An abortion “debate” with an alt-right rhetoricist sibling and the subsequent stream-of-consciousness reaction
The scene: Xbox online, Rocket League, party chat
The cast: a cis-het white man, his trans younger brother, and their somewhat distant conservative elder millennial cousin
“So, how should I feel about the supreme court decision?” David asks austentiaciously.
Mike pieced his words together carefully. “Well, ultimately I think women should have the right to choose. One good thing about it, though, is that people who live in conservative states who want that can have it.”
Me, lightheartedly: “I think it sucks. This whole thing is fucked up.”
I should have known where this was going.
“Well, why would you say that?”
“I don’t think it is the government’s job to tell people what they can and can’t do with their bodies. I think all these debates are just a straw man. It’s not about when life begins, or babies lives, or sanctity of life. It’s about the government making a sweeping decision that takes away the rights of people.” I hoped my points were logical and succinct, to make my point and get back to the game.
David replied, “So you’re saying that if I wanted to murder my 5 year old child, I should be able to do that?”
That escalated quickly. At that moment, I knew what he was doing.
“No, of course not.” I replied. Mike was silent.
“Well what about a 1 year old?”
“Well what about Mike’s niece, who was born at 28 weeks? That is within the legal confines of abortion.” David gloated.
I jumped in before Mike could come to defend his niece, “Look, it’s not about his niece, or any other living person. This is all just distracting from the main point, that the supreme court legislated away the rights of women, and they shouldn’t have.
Mike defended, “Look, I’m a conservative guy, I believe life begins at conception.”
I tried to respond, “Sure, that’s fine, I--”
David cut me off, “This is a debate about when life begins, and when one has ownership over their own life. Does my 1 year old have agency over her own life?”
I rolled my eyes. “Well, no, not really. She fully relies on you.”
He responded, “Okay, so if I kill her it isn’t murder because she’s not really a person yet. So when’s the age of accountability?”
I attempted to disengage, “Look, it’s clear you and I don’t agree on this topic, and we don’t have to--”
“And that’s fine—” David’s tone indicated another point incoming.
“Yeah, that’s fine, we don’t have to.” I concluded.
Mike interjects an irrelevant comment about the game.
David bounced back, and continued, “If people make choices, they have consequences. That is not taking their rights away. If you are choosing to have sex, you need to choose to live with the consequences, such as having a child.”
After 5 years working in sexual health and HIV, I couldn’t help myself. “People are going to have sex. Saying ‘don’t have sex’ is not a solution to abortion.”
“Well sure,” David mused, “but when my wife and I weren’t ready to have kids, we used, not only 1, but 2 types, of contraception, because we were responsible enough to know we weren’t ready.”
“That’s great for you guys. But some people don’t have insurance to get contraception, or comprehensive sex education to understand how to use a condom.”
“Well, no, that’s a ‘straw man’ of an argument. We aren’t talking about sex education, we are talking about actions have consequences. If you take out 500,000 in student loans, there are consequences.” This felt like a dig, given the arguments we have had in the past years about my student debt.
He continued, “if you drink and drive and crash, there are consequences. If you have sex, there are consequences.”
I was exhausted by this argument, I tried to make a closing point tying back what we were talking about in the first place. “People have a right to have sex and enjoy sex. This issue is about bodily autonomy. A woman has a right to choose what is best for her and her body”
I mute my mic and take some deep breaths. Mike steers the conversation toward Rocket League. The conversation seems to turn away from the current political climate. I kept on the edge of my seat, hoping this conversation was over.
A few minutes later, David brought the topic back. “People do not have the constitutional right to bodily autonomy. There are rights to bear arms, rights to free speech, but there is nowhere in the constitution that says that the government cannot infringe on your bodily autonomy. If you think that is something people should have, you should speak to your senator about writing a 28th amendment making it so the government can’t infringe on your bodily autonomy.
