[RD] Abortion, once again

[Gorbles]

what i don't want to see is stuff like "someone changing mind = vasectomy", "contraception malfunction = vasectomy", or people who take reasonable steps to avoid an unwanted fetus nevertheless having an unwanted fetus for which they're responsible w/o recourse (note that this is why i disagree with texas law, for example). state enforcing vasectomy is almost guaranteed to do this sometimes, and to what benefit, precisely? but then, i ask the same thing of texas' policy which seems similarly arbitrary and results in people being given major burdens for reasons that are not at all clear to me.

I guess what people are frustrated with, or at the very least confused by, is that for someone who suddenly has very emphatic and repeated views on a hypothetical measure aimed at men, you certainly are a lot more half-hearted when it comes to defense of the body of any pregnant person.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

I guess what people are frustrated with, or at the very least confused by, is that for someone who suddenly has very emphatic and repeated views on a hypothetical measure aimed at men, you certainly are a lot more half-hearted when it comes to defense of the body of any pregnant person.

Because it affects him, that's it pretty much

 

[El_Machinae]

Again, I'm not actually suggesting that two wrongs make a right. I'm only considering it with regards to necessary evils.

Given the ratios involved and given that they're forbidding abortions, the main obvious collateral damage is 'medical complications from unwanted pregnancies'. Every one of those will be view as unfortunate, regardless of one's position on abortion (universal agreement).

I cannot think of a faster way of bringing that number down more than vasectomies for the men that caused it. Well, without abortion freedoms and robust sex education, but we're assuming those away.

What end? The Coasian solution to the problem everyone agrees is a problem.

 

[El_Machinae]

Because it affects him, that's it pretty much

Upthread, you asked someone about 'skin in the game' and I find yours intensely interesting (I'm Canadian, so there's only so much I know about your law).

From my understanding, there are a whole slew of LGBT+ protections that are dependent on Roe v Wade that you're watching erode. So, your skin in the game would be on a completely different level from mine theoretically would be (I run the risk of impregnating someone and my daughter runs the risk of needing reproductive healthcare services).

Is this an accurate summary? My queer friends in Canada have a different aegis than one built on reproductive rights, so my ability to be empathic on this front will be limited. And while American memes affect Canada, the consequences of those memes won't be the same.

 

[sophie]

That’s certainly a very salient personal component, though it bears remembering that trans men and AFAB non binary folk can also get pregnant. This restriction impacts L’s, B’s, G’s, T’s, Q’s, and A’s directly, even prior to considering broader implications for future opinions or laws that may also affect us specifically.

Additionally, the core issue under consideration is when, how, and to what extent the state is allowed to make a claim or intercession on the body of a citizen, overriding their own will, consent, or sense of identity. That sort of issue will always be very directly relevant and concerning to trans folk, even before considering that here in the US a lot of our unenumerated rights rest on abortion provisions for legal precedent

 

[Gorbles]

There's also citing of other decisions (at the federal level, not the state-level examples I've referenced earlier) that they (SCOTUS, not all of SCOTUS but enough of it obviously) consider up for scrutiny as well. So it extends beyond even "just" Roe v. Wade.

(the quotes are merely emphasis that Roe v. Wade in of itself is momentous, it's not sarcasm or aimed at anyone posting)

 

[El_Machinae]

That’s certainly a very salient personal component, though it bears remembering that trans men and AFAB non binary folk can also get pregnant.

I am not going to ask Cloud about her risk of impregnating someone, getting pregnant, or if she has dependents at risk of pregnancy. If any transpeople want to volunteer that to emphasize their skin in the game, that's entirely fair. But, while I think that's proximate skin, I find the precedent risk very interesting. I truly don't know much about it, and I should.


Someone tag me if they end up really enjoying a long-form video on the topic, please, so I can listen in my downtime.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Upthread, you asked someone about 'skin in the game' and I find yours intensely interesting (I'm Canadian, so there's only so much I know about your law).

From my understanding, there are a whole slew of LGBT+ protections that are dependent on Roe v Wade that you're watching erode. So, your skin in the game would be on a completely different level from mine theoretically would be (I run the risk of impregnating someone and my daughter runs the risk of needing reproductive healthcare services).

Is this an accurate summary? My queer friends in Canada have a different aegis than one built on reproductive rights, so my ability to be empathic on this front will be limited. And while American memes affect Canada, the consequences of those memes won't be the same.

