[RD] Abortion, once again

[TheMeInTeam]

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

if someone other than you is killed, how does that effect your daily life?

maybe, even if it doesn't directly effect your life in a way you notice immediately, you would still prefer legislation that makes it more challenging to kill people without sufficient cause?

i don't see how "skin in the game" is lacking for anybody in this discussion.

 

[IglooDame]

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.

Near as I can tell, a majority - though by no means all - of the people most upset about mandatory mask requirements (to say nothing of mandatory vaccinations) are also pro-life, so it would be amusing to watch their reaction to proposed obligatory vasectomies.

 

[Gorbles]

if someone other than you is killed, how does that effect your daily life?

maybe, even if it doesn't directly effect your life in a way you notice immediately, you would still prefer legislation that makes it more challenging to kill people without sufficient cause?

i don't see how "skin in the game" is lacking for anybody in this discussion.

Skin in the game is absolutely lacking for some compared to others. Having an interest in said legislation isn't "skin in the game", insofar as that gives us skin in the game for anything violent happening across the country we live in (if not further than that, geopolitically speaking).

That said, again, the questions are likely rooted in your comparative lack of interest in the harm done to women in this equation, vs. other participants. It's all very well to be very insistent of the apparent flaws in Roe v. Wade, or in suggested forced vasectomies, or the like . . . but where's the same insistence when it comes to women being jailed for miscarriage? Or the lack of support for / active criminalisation of ectopic pregnancies?

This is why "skin in the game" is laughable to a large extent (when invoked by someone like you or even I). As are hypotheticals about harm done, when they repeatedly fail to quantify harm that is currently being done to the parent involved. Childbearing parents who in some cases haven't even chosen to have an abortion (but have lost their child).

 

[Senethro]

Part of the problem is that the pro-life side thinks that because they are the good guys, that they don't need to justify bad actual outcomes, or accept responsibility due to their side advancing its agenda. Their motives are pure and righteous.

One example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar

This is not theoretical. There will be bodies. Sepsis, and ectopic pregnancies, among others. They'll be shrugged off, especially by those without "skin in the game" as its being put.

 

[IglooDame]

if someone other than you is killed, how does that effect your daily life?

maybe, even if it doesn't directly effect your life in a way you notice immediately, you would still prefer legislation that makes it more challenging to kill people without sufficient cause?

i don't see how "skin in the game" is lacking for anybody in this discussion.

I have as little skin in the game for the abortion debate itself as any US resident. Beyond childbearing age, no genetic legacy, merely grandchildren via stepdaughters. I have a *lot* of skin in the Roe decision. Alito highlighted it in his draft opinion, given sexual orientation and gender based constitutional rights that the opinion puts at risk, for both me, my wife (surprise, honey!) and my 15yr old transgender grandchild living in Arkansas.

 

[El_Machinae]

Part of the problem is that the pro-life side thinks that because they are the good guys, that they don't need to justify bad actual outcomes, or accept responsibility due to their side advancing its agenda. Their motives are pure and righteous.

One example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar

This is not theoretical. There will be bodies. Sepsis, and ectopic pregnancies, among others. They'll be shrugged off, especially by those without "skin in the game" as its being put.

I think that there are enough people that recognize collateral that any conversation about this is crafted to a subset of them rather than internal agreement among us that they're just incapable of comprehending the negative effects of their compromise position.

This isn't a 'both sides' argument, it's a "you're incorrect" argument. We have a certain spread of pro-life, kinda-pro-life, and pro-choice people in this thread - and I can see discussion of collateral in all directions (though, very frustratingly, very little on mitigation, which I think is much more actionable in cohorts.)

I really don't think you guys know enough pro-life people. And you definitely don't know enough pro-life women.

 

[Edmund Ironside]

Part of the problem is that the pro-life side thinks that because they are the good guys, that they don't need to justify bad actual outcomes, or accept responsibility due to their side advancing its agenda. Their motives are pure and righteous

I mean though I don't necessarily agree with their view, it's not too hard to see how they would consider themselves as being the good guys. To them they are trying to stop the killing of million of entirely innocent lives. They only contradict themselves if they support banning abortion in cases where it might put the mothers life in danger not to have one. I would also consider being pro life and pro capital punishment as being a contradiction, but that is a slightly different argument.

Also always worth noting the case of religion being clearly against abortion is never as clear cut as the religious right would like you to believe. They are just good at dominating the conversation.

