Poll of the Day > lmao, Lauren bobert used to be an "escort" and has had two abortions

(+) Yeah! (+)

hey look who it is!

Adam_Savage posted...

hey look who it is!

A poster posting?

i wonder

Adam_Savage posted...

i wonder

Same. Anyhow...

Adam_Savage posted...

now imagine that only men could get covid, and the woman who cannot get covid says covid isn't dangerous.

you know what, we can even up the ante

the woman is an epidemiologist.

Please find even a single instance of a man saying pregnancy isn't dangerous or unpleasant in this topic. That's a mandatory prerequisite for even beginning to consider that to be a valid analogy.

Adam_Savage posted...

no, you do though, is the thing.

why?

because your arm is broken. you are not oblivious to the paid and inability to use said arm. you know that something is, in fact, fucked up with your arm, so someone telling you that you're fine means nothing to you. you do not value their opinion, their opinion means much, much less than the person saying something is obviously wrong.

This was context you did not originally provide, but fine.

If I am experiencing obvious signs that my arm is broken, then the opinions of two random people on the street with no apparent medical qualifications mean nothing to me, regardless of what they're saying, because I have all the information I need to form an opinion that I need to immediately seek medical attention.

...I'm not really seeing how you're tying this back to the discussion at hand, though. Unless you're trying to make the point that doctors trump laypeople on matters of medical care, in which case I completely agree.

Adam_Savage posted...

now imagine that only men could get covid, and the woman who cannot get covid says covid isn't dangerous.

you know what, we can even up the ante

the woman is an epidemiologist.

Sounds like a pretty terrible epidemiologist to me.

But, granted, there are people in any field who are bad at their jobs.

So let's dig into this. Some new "COVID" disease hits the world, no one knows what is going on. I, a random person, know nothing about this disease other than that it exists. Don't know what the symptoms are, don't know if anyone's died from it, just that it's out there. A man with no medical qualifications comes on the radio and says, "This disease is very dangerous, we should all be very afraid!"; then a female epidemiologist comes on and says, "Nah, this disease isn't dangerous, I've run the tests."

Absent any other knowledge, would I trust the epidemiologist more? Answer: Absolutely - she has better qualifications to back up what she's saying.

BUT... these decisions aren't made in a vacuum, are they? There's additional context here besides the opinions of the two individuals.

So I pay attention to the news. I notice people are dying - strangely, they all seem to have symptoms of that disease the lady doctor said wasn't dangerous. At this point I'm going to start questioning whether my earlier faith was misplaced - maybe she's a bad doctor? Maybe her research was flawed? I'm going to start seeking out additional opinions and pieces of information from informed individuals, because something isn't adding up. And, presumably, other qualified epidemiologists will start chiming in to say that this woman is wrong. And I'd probably start to discount her opinion pretty quickly.

But here's the thing - I'm not discounting her opinion because she's a woman; I'm discounting her opinion because it's a bad opinion. The fact that she cannot get COVID has nothing to do with why her opinion should be discounted. After all, a different female epidemiologist could just as easily come on and say, "Actually, this disease is very dangerous, but only for men." I wouldn't be discounting that doctor's opinion because, "She's a woman, therefore it's impossible for her to understand this disease because she cannot catch it." Of course she can understand it - she's a fucking epidemiologist! It's literally HER JOB to understand these things.

In your hypothetical, I'm not going to discard someone's opinions based on whether or not they can catch this new strain of COVID; I'm going to discard someone's opinions based on whether or not they are defensible opinions.

darkknight109 posted...

In your hypothetical, I'm not going to discard someone's opinions based on whether or not they can catch this new strain of COVID; I'm going to discard someone's opinions based on whether or not they are defensible opinions.

And really, that's the central thrust of all of this: When you're evaluating opinions, evaluate the opinions themselves, not the people saying them. Sometimes, evaluating the opinions involves examining the people to determine whether or not the opinion is likely to be adequately supported by their knowledge or experience, but the focus is still on the opinion itself and what that knowledge/experience means for its credibility, not the person. This idea that the opinion itself doesn't matter and all you need to look at is the person is fundamentally backwards.

adjl posted...

And really, that's the central thrust of all of this: When you're evaluating opinions, evaluate the opinions themselves, not the people saying them. Sometimes, evaluating the opinions involves examining the people to determine whether or not the opinion is likely to be adequately supported by their knowledge or experience, but the focus is still on the opinion itself and what that knowledge/experience means for its credibility, not the person. This idea that the opinion itself doesn't matter and all you need to look at is the person is fundamentally backwards.