Trans people are just as fudged as cis women in america, even before this debacle we were already being targeted for our very existence and openly compared to child molesters

Things are very grim, even in so called progressive states, they get even worse in republican dominated ones as well

Conservatives and republicans just hate us and they want us to stop existing...

 

[Gorbles]

Sorry, I live on Twitter, so this is where my links generally come from, but back at the state-level, apparently a Louisiana bill being discussed / proposed / at some stage of being read has been amended to cover ectopic pregnancies. I say apparently because there's no direct link to anything, even an article, but I figure it'd be pretty easy for people with knowledge of this kind of stuff (state law, etc) to check.

I don't really have words for this beyond relaying it.

 

[Remorseless1]

not buying it. you can snipe all you want, and without a target it doesn't matter (this is an awkward analogy, lol). again, this is assuming consent. i see no scenario where moral accountability for two-party consent should be anything but evenly divided between them.

if sniping happens without consent, that's a whole other can of worms. but it implies crime, and is probably less controversial than abortion law generally.



the problem with this, and it's a darned major one in reality, is who gets to decide the fetus is "unwanted", and when is that decision allowed to be made? there are serious ethical differences (imo) between:

• rape
• "stealthing"
• poor usage of contraception (unlike above, not deliberate)
• ...or the contraception itself was used properly, but defective (good luck differentiating after the fact, but if we're doing sterilization this matters, a lot)
  
• pregnancy is unwanted by the man, but wanted by the woman (with some rare/nasty edge cases for how it was attained) --> any scenario where we can justify forced vasectomy in men implies women would be sterilized for doing this, if it's proven.
  
• people get lost in the moment but decide (mutually or otherwise) that it is unwanted later
• fetus becomes unwanted after discovery of major issues (crippling genetic disorder)

there is also a burden of proof involved that would make things even more messy.

You are 100% correct - abortion is ridiculously complicated and messy on many, many levels.

Which is why such decisions should be left to the individuals. It's called freefom.

By the way, if a woman gets an abortion, how does that affect your daily life?

 

[Lexicus]

Sorry, I live on Twitter, so this is where my links generally come from, but back at the state-level, apparently a Louisiana bill being discussed / proposed / at some stage of being read has been amended to cover ectopic pregnancies. I say apparently because there's no direct link to anything, even an article, but I figure it'd be pretty easy for people with knowledge of this kind of stuff (state law, etc) to check.

I don't really have words for this beyond relaying it.

Logically, the language there would mean ectopic pregnancy would be a mitigating factor (on grounds of self-defense, basically) that would turn it from murder into justifiable homicide. Still, a state taking people to court on homicide charges for terminating ectopic pregnancies is both cartoonishly evil and completely expected from the Republicans.

 

[Remorseless1]

Sorry, I live on Twitter, so this is where my links generally come from, but back at the state-level, apparently a Louisiana bill being discussed / proposed / at some stage of being read has been amended to cover ectopic pregnancies. I say apparently because there's no direct link to anything, even an article, but I figure it'd be pretty easy for people with knowledge of this kind of stuff (state law, etc) to check.

I don't really have words for this beyond relaying it.

The cruelty is the point. The stupidity is willful. The evangelicals don't give a damn about human life - they're all waiting for Armageddon and the Rapture.

 

[Kaitzilla]

Protestors at the Supreme Court justices' houses.

Good idea or bad idea?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Protestors at the Supreme Court justices' houses.

Good idea or bad idea?

More and more all night long. With fireworks and horns.

 

[El_Machinae]

Protestors at the Supreme Court justices' houses.

Good idea or bad idea?

If it's someone I'm speaking to? "Good", just bring enough muscle and charisma to excise bad actors fast, with 'over-reaction' being better than 'under-reaction'.

Very honestly, people should be having backyard parties right now with friends and friends-of-friends, making placards and discussing strategy and messaging. You'll need signs that photograph well. You'll need people who photograph well. You'll need numbers. And you'll need people who do push-ups on their knuckles. And you might too, in prep. Store those placards, and have social networks that can get people on the streets.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

It don't work like that. If I used your moral relevance argument for justifying the past enslavement if blacks I'd be crucified.

