[RD] Abortion, once again

[El_Machinae]

that's not how logic works.

My suspicion is that this is more a disagreement about what's meant by 'racist' in this context. I'd invite people to clarify.
The conversation seems to be really oblique to Senethro's linked article, with each additional post seeming to drift away from what people think the other person means.

 

[Senethro]

My suspicion is that this is more a disagreement about what's meant by 'racist' in this context. I'd invite people to clarify.
The conversation seems to be really oblique to Senethro's linked article, with each additional post seeming to drift away from what people think the other person means.

I agree. In this context, racist could mean as a deliberate act of racism (racism originating from a person/people, very difficult to prove) or just racially disparate outcomes (which is more to say the system is racist and be agnostic about the people).

 

[sophie]

Literally, the reason more black people live in cities is that the FHA guaranteed suburban home mortgages for white families but did not guarantee mortgages for black families.

I would say your ignorance is astonishing but you've been flaunting it for years now

Highway routing and slum clearances also disproportionately targeted and separated historically black neighborhoods for very obvious, and often explicitly stated, reasons. And that’s not even touching the periodic race riots that wiped out assets each generation in basically every major urban area throughout the latter 19th and most of the 20th centuries.

 

[Lexicus]

Highway routing and slum clearances also disproportionately targeted and separated historically black neighborhoods for very obvious, and often explicitly stated, reasons. And that’s not even touching the periodic race riots that wiped out assets each generation in basically every major urban area throughout the latter 19th and most of the 20th centuries.

All true: I was speaking directly to how it actually is due to racism that black people tend to be concentrated in the cities. I mean, black people migrated to the cities in the first place to (try to) escape racism in the Jim Crow South. So anyway yeah [drools] now the libs are saying cities and highways are racist, will they stop at nothing

 

[Birdjaguar]

Moderator Action: Wait! What thread is this?

 

[Lexicus]

Abortion restrictions are racist-in-effect and many of the most anti-abortion people in the US are also the most racist

 

[Birdjaguar]

Keep it linked then.

 

[El_Machinae]

Are we missing a word? racist-in-effect vs mistreatment-due-to-bias?

 

[Senethro]

I mean, once you know the effect exists but you uphold the present system, it stops being accidental and becomes mistreatment due to bias.

 

[El_Machinae]

I mean, once you know the effect exists but you uphold the present system, it stops being accidental and becomes mistreatment due to bias.

Yes. But they still will be different concepts, especially since 'uphold' will have varying intensities, from accidental to intentional.

If there's a racial component, are there any correlations with policy that show improved outcomes, especially in some type of feed-forward effect? Racially identifiable communities improving as abortion services improve?

It's a hard set of graphs to generate, because we tend to package reproductive services with abortion liberalization.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

there is going to be some difficulty in discussing whether abortion policy is racist without defining the term and debating the logic of correlation vs causation.

I agree. In this context, racist could mean as a deliberate act of racism (racism originating from a person/people, very difficult to prove) or just racially disparate outcomes (which is more to say the system is racist and be agnostic about the people).

it seems in later post you feel like equating them anyway,

I mean, once you know the effect exists but you uphold the present system, it stops being accidental and becomes mistreatment due to bias.

so the distinction doesn't seem meaningful enough to bother with it in context of this thread.

no, correlation still isn't causation. and that still doesn't implicate anybody who realizes that as causers. no matter how many times you repeat it. even if you try to implicate "dogwhistle conspiracy theories".

what's the end game wrt abortion policy...to make black citizens specifically have more children in the name of racism? are we supposed to believe that's that texas wants/made its policy for, for example?

no stratified population group in history has managed to have identical outcomes to all other stratifications from policies. not even close. observing different outcomes in this case is no different from others, where nobody seems to care about "apparent disparate impact to arbitrary group when looked at in isolation" (in most cases, rightly). saying abortion policy is anti-whatever bias without demonstrating a clear motivating link + actually demonstrating cause says more about the claimant than it does about the policy.

and yet still these correlate causing arguments drop the justification the moment using that implication implies something inconvenient or bad. not how logic works.