Couldn't have said it better myself literally. This is a good post.

adjl posted...

Please find even a single instance of a man saying pregnancy isn't dangerous or unpleasant in this topic. That's a mandatory prerequisite for even beginning to consider that to be a valid analogy.

nope, and nope. it's a perfectly apt analogy, so go ahead and answer it.

if covid only affected men, and a woman epidemiologist said that it's fine because it didn't affect her

what do you value her opinion at.

Abortion is the same as someone quitting a online match cause they are losing

darkknight109 posted...

I'm going to discard someone's opinions based on whether or not they are defensible opinions.

darkknight109 posted...

That analysis is typically undertaken by academics or observed by people actually performing the procedure, which is why I tend to rate their viewpoints more heavily. Or, to put it another way, a woman might have experience with one abortion; her doctor probably has experience with hundreds, if not thousands.

this is what we refer to as hypocritical.

How much room under the rug is there?

Adam_Savage posted...

if covid only affected men, and a woman epidemiologist said that it's fine because it didn't affect her

what do you value her opinion at.

Poorly, because it's a bad opinion.

If she's saying COVID is fine "because it didn't affect her", then that's an extremely poor rationale for her argument, meaning it can be discarded.

If she's saying COVID is fine because of something she saw in the data... well, per the constraints of your hypothetical, she's factually incorrect, which means she's not a very good epidemiologist and most likely her peers will quickly be correcting her misconceptions (meaning, again, her opinion can be discarded).

Adam_Savage posted...

this is what we refer to as hypocritical.

In what way is that hypocritical?

Your hypothetical isn't someone arguing anything that has a matter of subjectivity (such as "Should abortion be legal?"), it's someone arguing an issue of fact and being wrong. Hence why I said "In your hypothetical [a qualifier which you carefully excised from your quote] I'm going to discard someone's opinions based on whether or not they are defensible opinions."

In your hypothetical, you set up an expert who was explicitly and unarguably wrong, then asked me if I would trust their word. If I had access to clear evidence that that person was factually wrong, the answer is no. By the same token, in the real world if you hear an abortion provider arguing that pregnancy is completely safe and totally risk-free for woman, you probably shouldn't give their opinions too much weight. I certainly wouldn't. Thing is, most abortion providers don't say those sorts of things. Likewise, assuming your hypothetical takes place in a universe that reasonably approximates reality, as opposed to some fantasy world where up is down and nothing makes sense, there's not going to be too many epidemiologists saying the same thing as the woman you presented, meaning however much weight you give her argument it will be swiftly drowned out by the (significantly larger) group of epidemiologists lining up to tell her she's wrong.

This is a poor attempt at a "Gotcha!". If that was your ultimate goal, I expected better. You seem to be trying to paint this as me saying that educated professionals and other "experts" are always right, which I have never claimed. Someone can have excellent credentials and still be wrong or have a bad opinion and neither I nor anyone else in this topic have ever claimed otherwise.

Really, though, as I and others have pointed out several times in this topic, evaluating an opinion's merit purely based on the identity of the speaker is a logical fallacy. As adjl put it, quite nicely:

adjl posted...

When you're evaluating opinions, evaluate the opinions themselves, not the people saying them. Sometimes, evaluating the opinions involves examining the people to determine whether or not the opinion is likely to be adequately supported by their knowledge or experience, but the focus is still on the opinion itself and what that knowledge/experience means for its credibility, not the person. This idea that the opinion itself doesn't matter and all you need to look at is the person is fundamentally backwards.

As an autistic person, I value the opinion of a professional psychiatrist on what treatment is right for me more than I would a fellow autistic person who has no experience in the field.

your essay didn't change anything, you were hypocritical to a fault

you said that you would trust and value the opinion more of a doctor with experience in the field over someone who does not even if they can't experience the thing they are talking about

you now are saying that the person with experience in the field is wrong because they cannot experience the thing

which is it

you can't have it both ways

you can go ahead and say that that's not what you did, but you literally did given i posted an example of you doing literally just that.

Conservatives consider themselves the main characters of society. No one else matters but them.

Eat Man posted...

Conservatives consider themselves the main characters of society. No one else matters but them.

Oh, other people matter to them. They want them to know their place and where they belong in society.