 

[El_Machinae]

Near as I can tell, a majority - though by no means all - of the people most upset about mandatory mask requirements (to say nothing of mandatory vaccinations) are also pro-life, so it would be amusing to watch their reaction to proposed obligatory vasectomies.

We live in a world where, if I know your opinion on climate change, I can predict your opinion on abortion and masking during a pandemic.

 

[Gorbles]

I mean though I don't necessarily agree with their view, it's not too hard to see how they would consider themselves as being the good guys. To them they are trying to stop the killing of million of entirely innocent lives. They only contradict themselves if they support banning abortion in cases where it might put the mothers life in danger not to have one. I would also consider being pro life and pro capital punishment as being a contradiction, but that is a slightly different argument.

Except the overlap is that the same demographic that opposes the choice of the parent is the demographic that generally champions small government and individual liberties. This isn't always true in every single instance, but it tends to be (not helped by the general two-party state of the US).

 

[El_Machinae]

I'm not sure what small government and individual liberties have to do with it, though? I mean, there's a spectrum, but we can at least presume that everyone agrees with the collective interfering in an internal murder? Sure, define 'murder' specifically to that group, but they'll wanna intervene.

 

[Remorseless1]

Part of the problem is that the pro-life side thinks that because they are the good guys, that they don't need to justify bad actual outcomes, or accept responsibility due to their side advancing its agenda. Their motives are pure and righteous.

One example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar

This is not theoretical. There will be bodies. Sepsis, and ectopic pregnancies, among others. They'll be shrugged off, especially by those without "skin in the game" as its being put.

The bad outcomes are the point. Women who get an abortion are sinners and therefore deserving of pain or death they experience. The inclusion of ectopic pregnancies in the "pro-life" legislation confirms what I just said, and completely discredits the "pro-life" movement. This is about turning women into second class citizens by denying them control of their own bodies. The religious BS slathered on top is just a screen.

It's nobody else's damn business what people do with their bodies.

 

[Gorbles]

I'm not sure what small government and individual liberties have to do with it, though? I mean, there's a spectrum, but we can at least presume that everyone agrees with the collective interfering in an internal murder? Sure, define 'murder' specifically to that group, but they'll wanna intervene.

Because all the proposed resolutions involve repealing (federal) rights from people that currently hold them, for starters.

 

[Remorseless1]

I'm not sure what small government and individual liberties have to do with it, though? I mean, there's a spectrum, but we can at least presume that everyone agrees with the collective interfering in an internal murder? Sure, define 'murder' specifically to that group, but they'll wanna intervene.

Oh that's silly. Murder means an actual breathing human has been killed. A fetus is incapable of life out of the womb until six or seven months, and even complications pop up. You're talking apples and road gravel here. Murder means a living citizen is dead, thus the citizen's rights have been violated. Are you willing to endow a fetus with full civil rights and the ability, let's say, to qualify as a dependent on a parent's tax return.

I have complicated feelings about abortion, which leads to the conclusion that such a complicated question should be left to the individual, not the government. Its like my feelings about guns. A decision best left to the individual, you kniw, American freedom.

Obviously, you believe a government should have carte Blanche to make personal decisions for citizens.

 

[Senethro]

Religious law lost its authority over criminal justice, education (eventually), why not healthcare?

 

[IglooDame]

I think that there are enough people that recognize collateral that any conversation about this is crafted to a subset of them rather than internal agreement among us that they're just incapable of comprehending the negative effects of their compromise position.

This isn't a 'both sides' argument, it's a "you're incorrect" argument. We have a certain spread of pro-life, kinda-pro-life, and pro-choice people in this thread - and I can see discussion of collateral in all directions (though, very frustratingly, very little on mitigation, which I think is much more actionable in cohorts.)

I really don't think you guys know enough pro-life people. And you definitely don't know enough pro-life women.

waves For what it's worth, I'm married to one. One that got an abortion in her late teens, bore two children in her 20s, and has picketed abortion clinics.

 

[IglooDame]

Oh that's silly. Murder means an actual breathing human has been killed. A fetus is incapable of life out of the womb until six or seven months, and even complications pop up. You're talking apples and road gravel here. Murder means a living citizen is dead, thus the citizen's rights have been violated. Are you willing to endow a fetus with full civil rights and the ability, let's say, to qualify as a dependent on a parent's tax return.

I have complicated feelings about abortion, which leads to the conclusion that such a complicated question should be left to the individual, not the government. Its like my feelings about guns. A decision best left to the individual, you kniw, American freedom.

Obviously, you believe a government should have carte Blanche to make personal decisions for citizens.

