[RD] Abortion, once again

[Valka D'Ur]

*shrugs*
I see it. I can't change it. The roots of tradition run deep.

America has a weak group identity. Individualism is likely stronger here than anywhere else on Earth. Taking care of the poor isn't part of what many believe the social contract to be here. That, and just about everything else, is left to the individual.

From the outside I'm sure it does seem like moral inconsistency, but the people who believe poverty is a direct consequence of someone's morality don't see it that way. They don't view themselves as hateful.

I'm a working class guy. Most of the people who passionately oppose welfare are the ones who'd benefit from it. I know a woman with 3 kids who's had to base her whole life around that fact. Stuck in an unwanted relationship with a stay at home dad, job she hates but keeps to pay bills, has personally had an abortion, still thinks it's wrong, and still thinks the very welfare programs that'd be of great value to her are immoral. Just really genuinely believed that it's up to the individuals work ethic; I could never change her view, arguing from both the utilitarian and ethical perspectives.

This traditional thought makes us slow to adapt to any technological or economic change that requires action on the group level, if we can at all. It's a paralyzer.

This is the hateful ideology that's infesting the right-wing in Canada these days, partly due to the relentless barrage of American politics on TV, and partly because our right-wing party leaders are using American advisors who teach them how to manipulate and brainwash and gaslight the conservative-minded voters here. The government in my province is a pack of sociopathic thugs who are really lucky that Canadians tend to get rid of our politicians via elections instead of other methods.

 

[Voidwalkin]

So what you're saying is that America is inherently anti children. And the most anti children people of all Americans are the anti abortion voters.

Well no, lol. I'm saying there are different conceptions of fairness, different estimations of the value of fairness and where upholding the conception should be prioritized. I mean, you will find people on the right who support school lunch programs.

The revelation that conservatives have layers of ideology preventing them from seeing the bare truth of their own beliefs is not exactly a surprise nor is it an original insight.

I dunno man. People tend to stay in hyper-polarized echo chambers so long that they come to believe their negative characterizations are what their opposition actually believes.

We are increasingly unmoored by it, which I'm sure you're aware of

 

[Lexicus]

I dunno man. People tend to stay in hyper-polarized echo chambers so long that they come to believe their negative characterizations are what their opposition actually believes.

We are increasingly unmoored by it, which I'm sure you're aware of

I can't speak for anyone else, but I listen to conservatives and watch what they do. Sometimes this is reported on in the news, other times conservatives tell us directly what they believe through public records like the Dobbs decision, legislative debates and votes on legislation, on social media and on websites like this one. It is not particularly difficult in the English-speaking world to expose oneself directly to conservative beliefs.

Modern American conservatism is largely a public relations campaign (of historically unprecedented thoroughness and sophistication) designed to convince people that racism is not racist, sexism is not sexist, contempt for the poor is not contempt for the poor, and so on - in short, that up is down. If we don't understand this then we don't understand anything about conservatism and cannot explain almost anything conservatives actually say or do.

 

[Lexicus]

Supreme Court rejected the attempt to have mifepristone banned in the US, but they ruled that the plaintiffs didn't have standing rather than on the merits of the case, which seems to leave open the possibility of a future decision that does restrict the drug.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Supreme Court rejected the attempt to have mifepristone banned in the US, but they ruled that the plaintiffs didn't have standing rather than on the merits of the case, which seems to leave open the possibility of a future decision that does restrict the drug.

 

[Voidwalkin]

Modern American conservatism is largely a public relations campaign (of historically unprecedented thoroughness and sophistication) designed to convince people that racism is not racist, sexism is not sexist, contempt for the poor is not contempt for the poor, and so on - in short, that up is down. If we don't understand this then we don't understand anything about conservatism and cannot explain almost anything conservatives actually say or do.

Hypothetically, say someone acts to uphold traditions that they believe have value, that give them comfort, and the action produces a sexist outcome.

I think it's accurate to say the value gained from upholding tradition outweighed the negative sexist outcome in the mind of the actor. That doesn't lend me to thinking sexism was their primary motivation

Dobbs decision

I, naturally, think the opinion provided by the court is simple cover for deeper moral beliefs inspired by religion. Barrett, probably Kavanaugh, and perhaps Roberts? to my thinking likely made the above evaluation. I suspect they're aware of the disproportionately adverse outcomes, they're just outweighed.

