NYT opinion: I’m Pro-Choice. But I Don’t Think Pro-Lifers Are Bad People

In their own minds, yes. With money and cultural influence in states they haven’t written off. It’s easier and somewhat warming to pretend you’re “above partisan and identity politics” when one enjoys the myriad of privileges that the NYT’s most valued readership does.

It also makes them feel good to have a non-threatening Black best friend (as in “one of my…”) The NYT is glad to oblige them with a para-social relationship there as well.


I hope you included a gift receipt. That BS needs to get thrown out of the Overton Window.





Quidquid id est, timeō Danaōs et dōna ferentē.

No offense.

1 Like

Of course, someone will argue that their cousins’ uncle’s barber’s niece is an atheist and is against abortion. But that doesn’t change that making abortion illegal is a fundamentalist religious position. Even though it crosses evangelical Christianity, Catholocism, and Orthodox Judaism, it’s still a prohibition based on religion. I think the Constitution has something to say about the government enacting religious establishments…


[citation needed] for the ‘wider world’ part.


reality check provided here–


The author of this article certainly has a very lenient and forgiving view of what makes a person “bad.” He seems to think that malice is a necessary component of “bad people.” Here is a key (but long) quote:

“I have known too many Trump voters, of various levels of education, to whom the “racist” tag could be applied only in a hopelessly hasty fashion. Too many of them have worked for civil rights causes in the past or are married to or seriously involved with people of color or are of color themselves, for the racist label to make any real sense. They, rather, do not rank Trump’s casual bigotry as being as important as others do. To them, this trait is unfortunate and perhaps even off-putting, but not a dealbreaker in comparison to other things about him. I see nothing evil in that. It puts me off a bit. It often seems a little crude — I sense some people being swayed, purely, by Trump’s podium charisma. But that is not the same as malevolence.”

He might as well be writing something to the effect of: “I have known too many drunk drivers who actually have excellent driving records. They just do not see the added safety of unimpaired driving as being as important as others do. I see nothing evil in that. The accidents that they cause are not the result of malevolence.”

Does this make the author a bad person? I would say “who gives a fuck?”


I think I’ve spotted the character flaw.


To paraphrase:

It’s not the racism that attracts them, they just don’t care about it, they’re just so attracted by Trump’s charisma and appealing rhetoric.


Trump. Charisma.

All he had to offer was racism and xenophobia.

Oh, no, I’m sorry – I forgot the misogyny and other bigotries.


… and that visible moustache-twirling is required?


In before anyone else Godwin’s this:

My grandparents were not malevolent. They weren’t even bad people, to the best of my knowledge.

But they lived through the third Reich and the war, one grandfather being a soldier in the Kampf um Lebensraum im Osten, while millions of others were murdered. And I am nearly sure that they supported the Nationalsozialistische Arbeiterpartei Deutschlands.

That is not the same as malevolence. But just as terrible. And I own this part of my personal history.

That said, §218 StGB is still a thing in Germany, today.
And pro-lifers actually do compare abortion to Nazi practices. Which makes me so incredibly angry, I don’t even.


It’s cute how neatly he glides over the fact that, in this context, ‘pro-life’ explicitly means ‘and just itching to get their hands on some state force to use’ rather than ‘and not planning on having an abortion’.

I realize that ignoring that makes your broad-minded and magnanimous think-piece flow more smoothly; but even if you are writing NYT op-eds you should realize that if ignoring the crux of the issue makes your argument flow better that’s not really a good thing.


I would challenge any of those voters to name three of these “other things about him,” and have to fact check them.

And, wth?

??? If they think that’s “charisma” I really do feel bad for their mayonnaise lives.


Look at any survey from a reputable polling organisation over the past decades and you’ll see that a consistent 70%-plus of Americans – like most Happy Mutants here – do not want the total ban on abortions that the GOP has been asking for.

Republicans and their “free”-market fundie allies have to make up all kinds of fairy tales about the “wider world” if they want to be able to promote their real and less popular agenda of welfare for corporations and millionaires.


That’s where he lost me. When it comes to abortion the final decision regarding what action to take must rest with the woman who’s going to risk her physical and mental health, possibly even her life, in addition to many other things including potentially her career.

For women this is not an abstract philosophical exercise which is why we men need to at the very least think carefully before expressing an opinion or, ideally, shut up and back off.


The Jewish position on this, of course, is that a child’s life does not begin at conception, but upon matriculation to medical school. :wink:

I am Jewish, btw, but wouldn’t object to a non-Jew telling this joke so long as there’s no reason to believe ill intent.


I don’t see much point in trying to gaze deeply into the soul of a person who supports a cruel policy because the effects of the policy are the same.

Every so often you hear apologists for slavery explaining why many of the people who continued the practice weren’t “evil people” per se but simply didn’t know better treated their own slaves compassionately yada yada yada. I really don’t care, because slavery was evil and cruel. So is forced birth.


And life begins after the kids move out and the dog has died.


As long as you’ve brought it up:

All kidding aside, Jewish belief says that an abortion is not merely permitted but actually REQUIRED if it is better for the pregnant person (physically, psychologically, whatever).

This ruling will once again codify a specific version of a specific religion into federal law, making a mockery of the First Amendment.