Adam_Savage posted...

your essay didn't change anything, you were hypocritical to a fault

No, I wasn't.

As said above, explain how the two viewpoints you cited are not logically congruous with what I've been saying thus far in this topic.

Adam_Savage posted...

you said that you would trust and value the opinion more of a doctor with experience in the field over someone who does not even if they can't experience the thing they are talking about

Absent any other factors that would impact my decision, yes.

And that's exactly what I said in your hypothetical. I explicitly said that I trusted the epidemiologist's opinion more than the random schmuck who sounded off on the radio in the scenario where I had no external knowledge that would influence my decision.

However, in the circumstance where I have access to evidence that indicates the epidemiologist is objectively and unarguably wrong, of course I'm not going to trust their opinion anymore - why would I?

Again, you're acting like I'm arguing that educated experts are always right, which isn't and never has been my argument.

Adam_Savage posted...

you now are saying that the person with experience in the field is wrong because they cannot experience the thing

I literally never said this. I defy you to quote where I did.

I said the epidemiologist is wrong because she is objectively stating falsehoods, not because she cannot experience this new male COVID. Her inability to suffer this COVID has nothing to do with why her statement of "this disease is not dangerous" is wrong; the fact that he statement is factually incorrect and that the disease is, in fact, very dangerous is why her statement is wrong. If a male epidemiologist - who *could* experience this new COVID - claimed it was not dangerous, he would be just as wrong, for the exact same reasons, and I would be just as quick to discard his opinion.

I even brought up the example of another female epidemiologist who (correctly) stated that the disease is dangerous, but only for men. I would trust her opinion because it is factually congruous with the facts as I know them. That she cannot personally suffer this disease does not make her any less trustworthy for the same reason why I wouldn't expect an oncologist to be any less trustworthy if they aren't a cancer survivor.

Adam_Savage posted...

you said that you would trust and value the opinion more of a doctor with experience in the field over someone who does not even if they can't experience the thing they are talking about

You know what, let's flip this around. You gave me a hypothetical; my turn to give you one.

A woman with no medical background tells you that all pregnancies are completely safe and complication free. She's had three kids and never experienced any health issues, so she doesn't understand why anyone would need to have an abortion - after all, just have the kid and give it up for adoption if you don't want it afterwards, right?

Then a male OB/GYN pipes up and says, actually, pregnancy always carries risks and women to this day still have a risk of dying in childbirth, with that risk elevated for minorities. He also mentions that, even when pregnancies have no serious complications, they are still very physically and mentally draining on women, who can experience extreme pain, nausea, dizziness, and mood swings, among other symptoms.

Whose opinion do you trust more? And remember, by your own logic, if you say the OB/GYN you're a hypocrite - after all, the woman has the firsthand experience.

you are so very close to getting it but you just keep missing

Adam_Savage posted...

you are so very close to getting it but you just keep missing

I think that puts me ahead of you - thus far, I haven't seen anything that indicates you're anywhere in the ballpark.

Anyways, I answered your hypothetical; kindly answer mine. Whose opinion do you trust more - the woman who says all pregnancies are completely safe and complication free or the male OB/GYN who says that all pregnancies have risks and that women can face serious health issues up to and including death as a result of their pregnancy?

Don't be a hypocrite now.

The fuck is going on. Like goddam. I don't think there is a single person against womens' right to choose posting in this topic. Literally everyone here is pro-choice and somehow that's a bad thing. Jesus Christ no wonder this country is shit. Even people on the same side of an issue are against each other.

Just burn this topic please

https://old.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/vdu2ke/oc_politics_thursday_lauren_boebert_reimbursed/

darkknight109 posted...

I think that puts me ahead of you - thus far, I haven't seen anything that indicates you're anywhere in the ballpark.

Anyways, I answered your hypothetical; kindly answer mine. Whose opinion do you trust more - the woman who says all pregnancies are completely safe and complication free or the male OB/GYN who says that all pregnancies have risks and that women can face serious health issues up to and including death as a result of their pregnancy?

