[RD] Abortion, once again

[Cloud_Strife]

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?

But not abominable enough for you to actively work against the erosion of basic bodily autonomy

 

[Samson]

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?

From here:

According to National Advocates for Pregnant Women's tracking, there were 413 [cases of manslaughter charges for a miscarriage] across the country from 1973 to 2005. Between 2006 and 2020, that number jumped to more than 1,200 cases nationally — a three-fold increase.
​

Though I am not sure of the maths, 413 in 28 years compared to >1200 in 14 years sounds like a 6 fold increase in rate to me.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

It's increasingly clear that the Conservative, right wing republican view of women is that they simply exist to give birth and are inherently lesser to men

 

[EgonSpengler]

It's increasingly clear that the Conservative, right wing republican view of women is that they simply exist to give birth and are inherently lesser to men

It's not really related to abortion, but I was listening to a podcast about the housing crisis in the US and Canada - they were using Toronto as their case study - and they mentioned that the dearth of affordable apartments in many North American cities today is the result of zoning laws from the early 20th C. which were, in part, intended to prevent single women from being able to live alone. (The other part was to prevent Black people and immigrants from moving into the neighborhood.) As I say, not directly related to abortion, but parallel, being one of the ways women were funneled into traditional marriage and child-bearing.

Ah, here it is: 99% Invisible, "The Missing Middle"

 

[TheMeInTeam]

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.

the whole point of our discussion is that each considers the other position to be unjust, in a nutshell.

that you repeat a common logical fallacy, resort to ad hominem, and now choose not to address the arguments are all things that fail to build the case that your position is just, or even consistent with reality.

 

[Senethro]

the whole point of our discussion is that each considers the other position to be unjust, in a nutshell.

that you repeat a common logical fallacy, resort to ad hominem, and now choose not to address the arguments are all things that fail to build the case that your position is just, or even consistent with reality.

Great. Everyone else can read and make up their own mind. I'm happy to leave it there, but there is one thing that I just can't quite let go.

The correlation vs. causation thing. Your extremely stupid assumption of the position I hold regarding it is a strawman. I just have to get that out there. Thanks.

 

[Lexicus]

All but twelve Republicans in the House vote against a bill to fund baby formula to address the shortage.
Please tell me about how the Republicans are "pRo-LiFe" tho lmao

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The correlation vs. causation thing.

what started this discussion was pointing out that different skin colors had different abortion rates given a particular policy. the assertion was that the policy itself was racist, which is the fallacy of attributing cause to correlation (in this case, different amounts of correlation).

the exact quote i criticized:

The more draconian restrictions on abortion are innately racist, on top of everything else.

i get that this quote wasn't from you, but you inserted yourself into my response to it and started talking about "racially disparate outcomes" in the context of that discussion. saying that criticizing the correlation/causation fallacy is somehow a strawman is factually inaccurate in this case, lol.

"racist by effect" is not a thing. different groups of minorities choosing differently in response to policy/opportunities/problems does not make those things racist or anything else-ist by default. that's not how reality works. people respond differently to things for all kinds of reasons, every day. it doesn't magically become about race when you arbitrarily look at race, such as in the case with abortion.

i also don't see how linking an article making the correlation vs causation fallacy as an argument and then complaining when someone points out that it's a fallacy makes sense:

In the past several years, the differences in rates of abortion have received increasing political attention, with those opposed to abortion rights citing differences in abortion rates as evidence of the diabolical nature of the “abortion industry.” Abortion rights opponents point to racial/ethnic differences in abortion rates as evidence of racism and coercion among those who support the right to obtain abortions

if your position isn't consistent with an article you link to support your position as literally the only substantive thing you put in a post, maybe you should clarify that? otherwise, maybe you can explain why "assuming" an article you link to support your statement is not consistent with your position lol?

 

[Senethro]

"racist by effect" is not a thing.

disagree

different groups of minorities choosing differently in response to policy/opportunities/problems does not make those things racist or anything else-ist by default.

you claim this every time. you never show it. its a competing hypothesis, not the default.

if your position isn't consistent with an article you link to support your position as literally the only substantive thing you put in a post, maybe you should clarify that? otherwise, maybe you can explain why "assuming" an article you link to support your statement is not consistent with your position lol?

You're assuming much about my position I don't care to specifically deny, because then I'd be here all day.

 

[El_Machinae]

"racist by effect" is not a thing.

It is a thing. It might not mean what you think it means though. I'll admit that Senethro didn't help by immediately re-stirring the pot.

But it will be referring to outcomes stratifying instead of hostile inputs. That said, both can happen. And people will read-in hostility, according to their bias.

One tidbit that I noticed, is that the people profiting from abortions (if only in the form of income) might not be the same racial cohort as the people receiving them. There are some people who care about such things.

Socioeconomically it raises a question, of which cohort is benefitting more. If there is a differential, then we should see either a convergence or a divergence based on access to those services. Given that we wrap up other Reproductive Services along with abortion, if there is any socio-economic effect, it should be even magnified more. Well, maybe. If the wrapped package has a synergistic effect, I guess.

 

[EgonSpengler]

"racist by effect" is not a thing.

