Then you should be encouraged, every time it's been on the ballot, abortion has been protected or expanded since roe was struck down. Just last week, Ohio voted down an amendment meant to make it harder for a pro-choice amendment legalizing abortion this November, which is also expected to pass. Politicians are acting in spite of voters.
I sympathise with instance admins without the ability to risk a court fight, but that doesn't mean there aren't those out there who would welcome such a challenge, and I don't think they should be pressured to cave if they're inclined not to.
Sure, but doesn't it suck that it doesn't matter what the law says? Do you think it'll ever change if everyone rolls over and isolates undesirable communities (think beyond piracy to other things like adult content, or content from marginalised groups)
I also just thought that, given how thoroughly downvoted that post and all its OP's comments were, it makes the Admins of Lemmy.world look like they've actively gone against popular opinion. Psychologically, mobs tend to dislike that appearance.
I do grasp writing, that is specifically why I asked this question, because the headline framing it as a loss is negative to people who aren't already supportive of climate action.
I disagree. The internet distorts people's perceptions. "Normal" people support reproductive rights, no-fault divorce, and other common targets of the religious right because that's what's in line with how they actually and practically live their lives. Most people are mortified to hear about a 13-year-old being forced to give birth, that's why the people who oppose abortion have all sorts of excuses (or outright claim the stories are fake) in these scenarios because they know what they're defending is shocking to normal, well-adjusted people.
The people who wouldn't be swayed would fall into either the hypocritical category above, or are the people who would actually would cruelly force a family member to go through something akin to what happened in the article above, because they believe in the "blessing" or because they're also forcing their kid to marry the rapist, but I'm referring to people who are otherwise well-adjusted but are ignorant of the wider world and have a sanitised view of abortion as something "out there" and "far away" from their life.
I think I've heard about some people getting away with using carpool lanes while pregnant on the basis that they had "two passengers" in some conservative states.
Hopefully, that won't be the case much longer in Ohio with November's ballot question. (the GOP just failed to make it harder to pass by trying to make all constitutional amendments require 60% to pass after polling showed it would by 58%)
There's nothing to sue? They could go after an instance owner, sure, but I'm reasonably sure that there's still Section 230 safe harbor protections for "service providers", which to my knowledge could easily be the owner/admin of a fediverse instance. Perhaps it'll need to be litigated in the courts, which is unfortunate for whoever gets stuck being the trailblazer.
I'm operating on the basis that most people, do in fact, love their family members and want them to live happy, fruitful lives. If someone doesn't want that for their loved ones then what I'm saying wouldn't apply. Someone who is "normal" but not radicalized, in the sense that they may be reflective of society's inherent prejudices and have views shaped by them, but are repulsed by overt displays of racism/sexism, would probably be horrified.
I wonder how many former pro-lifers this will create as people watch their younger siblings, cousins, and other loved one's childhoods have their lives utterly ruined because they bought into theocratic propaganda about "the unborn".
Every time something like this happens it should be proof that it was about control and cruelty towards women and girls.
Yeah the asshole replies were unexpected, had no idea it would offend so many people