 

[El_Machinae]

It won't apply to all pro-life people, but there is a classicist aspect to abortion (that will then bleed into racism). We only hear the occasional narrative, but it's the same tired story of the outgroup having moral failures and the ingroup suffering from unjust circumstances. So, that means that there will be those who want 'those people' to have worse lives as a consequence of unplanned pregnancy, and so will push for restrictions, but will also have a higher tolerance for abortion in their 'in-group'. So, the goal isn't more black people, but a higher ratio of disadvantaged black people.

It's very easy to point the accusing finger, but harder to unpack the implicit motivations confidently. A pro-life person won't be swayed by 'superior life outcomes for those with access to services'. Part of that will be the belief that 'superior life outcomes' isn't desirable for those having an abortion. Part of it will be that the fetus has moral value itself and so the cost of those outcomes is too high.

I think it's reasonable to think that there would be stratified socioeconomic accessibility and effects, with race as a variable. Data would still be required, obviously. It's harder to show a racist intent.

 

[Farm Boy]

Is this really the ****ass level people debate this on? The not-invested-at-all? Or the maybe-a-threat-to-my-casual-sex, or the aesthetics-of-my-neighbors?

 

[Lexicus]

Is this really the ****ass level people debate this on? The not-invested-at-all? Or the maybe-a-threat-to-my-casual-sex, or the aesthetics-of-my-neighbors?

I'm actually pretty invested in the idea that the women I know are persons worthy of more consideration than a fetal pole is, and I'm also pretty invested in the idea that the government should not minutely regulate the lives of women to protect the "rights of the unborn". I think prosecuting women for miscarrying is absolutely abominable. That good enough for you?

 

[Farm Boy]

I also think prosecuting women for miscarrying is absolutely abominable. But that's so low level I don't know how much credit you expect? Either way, <thump> granted?

 

[Broken_Erika]

Oklahoma passes bill banning most abortions after conception

Oklahoma legislators have passed a law banning abortion after conception, which critics say is the most restrictive such measure in the US.

The Republican-led bill would prohibit all abortions, except to save the life of a pregnant woman or if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61517135

 

[Lexicus]

I also think prosecuting women for miscarrying is absolutely abominable. But that's so low level I don't know how much credit you expect? Either way, <thump> granted?

I suspect you think legal abortion is even more abominable, though.

 

[Farm Boy]

I am finding what you expect is entirely worthless.

 

[Lexicus]

I am finding what you expect is entirely worthless.

Suspect, but yeah, probably.

 

[Senethro]

there is going to be some difficulty in discussing whether abortion policy is racist without defining the term and debating the logic of correlation vs causation.



it seems in later post you feel like equating them anyway,



so the distinction doesn't seem meaningful enough to bother with it in context of this thread.

no, correlation still isn't causation. and that still doesn't implicate anybody who realizes that as causers. no matter how many times you repeat it. even if you try to implicate "dogwhistle conspiracy theories".

what's the end game wrt abortion policy...to make black citizens specifically have more children in the name of racism? are we supposed to believe that's that texas wants/made its policy for, for example?

no stratified population group in history has managed to have identical outcomes to all other stratifications from policies. not even close. observing different outcomes in this case is no different from others, where nobody seems to care about "apparent disparate impact to arbitrary group when looked at in isolation" (in most cases, rightly). saying abortion policy is anti-whatever bias without demonstrating a clear motivating link + actually demonstrating cause says more about the claimant than it does about the policy.

and yet still these correlate causing arguments drop the justification the moment using that implication implies something inconvenient or bad. not how logic works.

Please assume I disagree with most of your post, but see little reason to respond to you because I have no idea how to explain to you the idea that society should be just. That's a value thing.