept my abuser as benevolent.

&
Raine
Â