Alito may genuinely be a culture warrior who likes to do damage. I don't think I have any ability to predict what Thomas thinks nor why.

I still can't see hatred of women as the primary motivator. Not for the majority of the Dobbs supporters, and not in the conservative base I routinely talk to. They're supporting a much older and inherited morality, which continues to wane despite the efforts of the mentioned propaganda campaign

 

[Gorbles]

I think it's accurate to say the value gained from upholding tradition outweighed the negative sexist outcome in the mind of the actor. That doesn't lend me to thinking sexism was their primary motivation

Sorry for jumping in, I know you're talking to a few folks at the moment. If "upholding tradition" produces a sexist outcome, shouldn't we correlate the two instead of separating them?

 

[Core Imposter]

Alabama now considers embryos as unborn children, which now makes it more difficult for infertile couples to actually have a child.

The GOP doesn't care in the slightest about abortion except as a tool to reduce a woman's agency over her own body and further control the actions of non-males. The US has the worst death rate for pregnant women and the child they are bearing. If the "children savers" were sincere, they would demand the construction and staffing of thousands of health clinics across the country to improve access to healthcare. Instead they demonize women exercising their right to control their own body.

So let's stop thinking the anti-women crowd cares about children or women. It's about making women second-class citizens who are required to ask permission from the government to do anything.

Most importantly, it's nobody's dam business but the woman and her healthcare provider.

There is a very small fringe of anti-abortionists who somewhat fit your description. Unfortunately, they have too much influence at the present time. This is of course the result of a long season of the evil being countenanced. Reason will prevail in due time.

 

[Voidwalkin]

Sorry for jumping in, I know you're talking to a few folks at the moment. If "upholding tradition" produces a sexist outcome, shouldn't we correlate the two instead of separating them?

I am reluctant to do that here.

If someone acted to uphold a tradition that adversely impacted a minority group, I'd be pretty comfortable calling that racist outright.

What complicates that for me here is that people do hold their religious beliefs sincerely, which would change their cost benefit analysis. If somebody genuinely believes abortion to be a sin, then it is possible they believe the sexist outcome to be a fleeting thing outweighed by the salvation of somebody's immortal soul; or further, that inaction in preventing continued abortion may directly imperil their own immortal soul.

 

[Gorbles]

I am reluctant to do that here.

If someone acted to uphold a tradition that adversely impacted a minority group, I'd be pretty comfortable calling that racist outright.

What complicates that for me here is that people do hold their religious beliefs sincerely, which would change their cost benefit analysis. If somebody genuinely believes abortion to be a sin, then it is possible they believe the sexist outcome to be a fleeting thing outweighed by the salvation of somebody's immortal soul; or further, that inaction in preventing continued abortion may directly imperil their own immortal soul.

Fair enough.

I don't want to get into a religious derail either, but my view is that people use that to justify racism too. A lot of people use things to justify various bad things, which doesn't necessarily / always reflect fault on the thing they're using (as justification).

 

[Lexicus]

the negative sexist outcome in the mind of the actor.

This assumption that "traditionalists" see sexist outcomes as negative is false.

A prominent recent example of "traditionalists" openly embracing and calling for sexist outcomes was Harrison Butker's commencement speech where he stated that the true calling of women is to become homemakers. This and other similar statements he made were widely defended by other conservatives.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Hypothetically, say someone acts to uphold traditions that they believe have value, that give them comfort, and the action produces a sexist outcome.

I think it's accurate to say the value gained from upholding tradition outweighed the negative sexist outcome in the mind of the actor. That doesn't lend me to thinking sexism was their primary motivation

One of the keys to the "sexism is not sexist" thing that @Lexicus mentioned is a fixation on motive. That's how people who want to be sexist (or racist or homophobic, or whatever) feel they can get themselves off the hook and not be held responsible for their behavior. If a behavior has a sexist outcome, it's sexist. It could be accidentally sexist, or the person displaying that behavior might not have realized that it was sexist until someone pointed it out. But once we're told women don't like it or it harms women, if we insist on continuing, then we're owning it. If I step on someone's foot while I'm on a crowded subway, I remove my foot and apologize, and it's no big deal. As soon as I refuse to move my foot, I've made it a big deal, a point of conflict. Whether or not I intended to step on the person's foot isn't super-relevant, unless of course I actually did intend to do it. And if, after the person says, "hey, you're on my foot", I don't say "oh, sorry" and move my foot, then that person is right to wonder if I did it on purpose. Even if I didn't, I'm owning it now. Not moving my foot after they've said "hey" is essentially the same as having stepped on their foot deliberately.