I attempted a second disengagement, “Okay, I’ll do that, if congress can get off their asses and do something.” Mike laughs, appreciating the callback to his earlier joke about congress and the media needing to take 6 months off.
David continued, “But the government can and does make laws against bodily autonomy. You can’t shoot up heroin. Do you think that people should be able to shoot up heroin? It is illegal to kill yourself. Do you think that people should be able to kill themselves?”
His arguments were exhausting at this point. He just wouldn’t drop it, and he was saying any tangential argument to try to keep the debate going. And now, he is bringing in mental health, a topic that I am, by far, more knowledgeable about than he is. And he’s wrong. “It isn’t illegal to kill yourself, David. Who do you think they would prosecute?” I hoped this would be enough to embarrass him out of the argument.
“It is, it is illegal to attempt to kill yourself.” He insists.
“I promise you, it is not.”
“Dude, I am a licensed mental health professional. I am telling you, it is not illegal to attempt suicide. Just Google it.”
“Yeah well, that’s in New York. Do you know the laws in all 50 states? I don’t think so. It is federally illegal.” I interrupt him and remind him, “Google it.”
A brief pause. Silence from all 3 parties. I recount what has happened so far to Maria, who’s sitting next to me, and heard my half of the interaction. I asked her “How can I get out of this conversation? My cousin is here. I don’t want to be rude, but I can’t keep listening to this.”
She points out to me, “Just tell him you don’t want to have this conversation with him and you are signing off. He doesn’t have personal experience with or personal stake in this debate, so his opinion doesn’t really matter.”
David interrupts our unknown side conversation, “If you’re deemed to have a mental health issue, you’re basically a criminal. They take away your right to bear arms. They take away your driver’s license. They treat you like a felon. So it is the same thing as being illegal.” None of that is true.
I poke back using the pointer Maria gave me, “What personal experience do you have with this topic to have an informed opinion about it?”
Mike chuckles, reminding us that he was still on the line.
He defends, “I don’t need personal experience with something to be knowledgeable about it. I don’t need to know something first hand--”
I cut him off, “Okay, sure, but a suicide attempt isn’t a crime and people who attempt suicide aren’t treated like criminals. They’re placed on a 72 hour hold. Assisted suicide is a crime, suicide is not.”
Mike sweeps in, “How did we get to suicide from the supreme court?”
David defends, “Because if you have the right to bodily autonomy for abortion then what else should you have bodily autonomy for? Heroin? Suicide?”
Mike says “Well, you should be allowed to do heroin, but I think if you overdose they shouldn’t save you. That was your choice.”
A few more minutes passed. Mike mentioned wanting to hop off after this game.
I hoped their game ended soon.
“I just think that if we are going to talk about suicide--” David begins
I cut him off, “Okay, I am done. I’m signing off for the night.”
Before Mike can reply, David jumps in. ‘Uh huh, and why’s that, because you have nothing else to say. You know you’re wrong, and you can’t defend yourself, so you’re just gonna run off--”
I cut him off, again. “No, that’s not why. You want to know why? Because this is just a thought experiment for you. This is an intellectual exercise of your research and your opinions and your thoughts. This does not actually affect you. This is people’s lives. You don’t have a uterus, I do. You haven’t had a serious mental health issue, I have. You haven’t been hospitalized for a suicide attempt, I have. This matters to me, personally--”
He begins to raise his voice over me. “Yeah, and when YOU were HOSPITALIZED for a SUICIDE ATTEMPT, they took away your gun and--”
I refused to be talked over. “No, I still have a gun. The point is--” he tried to talk over me again “David, --” he kept raising his voice over me. I stopped hearing him “David, shut up.” He kept talking. “David, shut the fuck up.” Louder, “David, SHUT THE FUCK UP.” He briefly paused. “Mike, I am sorry that you are here to hear this. Honestly, David, I don’t want to hear your opinion on this. You are arrogant, you are close-minded, and you don’t know what you’re talking about. I don’t care what you think about these topics, and I am hanging up.” He tried to contest. I hung up.