Don't be a hypocrite now.

i'd trust the woman more, specifically because she is a woman.

if the roles were reversed and it was a woman saying, idk, my dick n balls were at risk for infection because of something, and the dude said it was fine, i would weigh the mans more specifically because he has a dick n balls and could experience whatever is going on in that situation

now, i would obviously have weighed them wrong in this instance, but that's okay. i would at least own up to it

shoving your head in the sand isn't fun, i don't think

you can have your opinions for something

that's fine, that's the point

but not all opinions are equal, some are worth more than others for specific reasons

even though hypotheticals are meaningless, i'm still a hypocrite for doing it. but it served my point, in that you, yourself, subconsiously weigh and value various opinions more or less than each other.

abortion being one of them. if you're pro choice, fucking great man fight those conservative fucks. but your opinion, while high in this case, is still lower than a womans opinion, even if she is pro life.

specifically because they are the only ones able to have an abortion

the issue here in this topic is you guys, who are men, can't accept that your opinion is not equal to or greater than a womans, for some reason. when i said you lost the plot, it's because you did. this is the plot.

wait a sec, I don't know where I'm at in this topic. I'll tell off a woman who has a bad opinion LOL

i don't have to respect a pro-life woman lmfao cheers. i literally know women who would not personally have an abortion but are pro-choice overall. if you're just pro-life advocate (not just your own personal...choice), regardless of gender, you have failed women. even if you are a woman. as a woman. as a person. and as a politician. especially if you're a politician that would enact laws that would have killed my mother during her first pregnancy/miscarriage.

maybe I'm not on Jen's side on this one lmao, but even trying to read this topic hurts my fucking head

my mom's opinion on this is better than other women's opinion on this cuz she'd be dead in your country lol

This topic sure did turn into a cluster fuck. I appreciate the entertainment though. Work was especially boring tonight.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/3/3/3/AAZslrAADWb9.jpg

Adam_Savage posted...

i'd trust the woman more, specifically because she is a woman.

if the roles were reversed and it was a woman saying, idk, my dick n balls were at risk for infection because of something, and the dude said it was fine, i would weigh the mans more specifically because he has a dick n balls and could experience whatever is going on in that situation

now, i would obviously have weighed them wrong in this instance, but that's okay. i would at least own up to it

That is honestly terrifying.

On a matter of health you're weighing the opinion where one person has a decade of education and training, with who knows how many more years of experience specifically for the issue at hand... and the other person has a vagina and is saying something you objectively know is wrong. And you're here saying, "Yep, that second one is clearly the opinion to trust! I may know they're wrong, but I'm still going to put my faith in them!"

I think I understand now why the US fared so poorly with COVID if this is a prevailing view. "Yeah, yeah, that Fauci guy may have his fancy degrees, 1400 publications to his name, and spent decades on the forefront of fighting some of the worst diseases on the planet... but Cousin Cletus says the horse dewormer will fix it right up and you can't go against family!"

People behaving in the manner you're depicting here - choosing identity politics over experience and objective fact - is how you guys wound up with Donald Trump as your president and how he very well might return in a couple years. So maybe stop doing that - it doesn't lead anywhere good.

Adam_Savage posted...

but not all opinions are equal, some are worth more than others for specific reasons

even though hypotheticals are meaningless, i'm still a hypocrite for doing it. but it served my point, in that you, yourself, subconsiously weigh and value various opinions more or less than each other.

Wait, *THAT* was what you were trying to prove?

Dude, I have been saying that exact thing since I came into this topic. Literally this whole 300+ post discussion has been on when to afford opinions more weight than others. At no point have I suggested that all opinions are or should be treated equally.

Some opinions are trash because they are objectively wrong. The woman saying, "All pregnancies are totally safe!" - which is an opinion that, bizarrely, you said you would trust over a qualified OB/GYN, which tells me you either have a grossly deficient understanding of basic biology or, more likely, are willing to claim that you would do something phenomenally stupid just to try to avoid admitting that you're wrong here - is a perfect example of an awful opinion that no one should trust.

Other opinions may not be objectively wrong (or are, but you cannot confirm with the information on hand) and you have to evaluate them based on their coherence, their logical consistency, and the credibility of the speaker. Sticking with the COVID example, if Dr. Fauci is telling you stay home, mask up, social distance, etc., and some conservative prick on Fox News is telling you to take a swig of Ivermectin and you'll be fine, Fauci is by far the more credible source. A world-renowned medical official beats a rank-and-file epidemiologist beats an M.D. without a focus in epidemiology beats other medical-focused professions like paramedics beats some random guy with no medical qualifications.

Adam_Savage posted...

but your opinion, while high in this case, is still lower than a womans opinion, even if she is pro life.

I have already explicitly conceded this is the case. You're basically agreeing with me at this point and not even realizing it.