To use a sports analogy, a foul in almost any sport doesn't need to be deliberate to be a foul. If there's reason to think it was deliberate, that could be informative (some sports in fact use the terminology "intentional foul"), but it's not relevant to determining whether it was a foul (it might be relevant to determining the penalty). I'm wracking my brain trying to think of something in sports that's only a foul if it was deliberate (and until we develop telepathy, it would have to be demonstrably deliberate, except in the rare case where the offender admits to having done it intentionally). I think there's an analogy to be drawn in criminal law, too, where a crime committed accidentally is still a crime, but maybe the penalty is lower, or the prosecutor agrees to a lesser charge if they can't demonstrate intent (that's why, for example, a penalty for a crime is less if it's a first offense, and doesn't show a pattern of behavior, because a pattern of behavior can suggest intentionality - or at least, an unwillingness to be a good citizen and move your foot after the person on the train says "hey").

 

[Sommerswerd]

This assumption that "traditionalists" see sexist outcomes as negative is false.

A prominent recent example of "traditionalists" openly embracing and calling for sexist outcomes was Harrison Butker's commencement speech where he stated that the true calling of women is to become homemakers. This and other similar statements he made were widely defended by other conservatives.

Its deeper than that, because the real defense of Butker, was essentially that he was giving what was a pretty mundane, ordinary, on-message, traditional conservative-values speech, in a venue/forum, where a traditional, conservative values speech would be expected and eminently appropriate, ie the commencement address at a Catholic University.

So it wasn't just about defending Butker's specific statements... it was a pretty widespread acknowledgement that the overall ideology that Butker was expressing, was reflective of mainstream conservative ideology, which it turn was inextricably tied to, and in line with the preferred ideology of the faith and therefore acceptable and non-controversial for the forum in which he was expressing it.

Worth noting, is that it wasn't just conservatives who got this... I myself made this observation to my wife immediately when we heard the story together on the radio.

 

[sophie]

it’s easy to say it’s alright because they mean what they say sincerely when you aren’t the one that’s subjected to the violent consequences of their sincerely held misogynistic worldview.

Personally when a man comes to loom over my table to tell me I ought to be correctively raped so I’ll learn my place, stop being a lesbian, and marry a man, it doesn’t much matter to me whether he’s telling me this because of a sincerely held secular belief that women “evolved” to be subservient to men or a sincerely held religious belief that god created us to do so.

 

[Samson]

I'm wracking my brain trying to think of something in sports that's only a foul if it was deliberate

Handball in football is pretty much this, though it is more like you have to try not to handball for it to defiantly not be a foul, or something.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Moderator Action: The above is good and interesting, but is straying from the topic. Should we split it off so it can continue?

 

[Samson]

I am reluctant to do that here.

If someone acted to uphold a tradition that adversely impacted a minority group, I'd be pretty comfortable calling that racist outright.

What complicates that for me here is that people do hold their religious beliefs sincerely, which would change their cost benefit analysis. If somebody genuinely believes abortion to be a sin, then it is possible they believe the sexist outcome to be a fleeting thing outweighed by the salvation of somebody's immortal soul; or further, that inaction in preventing continued abortion may directly imperil their own immortal soul.

Why would they think that about this sin, but not all the other legal ones? This is what makes it dangerous, if they are willing to make religious laws for this what else will they?

 

[JollyRoger]

Reason will prevail in due time.

That due time was 1973 to 2022 with various bouts of increasing unreasonableness over that time period

 

[Cutlass]

There is a very small fringe of anti-abortionists who somewhat fit your description. Unfortunately, they have too much influence at the present time. This is of course the result of a long season of the evil being countenanced. Reason will prevail in due time.

We haven't been countenancing evil. Which is why evil is fighting back so dirty. Evil wants to be as evil as it can in banning abortion. But not just that, but all freedoms.

 

[Cutlass]

Well no, lol. I'm saying there are different conceptions of fairness, different estimations of the value of fairness and where upholding the conception should be prioritized. I mean, you will find people on the right who support school lunch programs.

But the right in politics isn't concerned with fairness. Specifically the opposite. Where is the fairness for Black people? Indians? Hispanics? It's not just about not being fair to the poor, or working families, which the ideology and policies of the right specifically reject. The abortion bans are about being specifically unfair to women.