I fell into my partner’s arms, shaking. She affirmed my strength, my holding myself tall longer than most people would have in that scenario. I heard my phone buzzing. 3 texts, from David.
1. “Having an opinion isn't ‘arrogant’ so idk what basis you have to make that accusation.”
2. “Also I don't resort to name calling when someone else has a differing opinion.”
3. “Also Also I share the same opinion that women should have the right to choose what to do with their bodies so I don't understand the hostility.”
After all that... After prompting what he knows is a controversial topic in an xbox game chat, after instigating a 1 sided opinion slam fest and provoking me specifically for an hour, after I finally stop letting him interrupt me and devalue my opinions, he’s accusing me of “resorting to name calling” and “hostility?”
He is trying to make me seem like this hysterical, overreacting, sensitive person who couldn’t engage in a “good faith” discussion with him. He started this conversation, knowing it is a heated topic. He adamantly argued against me when I disagreed with him/did not engage with his arguments/corrected when he was wrong. He would not drop it when I tried to at least 3 times. He ignored our cousin, who was just sitting in this conversation, and kept coming at me.
After an hour of obsessively “debating” against my opinions (not Mike’s), I’m supposed to believe he shares my opinion? Then why, the absolute fuck, did he debate me so fervently?
Why would someone want to argue with their brother over Xbox all evening at all? If you want to talk about the Supreme Court decision, just say so. Why not say, “I think that overturning Roe V. Wade is wrong. But I’ve heard people use the argument “xyz” in defense of the decision. What do you guys think?” Why would you, instead, make this bizarre devil’s advocate debate club out of a Monday night game session, that nobody else knows is just a thought experiment to you? Why do you feel the need to have this discussion with someone who you know is effected personally by the issues you are reading about on reddit? Just talk about it onn reddit.
I think that he genuinely believes in the conservative, brash, brazin things he was saying “hypothetically.” He did not give me any reason to believe that isn’t what he thinks. He defended the anti-abortion stance fervently and offered no supportive stance to my pro-choice points. Then, after I called him out for the beliefs he just flooded us with for the past hour, he shielded himself from being accountable to those beliefs by saying it was all a hypothetical. With a progressive wife, he has learned to perform progressiveness to please her. Lindsey would never agree with comments like that, either.
Ultimately, he didn’t want a conversation about this, he didn’t want my opinion, he wanted to argue with me and he wanted to be right. Probably because, like I said, Lindsey wouldn’t let him win an argument like this. It’s about winning against someone, because he feels powerless and like his opinion might be wrong and he might have to change. David is not capable of having a conversation with me in which he is not the expert, he is not the winner, and he makes the best points.
He doesn’t even have conversations to have a conversation with me.
For months now, David has been fixated on the bible. Bible translations, bible features, bible verses, bible commentary, bible interpretations, all things bible. If he had an ounce of self-awareness, he would know that this is a topic I feel very uncomfortable, and very obligated to, discuss. Regardless, every time I’ve talked to him, he has spoken to me, at length and detail, his musings about wherever he is on his bible journey. These conversations are often upsetting and sometimes trigger flashbacks for me. I tolerate this discomfort, because I told him he could talk to me about anything, and I know it is a meaningful way to connect with him. I have done my own research, offered support, gave positive feedback, asked questions, and just acted interested.
When was the last time that David did anything of the sort for me? When was the last time he made an effort to have a conversation with me about something I care about? When was the last time he listened to my opinions about something and said it was a good point? When was the last time he let me have a different opinion from him without trying to tell me how wrong I am? When was the last time he asked about Maria, or her family, or my friends, or my hobbies, or what I’m reading, or any of the other conrucopia of topics I ask him about every time we talk?
And yet, I am up at 2 AM writing this, stewing on this for over 4 hours, and he is probably asleep, and has been for hours.
izzy806
gummygunk
germansingergirl
discoholicmusic
pixelskylines
baratheonpilled
origamiaround
