The $500 pandemic stimulus child credit excludes pregnant women.
All it took was being asked to open their wallets for the GOP to admit unborn fetuses aren't really children.
While I would vote for any pro-legal-abortion referendum in a heartbeat (pardon the pun) I feel uncomfortable with people acting... a little too certain of statements like these. They seem to legitimize jumping to conclusions.
Firstly, a child credit assumes someone is going to be spending the money on the child... which wouldn't necessarily happen if the fetus were aborted.
Secondly, if 51% of "the GOP" supported abortion restrictions, and 49% of "the GOP" supported pandemic stimulus child credit, it wouldn't take hypocrisy on the part of a majority of the former.
I assume the gap is much wider than that, but the point remains. And even if it were wide enough to prove hypocrisy only on the part of a majority, are coin-toss odds really adequate to presume what's going on in the minds of others? At best you could say "some" GOPers support it for nefarious reasons, but that goes without saying. And there's an infinite array of possible nefarious reasons, but "wanting to deter premarital sex" is the one people typically revert to, for no apparent reason. Why would anyone with that goal pick a method that harms married couples needing abortions and leaves unmarried women who wanted to keep the baby all along unharmed? You could argue that we don't know why, but that's the point; we don't know what other reasons they may have for restricting abortions so the point is moot.
Of course, the tweet left open to interpretation whether it was referring to the politicians or to their supporters, but it doesn't matter. The same reasoning applies to both.
I see a similar thing with gay marriage, albeit with its equivalent not having as much overlap with "you're just jealous." This one you'd think the arguments were less common, since at least gay marriage opponents aren't as often made out to be "just jealous" of those getting laid. Yet they sure as hell are often made out to be "just homophobic." An individual opponent of gay marriage cannot prove their objection really is to "marriage without procreation." But the same applies to those claiming it's about homophobia in particular. They give the same already-refuted talking points about how they don't exclude infertility, even though they've already claimed they don't test for that because it'd be too intrusive. You cannot prove them to be lying any more than you can prove them to be telling the truth. And if, in the future, they did wind up testing for infertility, the way they tried to restrict contraception a few years ago, will the people who falsely claimed to know others' "real motives," having been discredited, step aside and make way for people of better judgment?
As well, if you combine the above issues, the evidence of a procreation-centric mentality of both sex and marriage among the right seems far stronger than either of the other explanations, though still not proven, which leaves behind the question; if someone is to invoke the unproven, why the above and not something with a stronger case to be made for it?
I suspect either dishonesty or poor judgment might be factors here. And I don't think it's a coincidence it correlates with more certainty than warranted about another person's precise motives.
