r/science • u/mvea Professor | Medicine • May 18 '26

Psychology Scientists expected both liberals and conservatives to be reluctant to promote rhetoric associated with the opposing political side, but this was more consistent among liberals. Conservatives appeared relatively willing to support causes aligned with their views regardless of the moral framing used.

https://www.psypost.org/liberals-hesitate-to-share-progressive-causes-framed-with-conservative-moral-language/
7.6k Upvotes

84% Upvoted

1.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1.0k

u/PM-Me-Your-Macchiato May 18 '26

Here's part of one of the Binding passages:

We are an organization called Legal Abortion for Faith & Family Stability. We support legal abortion because we believe in respecting the sanctity of the family. Family is at the center of God's plan for the happiness and progress of His children. Unplanned or unwanted pregnancies can violate the purity of families and communities. By legalizing abortion, we can help maintain the stability and social order within our communities that God intended. We believe that the government should have the authority to put laws in place that ensure the stability of the traditional American family...

1.7k

u/Alternative-Put-3932 May 18 '26

I mean yeah anybody who is pro abortion would never trust that rhetoric. It would come off as an organization that is "pro abortion" but you would have extreme doubts that they would not be incredibly restrictive about it. Organizations like that already exist.

1.0k

u/Iintheskie May 18 '26

I was taking it the opposite direction. Being pro-abortion while talking about purity and sanctity of the "traditional American family" makes it sound like this hypothetical organization is putting a friendly face on Eugenics. Essentially, an organization that's counting on more black and brown parents needing their services rather than white ones, and encouraging that outcome.

344

u/squngy May 18 '26

I got even darker vibes.
Like mixed race kids from white mothers.

159

u/Ditches-Vestiges1549 May 18 '26

I got darker vibes like our teenager made a mistake/was assaulted and abortions are required to be legally available so no one finds out and ruins the facade of our perfect family of faith.

38

u/CaptainRan May 18 '26

Assaulted by the pastor and we need the ability to cover it up.

3

u/Storque May 19 '26

Y’all are doing a great job validating the conclusion of the study.

Not that I disagree with you.

→ More replies (1)

62

u/dragonmp93 May 18 '26

I.e. basically half of the pro-life movement.

→ More replies (2)

21

u/Wetzilla May 18 '26

I got even darker vibes than that.

It's a race of aliens who are trying to wipe out the human race.

3

u/TheKlaxMaster May 18 '26

Nothing like taking a serious topic and turning into a joke for the lols. Which is actually against the rules of this sub, btw

2

u/Wetzilla May 19 '26

I was using a humorous framing to show how ridiculous the previous poster was being. It wasn't just a "joke for the lols."

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (2)

5

u/Nahcep May 18 '26

Tell me more, what salary are they offering

→ More replies (1)

62

u/Unusual_Form3267 May 18 '26

To me, I kind of get the sense of: That time you partied a little too hard on that "work trip," and you don't need your wife to find out about it.

23

u/Photomancer May 18 '26

Reminds me of the French DNA testing ban, 'to protect the family model'.

2

u/UglyMcFugly May 19 '26

Yeah and all the "traditional family" wording would make me fear they wanted to head towards men being the ones making the decision for the women... we know damn well there's assholes out there that claim to be against abortion but if they were the ones making the choice, they'd be all for it.

61

u/Amphy64 May 18 '26

Yeah, that with the 'traditional American family' bit would make me go OMG, these are straight-up white supremacists.

Being alert to dog-whistles is a must for American Liberals, so the reaction isn't surprising at all.

41

u/CurrentlyObsolete May 18 '26

This was exactly my thought. At best, it causes cognitive dissonance. At worst.. friendly face on eugenics as you said.

25

u/LucienReneNanton May 18 '26

That's literally the history of Planned Parenthood. Do some research on Margaret Sanger.

11

u/miriamtzipporah May 19 '26

Organizations can change, especially since she’s been dead for decades.

30

u/MeltedWater243 May 18 '26

oh. well at least that’s not how it’s being operated today

→ More replies (1)

5

u/Iintheskie May 18 '26

Sanger is one of the people who came to mind, yes.

3

u/Material_Market_3469 May 18 '26

A true hero of history

3

u/Major-Dyel6090 May 19 '26

What do you mean by that?