You keep trying to paint this like it's an ego thing for me and I've already explained that it's not. I've laid out multiple times in this topic that I have no particular credentials on abortion that would raise my opinion above anyone else's. I am pro-choice, but only because I have evaluated widely available data and information and come to that conclusion; I have never had a partner that had an abortion, I've obviously never had an abortion myself, I have no medical qualifications that would give me a perspective beyond that of a layperson's. My opinion on whether or not abortion should be legal sits near the bottom of the totem pole in terms of how much weight it should be afforded; the only people whose opinions on the matter you should trust less than mine are those peddling obviously bullshit information, such as the woman in my previous example that says all pregnancies are safe. That person is factually wrong, so don't trust their opinion on this. You should, at least, be trusting me over her, which puts paid to this idea that male opinions on the matter are automatically inferior to women, even without getting into matters of expertise and experience.

If you know a woman who went through a pregnancy or abortion, you can and should afford her opinion more weight than mine. She has experience that I don't and I have nothing to counterbalance or outweigh that. I have never denied this is true.

If you think that my argument is that my opinion is or should be important, you've completely misunderstood what I've been saying in this topic. My opinion on this subject is not of particular significance. The OB/GYN who runs an abortion clinic, though? The Planned Parenthood counsellor who has helped many women through the process of considering and/or obtaining an abortion? The medical researcher who studies complication rates and outcomes related to pregnancies and abortions? Their opinions are pretty important, you should listen to them.

Adam_Savage posted...

specifically because they are the only ones able to have an abortion

Except you already said that women who are incapable of getting an abortion should also be afforded more weight in the discussion, then studiously avoided the question when I pressed you on why that should be so.

So you were lying then or you're lying now. Either way, you're a hypocrite.

Adam_Savage posted...

the issue here in this topic is you guys, who are men, can't accept that your opinion is not equal to or greater than a womans, for some reason.

Again, you keep claiming this is about me (or us) - it's not. None of the men in this topic have claimed that their opinion on abortion is particularly important.

That said, there are men whose opinions are absolutely more important than the average woman and who are and will be treated that way, because their expertise and qualifications are significantly better than the average layperson.

Dr. Fauci's opinions on COVID weren't respected because he's an old white guy; they were respected because he's fucking smart and is one of the most qualified and renowned medical scientists on the planet (seriously, dude's a fuckin' legend in the medical world). You want to talk about losing the plot? The instant you start rating someone's identity over their qualifications, expertise, and the actual content of their argument, THEN you've lost the plot. And since you seem to be in favour of doing that... well, enjoy another four years of Trump next cycle.

ReturnOfFa posted...

i don't have to respect a pro-life woman lmfao cheers.

That's not what this is about lol. I don't respect pro life anyone. Validity isn't about respect.

That's the whole crux of the LGBTQ+ argument.

lmao I posted that Dahmer thing in the wrong topic

Far-Queue posted...

lmao I posted that Dahmer thing in the wrong topic

lol

Adam_Savage posted...

nope, and nope. it's a perfectly apt analogy, so go ahead and answer it.

if covid only affected men, and a woman epidemiologist said that it's fine because it didn't affect her

what do you value her opinion at.

I would give it roughly the same value that I would give to a man that said pregnancies aren't dangerous or unpleasant because they don't affect him, which is to say none at all because it's flagrantly at odds with obvious empirical reality and the only way anyone could have such an opinion is by wilfully sheltering themselves from actually trying to understand the situation.

You've successfully crafted an analogy to something nobody's saying. What was that meant to accomplish?

Adam_Savage posted...

i'd trust the woman more, specifically because she is a woman.

if the roles were reversed and it was a woman saying, idk, my dick n balls were at risk for infection because of something, and the dude said it was fine, i would weigh the mans more specifically because he has a dick n balls and could experience whatever is going on in that situation

now, i would obviously have weighed them wrong in this instance, but that's okay. i would at least own up to it

But not own up to using deeply fallacious logic to assess the opinions, apparently. That's a really, really stupid way to appraise opinions. Personal experience can be a factor in an opinion's credibility, but that's not always the case, nor is it automatically a more significant factor than anything else you can consider.