But I guess somehow your able to get away justifying the gross things the Aztecs did because hey they ain't white. But the Spanish!!! Oh how they get beat with a big stick by historians! Most likely because they are white.

One important point noted on the Wikipedia page I just came from is that there's a lack of references from the indigenous point of view. Non-Aztecs can debate the reasons (or if cannibalism even occurred as the Europeans described) until the proverbial cows come home. But it's not going to give the whole story.

this isn't even legal between us states, let alone crossing country borders. us is no more capable of legally pursuing women who cross borders to do this than they could prosecute citizens who go to netherlands or other foreign countries and do drugs there.

you should probably be more worried about them stealing cash in the us, since they do that routinely at huge scales.

I last stepped foot in the U.S. in 1987. Aside from a wistful thought of "it would be nice to visit the Grand Canyon someday" now and then, I've really had no wish to repeat the experience. I kid you not, during Trump's time in office, some Canadians were being asked their opinions of Trump as part of the questions the American agents were asking.

How would Canadians answer that honestly and expect to be allowed in?

A vasectomy is not the same as sterilization.

The intended consequence is the same, though, right? The ability to have sex and be in no danger of causing procreation to occur?

Protestors at the Supreme Court justices' houses.

Good idea or bad idea?

Great idea. After all, if the (now ex-) Minister of Health in my province can trespass on his neighbor's driveway and scream and rant at the man in front of his family because the neighbor (a doctor) criticized the MoH on Twitter for bad policy and faced exactly ZERO charges (trespassing, harassment, uttering threats, endangering children, disturbing the peace, and half a dozen other things), then it's absolutely fair to hold a protest at a judge's home for bad policy. Just don't do anything violent, and don't litter.

 

[Synobun]

https://www.chron.com/politics/article/Texas-Greg-Abbott-free-public-education-17150281.php

Gov. Greg Abbott wants to challenge SCOTUS case requiring states to educate all children
The Republican leader said the prospective overturn of Roe v. Wade sets the table for Texas to 'resurrect' a challenge to Plyler v. Doe (1982) requiring states to offer free public education to all children.

"Gov. Greg Abbott is considering challenging a U.S. Supreme Court decision that requires states to offer free public education to the children of all residents, including those of undocumented immigrants. Just a few days after a leaked draft majority opinion revealed that the Supreme Court is poised to overturn Roe v. Wade, Abbott confirmed on conservative radio talk show The Joe Pags Show that he has his eyes on Plyer v. Doe next.

The Republican governor brought up the possibility of challenging the education ruling after Pagliarulo questioned what more could be done to reduce the "burden on communities" of educating the children of undocumented migrants in the Lone Star State.

"We're talking about public tax dollars, public property tax dollars going to fund these schools to teach children who are 5, 6, 7, 10 years old, who don't even have remedial English skills," Pagliarulo said.

Abbott responded by claiming that the challenges put on the state's public systems because of migrants is "extraordinary," adding that migrants are coming from 155 different countries and are costly.

"Texas already long ago sued the federal government about having to incur the costs of the education program, in a case called Plyler versus Doe," Abbott said. "And the Supreme Court ruled against us on the issue. ... I think we will resurrect that case and challenge this issue again, because the expenses are extraordinary and the times are different than when Plyler versus Doe was issued many decades ago."

 

[Lexicus]

The intended consequence is the same, though, right? The ability to have sex and be in no danger of causing procreation to occur?

Yes, but a vasectomy is typically reversible while sterilization is not. So they are different things.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The intended consequence is the same, though, right? The ability to have sex and be in no danger of causing procreation to occur?

i expect it would be functionally the same in this case. it's a weird proposal in the first place, but i'd guess that if a state is doing forced vasectomy, that it's not going to turn around and let the same person undo it in most cases. the expense for that (and trying to regulate exceptions) comes of as comically bad policy.

Gov. Greg Abbott wants to challenge SCOTUS case requiring states to educate all children

this definitely seems better placed in another thread. the only related thing is the opinion/tradeoff of whether judicial or legislative branch settles the question. but the questions/details are otherwise quite different from abortion.

though given the quality of public education lately, maybe they're onto something for different reasons than intended

 

[El_Machinae]

We're a long way from having obligatory (reversible) vasectomies. I guess if we continue to the erode the biosphere, that will happen to captured slaves once we're all wearing spiky armor made from ripped up tyres.