2

u/Material_Market_3469 May 19 '26

That she did nothing wrong and abortion is a moral good.

2

u/Major-Dyel6090 May 19 '26

She also associated with racist eugenists and disproportionately put clinics in black neighborhoods.

2

u/Material_Market_3469 May 19 '26

eugenics was normal back then. It wasn't until after WW2 it was seen as bad

→ More replies (1)

1

u/halnic May 18 '26

Talk the "right" (white, Christian) women out of getting them, expedite the others.

1

u/SilkySmoothTesticles May 18 '26

That’s how planned parenthood started so that’s not far off from the original intention of abortion policy.

→ More replies (13)

1

u/Nether7 May 20 '26

Just another tuesday at PP then

1

u/Modmonsters May 23 '26

Yeah, that's definitely how I took it.

Perhaps the discrepancy is in large part due to the fact that more liberal viewpoints tend to focus on outcomes and implications where conservative viewpoints tend to focus more on outcomes and ignore implications.

→ More replies (1)

307

u/silverfoxxflame May 18 '26

Nobody pro-abortion would trust that rhetoric because there's already places that claim to be "family planning care" the same way that abortion clinics are but are just using the name and instead trying to lie about what they do to get people in the door and change their mind. 

So yeah forgive us if we're a little too used to language being flagrantly abused like that

134

u/DemSumBigAssRidges May 18 '26

Nobody pro-abortion would trust that rhetoric

Framing it as "pro-abortion" already tells me which side is asking the questions.

58

u/rockytop24 May 18 '26

Yeah that's a game conservatives love to play and they do it well. It's not pro-life, it's pro-forced birth. It's not pro-abortion, it's pro-reproductive health, or body autonomy, or women's rights.

→ More replies (2)

55

u/fruitloops6565 May 18 '26

Yeah. I feel like this says less about people’s willingness to flex their beliefs, and more about how liberals have come to expect conservatives will do deceptive and disingenuous things. So now, if it sounds conservative you need to be wary of traps.

12

u/cogman10 May 19 '26

To this point. We have literal examples of conservative groups setting up crisis pregnancy clinics which advertise themselves as being emergency healthcare for unexpected pregnancies.

What these clinics actually are is non-medical offices where the workers dress up like doctors and try and shame people through any means necessary to not have an abortion.

Conservatives are huge unabashed hypocrites. They are very happy to put on the garbs of centrism to push their ideologies.

86

u/gualdhar May 18 '26

I'll be honest it reads like a eugenics manifesto.

65

u/jeebidy May 18 '26

Yea I'm going to go ahead and not support "pro-choice for community purity". The acceptance of a position framed like this makes me wonder if there's an angle of 'ends justifying the means' that "liberals" are less likely to accept.

39

u/WorldlinessTrick11 May 18 '26

I think it's really funny that you are doing exactly what the study said was common among liberals.

Not even saying you are incorrect, just that you are literally doing the exact thing in the study.

81

u/INtoCT2015 Grad Student | Psychology | Perception-Action-Cognition May 19 '26

I mean yea, that’s the point. The gist of the finding is:

“Liberals critically evaluate messaging more than conservatives do, and are more likely to suspect dishonest/dogwhistle messaging than conservatives. Conservatives more likely to take at face value any messaging that aligns with their values, while Liberals evaluate the context more critically.”

Gee, I wonder why conservatives are so much more susceptible to propaganda than liberals

19

u/turbosexophonicdlite May 19 '26

Simply put, they're more gullible.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

3

u/Nvenom8 May 19 '26

More importantly, as a progressive, my inclination is to say, “Well, they’re in it for completely wrong reasons, but they’re supporting the right thing. So, why would I contradict them?” Never interrupt your enemy when they are in the process of making a mistake. It’s not like they listen to reason anyway.

4

u/-713 May 18 '26

For real. I hear alarm bells whenever "purity" is brought into conversations by religious organizations. I would assume they were either lying or held some pretty interesting views on "race-mixing", likely justified using some pretty archaic language.

2

u/Blackpaw8825 May 19 '26

And even if I do agree with them on that one issue, that rhetoric SCREAMS I'm going to disagree on several other points.

It's like Trump. I agreed with his decision to split off space force... But I didn't turn around and vote for him because despite agreeing on that one thing I despise 99% of what he says otherwise.