Adam_Savage posted...

abortion being one of them. if you're pro choice, f***ing great man fight those conservative f***s. but your opinion, while high in this case, is still lower than a womans opinion, even if she is pro life.

specifically because they are the only ones able to have an abortion

Tell me: Why does one woman's ability to have an abortion herself somehow make her an authority on other women having abortions? Yes, she can have an abortion, but she can only have *her* abortion. I am exactly as capable of having your wife's abortion as Amy Coney Barret is, so why grant ACB more authority over your wife's abortion than you grant me?

Now, of course, I should have exactly zero authority over your wife's abortion. That's obvious. Nobody here is suggesting otherwise (except possibly Arv, who knows what Arv's doing). Similarly, ACB should have exactly zero authority over your wife's abortion. The issue here is not that I want authority over your wife's abortion, it's that you're suggesting that ACB somehow should have some, just because she automatically has more authority than I do.

Jen0125 posted...

Validity isn't about respect.

Then what is it about? Because you all seem very keen on insisting that men's opinions are less valid, but any time anyone takes issue with any of the practical implications of being considered less valid, you insist that those practical implications aren't what you're talking about and we therefore shouldn't be taking issue. As far as I can tell, "less valid" doesn't actually carry any practical implications and it's just something you're saying because you think it sounds good.

My opinion that your opinion is less valid has no practical implications lmao. I'm not here saying we need to restrict men's voting rights or disallow them to speak. I'm saying your self important opinion doesn't matter as much as someone who is personally affected by the issue.

You're upset about my opinion when my opinion carries no desire for restrictions. I want you to shut the fuck up about abortion but you don't have to. It's just what I want. There's nothing practically to be done about it. Unless you want to be nice and shut the fuck up. Which you obviously don't because you need everyone to know your opinions on women's issues are "just as valid" as people they actually affect. Which they aren't. But you refuse to admit it lol. So here we are.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Same

Jen0125 posted...

My opinion that your opinion is less valid has no practical implications lmao.

Jen0125 posted...

Unless you want to be nice and shut the f*** up.

Considering me to not be a nice person because I stated an opinion sounds like a practical implication to me. Unless, of course, you don't do anything with that opinion, in which case... you're just passive-aggressively sulking whenever I speak? I guess that's your prerogative, but that seems like a weird thing to announce, especially with such fervour.

What would you like me to do with my opinion that you should shut the fuck up? I can't force you to shut the fuck up so there is zero practical implication here.

And I'm fairly certain I'm not being passive aggressive. I'm being fully aggressive.

You can live freely with your need to be more valid than or equally valid concerning issues that don't affect you. It's your ego. It's your right lol. And I can tell you it's fucking dumb and please be quiet.

Anyways I'm truly not interested in arguing at self important men today so you guys can all circle jerk yourselves about how great it is you're allies for women until it gets locked at 500 posts lol godspeed

I think the last 400 posts have made it pretty obvious that I would like you to fix that opinion so it better aligns with common sense and logical consistency, but you've made it pretty clear you don't want to do that.

Jen0125 posted...

Anyways I'm truly not interested in arguing at self important men today so you guys can all circle jerk yourselves about how great it is you're allies for women until it gets locked at 500 posts lol godspeed

You'll be back.

Possibly not, actually. Depending on how quickly those last 100 posts go, she might not have a chance to come back, and I don't see much point in giving this topic a sequel.

literally no one is reading your essays

y'all waste a ton of effort because you're mad your opinion isn't worth more than a womans on a matter about something only women can do

adjl posted...

I think the last 400 posts have made it pretty obvious that I would like you to fix that opinion so it better aligns with common sense and logical consistency

See, we shouldn't approach *everything* with common sense or logical consistency. Sometimes there are factors to be considered which tip the scales a bit.

As mentioned earlier, we don't live in an idealized society. There are people fighting for rights they damn well deserve, who are being held down by people who lack common sense or logical consistency.

It's great to be an ally and throw your support behind those who are experiencing injustice, but that doesn't mean that your opinion on issues which directly affect certain marginalized groups should be treated as equal to those affected.

The opinions of those directly affected should hold greater weight under certain conditions. Abortion is one of those issues which should be treated this way. Women are directly affected. Even fathers, and I say this as a father myself who loves his children, are not directly affected. My body was under zero peril from my wife's pregnancies.

That Dr Spock logic doesn't fly when people's rights are being stripped away. Maybe someday we will live in some logical utopia where science is placed firmly above faith, but this ain't that timeline. Too many religious assholes have sway over government officials who can limit the freedoms of certain people. And in those times, the voices of the oppressed should rise above the noise of the masses and be heard, above all others.