Ah, okay. I wondered if that's what you were getting at earlier, but I didn't want to put words in your mouth. I think it most certainly is a thing, but I'm not really sure how to explain it better than that without a rambling, book-length post, which I don't really feel like writing. Sorry, I know that just writing "no, you're wrong - pthththth" and sticking my tongue out isn't useful, but I suppose we at least have a slightly better sense of where the difference between us lies.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

disagree

there's a burden of proof, in this case on demonstrating "racist by effect". because it is fundamentally a correlation = causality rationale in most cases (with the exceptions requiring evidence). here must be some evidence or justification for why it stops being a fallacy in this one case...or rather that a policy was particularly designed to target a race/minority group without explicitly saying it. disparate outcomes by themselves are not that evidence, however.

you claim this every time. you never show it. its a competing hypothesis, not the default.

no, it really is the default. observed consistently through history. doesn't matter if you consider race, country of origin, culture, or even other random things like "fans of x football team". policies practically never impact stratifications like this uniformly. it is absurd to then conclude that said policies are designed to single out those populations in particular, at scale, even when one policy impacts multiple populations this way.

the idea that "different groups of people are different" should be self-evident, and without evidence it's nonsense to claim policy targets any one stratification in particular by cherry picking outcomes.

You're assuming much about my position I don't care to specifically deny, because then I'd be here all day.

i didn't need to make any assumptions, you stated your position with "racially disparate outcomes" and the linked article. it's silly to call me out for taking those at face value.

But it will be referring to outcomes stratifying instead of hostile inputs.

it's not clear why this should be considered a problem, however.

There are some people who care about such things.

people can care about all sorts of things, of course, regardless of whether they're relevant. it's not clear to me that, by default, different groups receiving vs performing abortions should be an issue. different groups act differently and wind up disproportionately represented in parts of society/countries, both positively and negatively, all the time.

Ah, okay. I wondered if that's what you were getting at earlier, but I didn't want to put words in your mouth. I think it most certainly is a thing, but I'm not really sure how to explain it better than that without a rambling, book-length post, which I don't really feel like writing.

that's fair, and even if it's covered at some point, covering it in detail beyond its relevance to abortion is outside the scope of this thread anyway. probably sufficient to acknowledge we disagree on it in this context.

 

[Farm Boy]

From here:

According to National Advocates for Pregnant Women's tracking, there were 413 [cases of manslaughter charges for a miscarriage] across the country from 1973 to 2005. Between 2006 and 2020, that number jumped to more than 1,200 cases nationally — a three-fold increase.
​

Though I am not sure of the maths, 413 in 28 years compared to >1200 in 14 years sounds like a 6 fold increase in rate to me.

Low level in the lizard brain sense.

 

[Senethro]

no, it really is the default. observed consistently through history. doesn't matter if you consider race, country of origin, culture, or even other random things like "fans of x football team". policies practically never impact stratifications like this uniformly. it is absurd to then conclude that said policies are designed to single out those populations in particular, at scale, even when one policy impacts multiple populations this way.

Uh huh. And what here is the difference in population, and what here is the mechanism acting to cause a different outcome?

 

[Cloud_Strife]

racist by effect" is not a thing.

What is this?

 

[El_Machinae]

it's not clear why this should be considered a problem, however.

Because it aggravates a stratification, which is going to be compounding upon previous injustices. There are no perfect solutions, but some solutions are cheaper than others. But if a "solution" helps drive an identifiable subgroup downwards, then we should be looking for better solutions. As well, such effects are how the non-racists get tricked into supporting the racists.

We're pretty far off abortion here, but consider one more based on class. If a city passes aggressive ordinance against public urination, then obviously it will impact the homeless population more than the working class (further hurting the homeless from being able to comply). Now, no one wants urine-soaked streets. But, if we point out this class effect, then we notice that the public ordinance is the wrong tool for the job. Or, at least, it's the wrong solo tool.

Now, I'm happy to re-work the racial effect into an SES one, and measure from there. If a policy causes convergence, then there's a feedback loop regardless. If the policy causes divergence, then there's a problem. The problem with trying to measure the racial element is that there's a huge cultural aspect that then leads to an incredibly number of compounding variables. And each of those are weighed with a person's implicit bias.

On the other hand SES outcomes are more measurable, and I think it's easier to calculate what's 'desirable'. After that, it's the weighting we put on the fetus that underscores the debate.

in this case on demonstrating "racist by effect". because it is fundamentally a correlation = causality rationale in most cases

Your conception of the idea is still not working, and that's leading to miscommunication. An input that causes differential outcomes and causes divergence is having an effect based on that input. It doesn't matter if you view it as a correlation. In fact, often the solution will be a different tweak on input in order correct the outcome. With public urination having a class effect, the solution is public urination facilities. And then, wha-bam!, the ordinance is less classist-in-effect.

Of course, the people who look down on the homeless will want your help in disapproving of that solution.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Because it aggravates a stratification, which is going to be compounding upon previous injustices.

we would first have to demonstrate that this policy + outcome differential is an injustice, at all.