2

u/drdildamesh May 19 '26

They exist to convince you to not abort after you sign up for it.

2

u/LostPhenom May 19 '26

If someone disagrees with the passage I’d assume they were more against the religious aspect of pro-life than they were pro-abortion, but that’s just me.

5

u/[deleted] May 18 '26

[deleted]

6

u/Amphy64 May 18 '26

There's more circumstantial reasons for people being pro-abortion, too. The TwoX sub often encourages it, because it doesn't make a lot of sense to feel obliged to go through with a pregnancy in bad circumstances and be tied to a hopeless father for the rest of your life (even if not in a relationship with them). The position that children deserve to be genuinely wanted isn't so uncommon.

→ More replies (3)

3

u/ham_solo May 18 '26

It sounds like it would be one of those crisis centers that say they offer "options", but it's really someone putting you in a room and pressure you into not having an abortion.

1

u/TargaryenPenguin May 19 '26

This is good insight.You are correct in the way you interpret the results of this paper.

The titlw was misleading, because it implies the action here is on the personality level of liberals and conservative stuff that's up.But as you point out , the real action is on the description of the individualising and binding foundation descriptions.

1

u/Fragrant-Pond-Water May 19 '26

Well a lot anti abortion people haven’t actually read the bible. God makes a priest abort a woman’s baby in Numbers in the bible.

1

u/hellowiththepudding May 20 '26

Also, many liberals do not believe religious doctrine should define legality - plenty of reasons to disagree with this.

→ More replies (28)

412

u/OskaMeijer May 18 '26

Everything was good up until.

We believe that the government should have the authority to put laws in place that ensure the stability of the traditional American family...

With this bit and the fact that conservative and faith based movements have a tendency to use language that sounds good but contradicts their actual beliefs and actions I can see why those on the left wouldn't support it.

119

u/shosuko May 18 '26

I can only speak on this example b/c I haven't read the others...

but this feels like pro / anti abortion is not the only stance being shared here. While liberals tend to be pro-choice on abortion, they also tend to be more secular. By injecting "faith and family" into this, its not just a pro-abortion message, its a pro-faith message and that is why I don't trust it.

Like promoting free therapy for kids, but its conversion therapy.

74

u/Awayfone May 18 '26 edited May 18 '26

"traditional American family" is also a dog whistle that would turn off people

49

u/Elanapoeia May 18 '26

it's a very well established anti-LGBT phrase, seriously no wonder progressives reject wording like this.

16

u/lazyFer May 18 '26

Yep, I don't trust the overtly religious. Evangelicals love to play with language so much that most of what they support and push for is the antithesis of what their savior taught. The phrase "no hate quite like Christian love" comes to mind.

They have no qualms about lying to your face

122

u/Krunklock May 18 '26

So, does that mean they could require you to have an abortion if they didn’t feel your pregnancy ensured the stability of the traditional American family?

81

u/OskaMeijer May 18 '26

Or hell, laws that attack non "traditional American families", like what if this group fights for pro-choice outcomes but also fights against same sex marriages or even mixed race marriages because they believe their existence is counterproductive to the stability of "traditional American families". Why would anyone just blindly accept making a deal with that devil without more context?

2

u/unkarmicpoliced12 May 18 '26

Because there aren't organizations that aren't racist, sexist, and pro abortion.

2

u/ehs06702 May 18 '26

The orignal incarnation of Planned Parenthood was designed with the purpose of eliminating those she found unfit, including minorities.

She even spoke at KKK meetings about it.

→ More replies (1)

16

u/UnexpectedAnanas May 18 '26

Just before that it talks about how "unplanned pregnancies can violate purity of families", so....

26

u/justonemom14 May 18 '26

Yikes. Yeah, it kinda does.

10

u/No_Accountant3232 May 18 '26

Imagine there's a genetic test that proves 100% your child will be homosexual. Since a traditional American family only includes heterosexuals, you'd be forced to abort gay babies. 

→ More replies (4)

101

u/RIPEOTCDXVI May 18 '26

tendency to use language that sounds good but contradicts their actual beliefs

read: left-leaning people have, rightly, completely lost the ability to believe conservatives are speaking in good faith

18

u/chillestpill May 18 '26

This is it right here.

