I never thought of neutrality like that - thanks, +1 Insightful and such!
Although I wonder if that can be applied to other issues too. Like, if I were to have no opinion / consider myself neutral in the pro-choice / pro-life debate, which side would I actually be on? Or is there a neutral / indifferent ground there?
The quote at the bottom is from Desmond Tutu, who explicitly said that neutrality is a vote for the powerful/status quo. So if you were in Denmark, not caring that much could be treated as a pro-choice position, but in Texas it would be the other way around.
Just because you don’t understand that availability matters, people getting shot because they do legal things matters, and your entire entire Supreme Court being defined by and chosen on their attitude to a subject matters, doesn’t mean they don’t matter.
Attempting to obtain an abortion in Texas will have dramatically different outcomes to that of Denmark. Appreciating this is true should not be controversial.
The people in Texas are actively fighting against the status quo of Roe. If the people in TX simply took a neutral position, the status quo would reign. Thus, the example is a bad one.
If you do not understand the difference between neutrality and apathy, say that and I'll happily explain.
The difference is that neutrality, by itself, doesn't describe motivation (which could be apathy, but not necessarily).
As an example, if you apply that logic on countries which were neutral in WWII, that doesn't mean they were pro status quo or pro whatever the outcome was either in theory or practice. It means they have a different interest than the 2 power blocs. And if you look at who was part of Axis, you find Finland, who made a pragmatic and strategic decision due to their (recent) history with Russia.
Although I wonder if that can be applied to other issues too. Like, if I were to have no opinion / consider myself neutral in the pro-choice / pro-life debate, which side would I actually be on? Or is there a neutral / indifferent ground there?