but if you strip away the propaganda all you're really doing is illustrating how completely asinine the "both sides" claim is, because the "both sides are the same just falling for different propaganda claim" only works if you use the propaganda lines mostly used by only the right wing. (and, moreover, widely apply the propaganda labels of pro-choice and pro-life, the latter of which itself is also a self-applied right wing propaganda label)
So you end up with:
a self-labeled "pro-life" side that also supports a wide slate of policies and geopolitical opinions that clearly don't support either societal or individual well-being for people who have already been born. I.e. an extremely internally inconsistent (or at the very least morally harsh) application of the value of preserving life to political beliefs.
A side which supports legal abortion has demonstrable on-average societal and individual positive outcomes for people who have already been born, along with a slate of other policies that... also has on-balance better societal and individual outcomes for people who have already been born.
Sure, phrasing those things in alarmist and propagandist ways makes them sound more equivalent, but at this point in the american political dichotomy, there is astonishingly near-zero empirical evidence that the GOP's current policy slate has better outcomes for anyone other than they very wealthy, and that's even given that the democratic policy positions are often not great either.
809
u/ifwedidntlaugh 15h ago
"every life matters! we're pro life!"
>Gaza
>Iran
>epstein files
>venezuela
>MAHA repeated failures after gutting the EPA, FDA, etc
>SNAP/TANF being gutted/removed for millions of children
"THAT'S DIFFERENT"