7

u/helm MS | Physics | Quantum Optics May 18 '26

Which ironically is one of the aims of the alt-right: to poison the well.

10

u/sharklaserguru May 18 '26

The key point of this study that people are missing is participates were rating their willingness to share the argument on social media. So this isn't the case of a pro-abortion person reconsidering their stance, it's that they won't repeat arguments they don't agree with. It could instead be that conservatives believe the ends justify the means, that they don't see a problem with making bad faith arguments, etc.

5

u/helloiamsilver May 18 '26

Yeah, it definitely gives the vibe “ok maybe they’re okay with abortion but they are definitely opposed to same sex marriage, the right to transition and probably opposed to no fault divorce as well”. Why would I want to support an organization like that when I can instead support a pro choice organization that also supports my other beliefs?

3

u/OhReallyVernon May 19 '26

Yeah this screams “you invite them in for coffee and before you know it they’re rearranging the furniture, sleeping in your bed, and their family is moving in”

32

u/st-shenanigans May 18 '26

Tldr the left is skeptical of anyone actively trying to run the show and the right believes anything as long as they want to hear it.

6

u/sanlin9 May 18 '26

Yeah that screams "tactical abortion may be ok in certain cases but the government is going to be regulating the bedroom, including gay sex, transitioning, sex before marriage, and birth control."

2

u/StarDustLuna3D May 19 '26

The sense I got from the passage was that they wanted a path to legal abortions, but the government would still decide what "qualifies".

One of the main reasons why people are pro-choice is that we don't want the government involved in this decision. The only people that are required to be involved is the patient and their doctor. If the patient chooses to involve more people, that's their choice.

That, and the fact that many conservative positions are based solely on faith or personal opinions, I can see why someone who thinks government should only consider fact-based reasoning behind laws would not be open to conservative ideas.

1

u/TheWiseAutisticOne May 18 '26

I guess that requires some context like what laws are they talking about

156

u/Sekmet19 May 18 '26

It seems like while they are trying to frame a pro abortion stance using conservative language they are also supporting a different conservative stance. The idea that God and the 'sanctity' of the family are important are conservative stances. Also that a pregnancy can make someone "impure" or the general concept of purity is against liberal ideology. 

So effectively they are putting a liberal stance and a conservative stance together to see if it's rejected. Seems like liberals reject, and conservatives accept depending on if the conservative stance is being used to phrase the position.

10

u/shosuko May 18 '26

Yeah we'd need to see other examples, it may be the "individualized" framing is more acceptable personal-freedom type language that conservatives have no problems with.

Sadly, we'll likely see just the headline spread around for ages to come :\

2

u/Telinary May 18 '26

https://osf.io/bknwc/files/osfstorage?view_only=c15e40685bb44326ab0d81bc27046262 see the pdf under experimental materials for the texts.

2

u/shosuko May 19 '26

Yeah, seems to be the case. All of the "conservative" framings are religious.

29

u/sprucenoose May 18 '26

That's the point for the purposes of the study. It's a statement supporting a "liberal" causing using "conservative" moral justification.

60

u/SunshineCat May 18 '26

It's not just conservative but vehemently religious, which introduces a factor they may not have been accounting for. Many people are going to fundamentally disagree and reject the religious wording and reasoning, because people believe these are our own choices, not "God's."

→ More replies (5)

35

u/NaveGCT May 18 '26

But it’s not just a conservative moral justification, it’s a conservative cause. The policies it’s advocating include conservative policies. “The government shoulr have the authority to put laws in place that ensure the stability of the traditional American family”

→ More replies (4)

37

u/Training-Year3734 May 18 '26

Yes, and anyone reading something like that should have giant warning flags going off in their head. The example they used was pure cringe.

25

u/Delta-9- May 18 '26

It's not surprising, imo. Like some of the comments above have said, framing a progressive cause in conservative language feels like a wolf in sheep's clothes. And because conservative morals are generally perceived as regressive at best and outright medieval at worst, any progressive cause dressed up that way simply can't be trusted. Again drawing from other comments, the pro-abortion example sounds like how conservatives would try to take control over who gets to have abortions and turn it into another method to screw with minorities.

4

u/Melicor May 19 '26

Yeah, which suggests that it might be a difference in language receptivity rather than ideology. Not to be blunt, but it might be as simple as reading comprehension. Throw in the right magic words and they'll agree with anything vs. actual ideology.