The pro-lifer I live with believes that the important part of becoming human happens at conception. Once one believes that, then citizenship, breathing, ability to live outside the womb with or without medical intervention, neural activity, it's all extraneous.

 

[El_Machinae]

Oh that's silly. Murder means an actual breathing human has been killed. A fetus is incapable of life out of the womb until six or seven months, and even complications pop up. You're talking apples and road gravel here. Murder means a living citizen is dead, thus the citizen's rights have been violated. Are you willing to endow a fetus with full civil rights and the ability, let's say, to qualify as a dependent on a parent's tax return.

I never said that early fetuses were people? I asked why being 'small government' interacted with 'wanting to stop an internal murder' was a weird contradiction.

Obviously, you believe a government should have carte Blanche to make personal decisions for citizens.

And obviously your 'complicated feelings about abortion' really interfere with your overall cognition. Your ability to discern motive in others is ... lacking. And your confidence is weirdly strong.

Like, Jesus, I was the one suggesting that we let people have ivermectin (under the supervision of a doctor) to treat covid-19 entirely because I wanted to hold a harder line on 'medical privacy' 'personal medical decisions' and 'between the woman and her doctor'. They never appreciated our interference, and we have learned that the 'pro-choice' movement wasn't actually pro-choice in ways that were actually important.

Like, crap, if we have to accept FASD to protect reproductive rights, then maybe a bit more collateral would have been a good idea to draw a wider moat. The pro-choice movement is a coalition of allies, each of us with either skin in the game or an interest in protecting someone.

So, you're both incorrect AND overly confident in an interaction with a person providing real-time feedback. But please, tell us more how much insight you have 'about them' from being a reporter whose sole job was to accurately collect and enliven the truth.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I have as little skin in the game for the abortion debate itself as any US resident. Beyond childbearing age, no genetic legacy, merely grandchildren via stepdaughters. I have a *lot* of skin in the Roe decision. Alito highlighted it in his draft opinion, given sexual orientation and gender based constitutional rights that the opinion puts at risk, for both me, my wife (surprise, honey!) and my 15yr old transgender grandchild living in Arkansas.

i admit i haven't committed everything to memory, but i don't think the legislation/court reasoning on things like civil rights act is the same as it was for abortion. or similarly, if it were then we should switch it to something much more fundamentally sound than a self-inconsistent (from gov't perspective) "privacy" logic.

though you are lumping in a lot of things together when talking about constitutional rights, so i'm also not completely clear what you mean/might be missing something too.

Near as I can tell, a majority - though by no means all - of the people most upset about mandatory mask requirements (to say nothing of mandatory vaccinations) are also pro-life

i am pro choice up to a point i'm not sure where to define, and was/remain strongly against the covid mandates as they were implemented. there is definitely some predictive/statistical overlap, but it might be somewhat exaggerated here.

Also always worth noting the case of religion being clearly against abortion is never as clear cut as the religious right would like you to believe.

i'm sure it differs between religions to a degree, but as a country we should deliberately distance our policy from that regardless.

It's nobody else's damn business what people do with their bodies.

i believe we've been over this before, but the question is whether state is intervening wrt one body vs two.

you can't, for example, walk around punching people in the face. you readily accept that. yet that is a thing you could do with your body, were it not for intervention against it.

to qualify as a dependent on a parent's tax return.

not relevant

if you get to conclude something isn't a human and can therefore be killed freely, then everything lines up. that's a big if though, and seems to be the point in dispute.

Religious law lost its authority over criminal justice, education (eventually), why not healthcare?

??? both traditional religion and religious-like substances continue to influence all 3 today, to the detriment of everyone.

Once one believes that, then citizenship, breathing, ability to live outside the womb with or without medical intervention, neural activity, it's all extraneous.

true, but i find it non-trivial to just take any stance on when that happens for granted. "morning after pill = abortion at 25weeks" doesn't square with me. they are different things with different tradeoffs/considerations.

 

[Synobun]

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

If you read a single sentence beyond the headline, you'd see that the direct trigger for this push is the overturning of Roe v. Wade. As such, it is relevant to a discussion about overturning Roe v. Wade and the consequences of such an event. It seems especially relevant to people saying Roe v. Wade won't lead to subsequent attacks on civil rights and equality.

 

[Sommerswerd]

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.

In that scenario... I can assure you that no one is going to be performing any vasectomies on anyone, reversible or otherwise. Potable water and disinfectants will be far too rare and precious to waste on such trivialities as non-emergency surgical procedures, and people who aren't so irradiated that they're actually able to reproduce will be worth their weight in... well... water.