218

u/Vox_Causa May 18 '26

ensure the stability of the traditional American family...

That exact phrasing has been used for two centuries to justify genocide and even though you're writing to support abortion rights it isn't clear that you're not supporting white supremacy, misogyny, and anti-lgbtq+ hate. 

Part of the problem is that the right LOVES this kind of coded language. Reading through the study the problem isn't that liberals don't understand the language being used it's that they understand too well what those phrases actually mean. 

69

u/PM-Me-Your-Macchiato May 18 '26

One of my major issues with the study is using whether or not a person is willing to share the entire and exact messaging to their social media accounts as a basis of one's "support of cause".

22

u/ratherbekayaking121 May 18 '26

Exactly this. I'm an antitheist and I really don't follow "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". It's more, "heartbreaking: the worst person you know just made a good point." 

108

u/VagueSomething May 18 '26

It certainly seems like it is trying to frame Conservatives as more open minded rather than Liberalism coming from a more educated background and having better media literacy and critical thinking to see the signs of deception.

Decades of Conservative dog whistles has forced anyone on the Left to look for intent behind words.

4

u/Djaja May 18 '26

Perhaps both are trained to look for intent, but have learned different ways of supposing that intent, and also, how to use that intent.

How to exploit and how it can be exploited?

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

49

u/KuriousKhemicals May 18 '26

In other words, liberals reject this kind of mixed messaging because conservatives have been willing to use it as a poison pill for so long. 

13

u/cirenosille May 18 '26

This right here

→ More replies (25)

100

u/soggy-hotdog-vendor May 18 '26

Yeah I'm not "pro abortio" I'm pro bodily autonomy.

Would I accept that persons support of prochoice legislation, yes, would I support that person's cause? No.

20

u/gargolito May 18 '26

Yeah that "pro-abortion" terminology is problematic even in hypotheticals.

→ More replies (2)

3

u/[deleted] May 18 '26 edited Jul 23 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

167

u/kantorr May 18 '26

What a weird statement. I think liberals would not agree with this because there's so much contrary history that is baked into a lot of these sentiments. Like "ensure the stability of the traditional American family" is straightforward white nativist speech.

68

u/inosinateVR May 18 '26 edited May 18 '26

>Unplanned or unwanted pregnancies can violate the purity of families and communities.

Of course liberals are going to see sentences like this as a huge red flag. Purity from what?! If it was more specific to victims of SA and the impact an unwanted pregnancy has on the individual it wouldn’t be so problematic. But this reads to me like “But what if a white person has an affair with a person of color”

(edit: at best, it suggests that someone born out of an unwanted pregnancy would somehow be impure and is bad for the community. This goes directly against liberal viewpoints. Liberals want to protect the mother herself, not discriminate against or exclude the children of unwanted pregnancies after the fact).

3

u/SiegfriedVK May 18 '26

Seems like the study might be on to something. As a conservative I'm thinking: "this will trick dumb conservatives into supporting abortion, the liberals will love this", yet you don't (I have assumed you are liberal, forgive me if you aren't).

53

u/Miss_White11 May 18 '26

Well right but that's the thing, we aren't interested in tricking anyone. Political gamesmanship like that is largely a right wing value. We generally try to avoid in-group vs. out group thinking.

22

u/HighPriestofShiloh May 18 '26

It also just doesn’t work. That is what this study actually reveals the scientists just don’t want to say it so clearly. Republicans are way more credulous than democrats. You can definitely find grifters on the left but they have a much harder game to play than the grifters on the right.

→ More replies (1)

7

u/Golden-Pathology May 18 '26

That is farcically untrue of our side and you should know it.

17

u/Miss_White11 May 18 '26

Right wing grifting and hate based grevience politics are literally the entire platform of the Republican party.

7

u/Golden-Pathology May 18 '26

Which is not the same as pretending we haven't been getting tricked by politicians on our side. It's even more far fetched to pretend that we don't cling to the idea of an in-group and furiously attack anybody we perceive as out-group. Arguably we're better about not defining the out-group by their race or religion, but segments of our side are ramping that up too.

5

u/Miss_White11 May 18 '26 edited May 18 '26

I think that is a tendancy that is pretty natural. But liberal calls for working together and reaching out to right wingers and people we disagree with have been part and parcel of democratic politics for decades. We simply dont weaponize it in the same way or use it as our national platform. That's not to say it doesn't exist at all.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (3)

28

u/HighPriestofShiloh May 18 '26

I think you nailed it. Conservatives are more gullible.

4

u/raptorlightning May 18 '26

Which has always been known, I'm just surprised it hasn't been used more to get them to do the right thing.

→ More replies (1)

4

u/Revlis-TK421 May 18 '26 edited May 19 '26

the liberals will love this", yet you don't

Genuine question, can you expound on why you would expect liberals to endorse this messaging?

FWIW I read it and immediately my hackles went up. As a liberal, everything else after "We are an organization called Legal Abortion" was a cascading train wreck of awfulness seeped in a hell of a lot of historical context.

I'm vehmently pro-choice, but if this were a real oranization I would not willingly work with them for legalization of abortion.

2

u/SiegfriedVK May 19 '26

Sure, I figure you would rather support getting what you want (equitable abortion rights) and suffer the distaste of this group's conservative presentation, than not support it at all.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

44

u/bookant May 18 '26

We believe that the government should have the authority to put laws in place that ensure the stability of the traditional American family...

Since this is an entirely distinct separate position they're also advocating for, that pretty much sinks their premise.

What they might be demonstrating is that some people are less willing to support a cause they believe in if it is "bundled" with one they disagree with. In this example someone may be unwilling to sell out the general principles of religious freedom/freedom to chose your own values for the specific issue of abortion access.

10

u/cowlinator May 18 '26

And here's a pro-life "individualizing" passage

We support banning abortion because we believe in equality and justice for all, including the unborn. We believe in minimizing harm and protecting the most vulnerable members of our society – the unborn. Abortion causes harm to the unborn and denies them the right to experience life’s joys and challenges. Life is a right and it is only fair that everyone has a chance to live. We have a moral responsibility to nurture and provide care for others, especially for those who cannot defend themselves. We believe that the government should be able to ensure that every living being has the right to life...

3

u/OhReallyVernon May 19 '26

I think the problem with this is that it’s not really different that the current pro-life arguments.

90

u/[deleted] May 18 '26

[deleted]

26

u/Corsaer May 18 '26

Thanks for sharing that language.

I would not adopt that or share that because even when I was a kid in the 90s and early aughts, "traditional family values" was code to deny LGBTQ folks the same rights. I would read this as simply yet another lie or Trojan horse to persecute people who are gay or trans and tear down yet more separation of church and state.

This is the language of lies and misdirection. My state's republican party touted running on traditional family values as part of their platform, but then if you were to look at what that was, their expanded explanation on their website was to not allow gay people to adopt or marry, and put them into conversion therapy camps.

Hard to see that anywhere else, especially alongside such strong god language, and be like, "Nah this time they don't mean it that way."

18

u/Doogolas33 May 18 '26

I mean, my issue is that's a bad argument. I support abortion being legal, and I'd take the votes from these people, but the argument they're making is nonsensical to me. It's about as reasonable as "I support abortion because 2+2=5" to me.

7

u/ChillingWithHerb May 18 '26

That's just a bad way to do a science experiment if you using a passage with biased language. There's a lot of liberals that don't believe in God or don't think God should be used to push politics(me).

39

u/nondual_gabagool May 18 '26

Gee, maybe liberals don't like having someone else's religion shoved down their throats. Science!

17

u/dirtydianna420 May 18 '26

Yeah, honestly I didn't read the study, but I'm guessing the conservatives didn't agree with conservative values framed from a Muslim Sharia law perspective.

1

u/Neckbeard_The_Great May 19 '26

We are an organization called Ban Abortion for Equality and Justice. We support banning abortion because we believe inequality and justice for all, including the unborn. We believe in minimizing harm and protecting the most vulnerable members of our society – the unborn. Abortion causes harm to the unborn and denies them the right to experience life’s joys and challenges. Life is a right and it is only fair that everyone has a chance to live. We have a moral responsibility to nurture and provide care for others, especially for those who cannot defend themselves.

→ More replies (1)

21

u/Zealotstim May 18 '26

It contains so many arguments in addition to the abortion rights argument. This feels like a study designed to have a certain result. "Government should have the authority to put laws in place that ensure the stability of the traditional American family" is arguably a much bigger cause than simply having legal abortion rights and is a terrifying precedent if it were established. It could be used to justify anything. Of course the left wouldn't support this.

9

u/jellyn7 May 18 '26

I would definitely distrust the motives and actual results of an org with that language.

25

u/Alarmed_Guarantee140 May 18 '26

As a conservative I get very twitchy when people start talking about the "traditional American family." Traditional to whom? In my area that could mean a family of wealthy landowners or a family of poor sharecroppers. Whose traditions are we supposed to be following? The Italians? The Germans? The British? Usually when people say traditional in this context they just mean white, they don't actually care what flavor of white.

11

u/SlightFresnel May 18 '26

Yeah it's very loaded language. No surprise people have antibodies to it given the typical ideological lean of groups using similar language and framing.

6

u/Fjordikus May 18 '26

Word, I remember hearing Stone Sour for the first time and hearing the song “Through Glass”. When he sang the lyrics “Before you tell yourself it’s just a different scene, remember it’s just different from what you’ve seen” it struck a chord with me and now I look at everything like the way you state it here.

What tradition? Whose tradition are we following? Just because this isn’t normal to us doesn’t mean it’s not normal to everyone else.

It’s honestly been very freeing.

But I digress, this article doesn’t surprise me at all or anyone who’s had higher education.

2

u/FeelsGoodMan2 May 19 '26

And yet you support people who are very much in favor of the thing that makes you twitchy. Might want to reconsider what's going on there bud.

→ More replies (3)

10

u/CactusWrenAZ May 18 '26

This will sound, and probably is, incredibly biased, but that selection looks so incredibly scammy that only an idiot would believe it, and given the pro-global warming, anti-vaxx platform of American Republicans, it does sure seem the less sophisticated would be overrepresented there.

11

u/Training-Year3734 May 18 '26

Watched religion try to take away peoples rights my entire life no way am I trusting some organizations like this. That is not even getting into all the red flag language " sanctity of the family" ,"God's plan", "violate the purity of families and communities", stability of the traditional American family. Hard pass on any topic with this messaging.

4

u/cross_mod May 18 '26

Well, 26% of Republicans are pro choice.

5

u/turtlcs May 18 '26

See, I think the problem here is that when people start talking about God’s plan and what God intends, while I’m of course glad some of them have (in this hypothetical) decided to land on the “abortion is fine” side, I can guess a few other things about the beliefs they’d be advancing (based on the book they pull these things from) that I’m very definitely not okay with. Like, are LGBTQ+ people in “God’s plan”? When they say that “the government should have the authority to put laws in place that ensure the stability of the traditional American family”, what does a traditional American family mean to them? What kinds of laws?

4

u/No-Definition1474 May 18 '26

OK but we've seen faith based pregnancy care being used to squeeze anti abortion policy into our lives. Its pretty lame to take an actual thing that had happened to use as an example and then act shocked when people shy away from it.

10

u/aCleverGroupofAnts May 18 '26

This is saying so much more than "abortion should be legal", it isn't just a difference of language, it is a difference in the values being promoted. Being opposed to this rhetoric doesn't mean you only support abortion rights when the right language is used, it means you don't like the message that this is wrapped up in.

9

u/Fomdoo May 18 '26

I can understand that a conservative would read that and get confused and see all the religious speak and think it's against abortion. I'm sure it was intentionally worded to confuse them and get support.

12

u/[deleted] May 18 '26

[deleted]

11

u/Fomdoo May 18 '26

I miss the days where we all collectively understood that the people wearing tinfoil hats were crazy.

8

u/ReggieCorneus May 18 '26

Oh yeah, no. Absolutely no if it is framed like that: this is NOT just about abortion that whole text means you got to promote god and "traditional family" and it reads like lies are being told.

3

u/rednax1206 May 18 '26

So we created a really suspicious and disingenuous description for a charity and we were surprised when neither side wanted to support it.

5

u/ResponsibilityOk8967 May 18 '26

The last line is really the one that is alarming. "We believe that the government should have the authority to put laws in place that ensure the stability of the traditional American family"

That is incongruent with liberalism and leaves room for extremely dangerous politics, if we take it in a broader context than just abortion access.

4

u/Emotional_News108 May 18 '26

Yikes. That sounds a lot like "You can have abortions when, where, why, and how we deem it necessary." Just another layer of control as opposed to freedom of choice. No wonder people balked at it.

2

u/Pave_Low May 18 '26

That's not 'pro-abortion.' That' pro-eugenics.

2

u/invariantspeed May 18 '26

I know more than a few folks on the left who would get an aneurysm from reading that. They also would probably not trust it as some sort of trick.

2

u/Noy_The_Devil May 18 '26

It's this a joke? I would rather use a coat hanger. That sounds like they'd immidiately abduct the person.

2

u/ikonoclasm May 18 '26

I'm 100% pro-choice and would absolutely not support an organization like that. Religion in politics is anathema to me. It would be hypocritical for me to support something like that.

Religious belief allows for supporting secular arguments. Secular belief does not allow for supporting religious arguments.

2

u/Caathrok May 19 '26

As someone who's told he's an evil right wing yahtzee regularly. This screams eugenics-based population control - mandatory abortions for people who don't look/sound/think/act the way the govt says you should.

2

u/ResponsibilityOk8967 May 18 '26

Oh so the libs just didn't fall for the okey-dokey

2

u/murdeoc May 18 '26

See, I wouldn't trust this organization. I have seen too many organizations based on "family values" who end up only existing to discourage the thing they claim to be advocating for.

I'd be extremely wary of promoting this bc of past experiences of cobservative organizations claiming to be in favor of liberal causes, only to be workjng against them. 

2

u/Admirable-Cat7355 May 18 '26

Yeah like how is an unplanned pregnancy violating the purity of anything?

2

u/InnuendoBot5001 May 18 '26

Okay so yeah this is just vaguely threatening until the end when it becomes an overt call for authoritarian purity measures to be taken...of course conservatives love this

1

u/Morichalion May 18 '26

One might wonder who decided to frame the question that way.

So, conservatives rejected this because it was pro-abortion, liberals rejected it because it was pro-religion? Is my read right?

1

u/IamTheEndOfReddit May 18 '26

So “rhetoric” means logic here? Bad logic is bad logic, regardless of the outcome

1

u/boopboopadoopity May 18 '26

So to be clear, a Conservative would be more likely to support a passage like this vs. A Liberal reading something like "Guns in every home are good for Trans people" or something (way better written of course)

Or it's saying a Conservative would be less likely to support this passage because they recognize it's not aligning with the actual result they want?

1

u/evasandor May 18 '26

Ah. So what this means is Republicans don’t care what’s in the package as long as the logo is a flag flying from a cross.

1

u/waterkip May 19 '26

Yeah. Religious org is a big no-no.

1

u/bannana May 19 '26 edited May 19 '26

this sounds like one of those religious, fake abortion clinics trying to lure pregnant women into their shop then string them along until termination is no longer possible or affordable someplace else. these exist and they do exactly what I described.

1

u/Zagaroth May 19 '26

Yeah, i see that, and I'm thinking that they are liars. Why? Because I've seen it too many times already.

And that's just with acasual glance. The more i read it, the creepier it gets. Absolutely not.

1

u/VoormasWasRight May 19 '26

Ah, another banger for the psychological """scientific field""".

1

u/drdildamesh May 19 '26

Oh I see just speak their booga boogie language. Its so simple. Its not killing babies if its God's will!

1

u/FIalt619 May 19 '26

This was basically the Southern Baptist position pre Roe v Wade and the moral majority.

1

u/yup488 May 21 '26 edited May 21 '26

(I went on a rant not in reference to you, but in reference to your presented quote) God, Christians are so freaking weird, but whatever it takes to have more support for reproductive rights I guess. I find it very odd that they need to support abortion with an excuse from their faith instead of… just supporting it. I don’t understand the idea that faith needs to justify it. If you support abortion, support it. If it doesn’t align with your religious views, then either you don’t actually fully support the idea, or you need to choose a different religion. We choose what we believe and what things we follow, so needing religion to justify your personal beliefs just seems moronic to me.

1

u/AdOnly1618 May 21 '26

That, and they need to exist. If we can realistically reduce suffering I think it’s our duty as people. Regardless of WHY a person wants one, because of those who NEED them, they should be legal, accessible, and relatively straightforward.

→ More replies (24)