But if a "solution" helps drive an identifiable subgroup downwards, then we should be looking for better solutions.

again, that doesn't hold, other than looking for solutions that are objectively better is broadly desirable. we also must be careful in claiming that a policy "helps drive a group downward". that sounds a lot like a direct causal relationship with a burden of evidence that can be satisfied. if that burden of evidence is not satisfied, the policy is not "driving the group downward". if anything is, it's something else.

We're pretty far off abortion here, but consider one more based on class. If a city passes aggressive ordinance against public urination, then obviously it will impact the homeless population more than the working class (further hurting the homeless from being able to comply). Now, no one wants urine-soaked streets.

there is practically nothing that can be passed, in abortion law or otherwise, that will not demonstrate apparently different effects on different subgroups. this is not evidence of "inherent bias against that subgroup", though.

the alternative discussion of "does this policy actually do what we want the most efficiently" is more interesting. however, if we're asking that question about abortion wrt race, we're asking the wrong questions. most of the arguments are upstream from that anyway, a disagreement on what an abortion is doing and to whom.

After that, it's the weighting we put on the fetus that underscores the debate.

i mean, it's *the* debate wrt abortion. the extent to which they get rights/are individuals/have a body of their own.

looking at rates by race in this context is silly. the point made earlier is similar to looking at laws against murder and claiming they disproportionately effect black people, and therefore murder laws are inherently racist. if that sounds absurd, that's because it is absurd. but the rationale used for murder vs abortion law is identical.

you can't legislate away the factors causing these observed differences by dancing around altering laws that are designed to apply to citizens equally. you'd do a lot better by agreeing on what the factors are in the first place.

An input that causes differential outcomes and causes divergence is having an effect based on that input.

and yet even now, we have had nothing that demonstrates such a causal relationship, such that abortion law specifically can be "innately racist". observing divergence and claiming there must be a cause doesn't work. divergence can happen for any number of reasons, even for theoretically perfectly fair policies. if we accept that, calling a policy itself racist is misguided at best, and in some contexts is outright lying.

The problem with trying to measure the racial element is that there's a huge cultural aspect that then leads to an incredibly number of compounding variables.

well, yeah. so why blame policy as "innately racist"? culture is, to a large degree, still a choice. at least, the individual making the choice in question for this thread (abortion) is making a choice at the individual level. culture will influence that individual's choice, but that doesn't mean policy should deviate from otherwise fair law to accommodate arbitrary cultures.

a few other points about abortions specifically:

• the total people in the study for "turnaway no birth" amounts to 50, with no "race" having more than 21 participants in the category.
• miscarriages differ between "race" *generally*. within a small sample size (of which only 14 were black women), attributing any observed difference to the abortion policy specifically is madness.
• earlier discussion ignores hispanic participants almost entirely, which we should not expect if we are using "innate racism" to explain observations. hispanic had the lowest rate of "turnaway no birth" participants by far, though again the sample size as small.
  • hispanic miscarriage rates are also small generally, even if you stratify out the poor population to look only at that. this stuff isn't as clear cut as it looks at surface level.
• having "turnaway limits" ranging from 10w to 24w is massive. location of facilities alone can create the disparity in observed outcome.
  • races are not uniform between states or especially facility locations
  • the paper defines "no-birth" as either miscarriage or "later abortion". anybody turned away at one 10w limit facility could easily be "no birth"...*legally*.
• finally, whether the outcomes are best for white (~50% no-birth) vs hispanic (~15% no-birth) depends on who you ask and on your overall opinion about whether and when abortions should be legal. black women fell between those in this particular sample.

if someone is pro-life, they might claim that more hispanic babies were saved than white, and thus this policy is biased against white women, using the same rationale as was used earlier in the thread. they would be no more correct, but also no less correct.

regardless, demonstrating cause has a burden of evidence with the assertion. if you expect people to at least broadly accept attribution of cause, that evidence has to support it.

Uh huh. And what here is the difference in population, and what here is the mechanism acting to cause a different outcome?

it would be useful if you asked these questions sooner, and more useful still if you realize you haven't actually answered them here, ever. this quote is literally claiming causation...and using observed disparities with no demonstrated causal connection to the policy. if you want to claim cause...show the causal relationship. and i mean actually show it, not simply grab an apparently disparate outcome with any number of potential causes and claim the policy in question is necessarily the cause because reasons or w/e.

 

[Lexicus]

we would first have to demonstrate that this policy + outcome differential is an injustice, at all.

Asking the big important questions, like is enslaving people and then denying them rights for over a hundred years an injustice?

 

[sophie]

Wow if only there was an entire academic discipline whose whole aim was to examine and demonstrate how internal biases and existing historical and material context have cascading effects such that even well-meaning or putatively fair and equitable policies disproportionately harm certain historically disadvantaged communities. Like some kind of Theory which takes a Critical lens to Law and how it pertains to Race. It might be able to clear up this whole correlation/causation thing. Too bad that doesn't exist and we'll never know the truth though.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

we have an aptly named dumpster fire thread for the specific purpose of discussing things like "critical theory", lol. might want to take this there.

needless to say, for the purposes of discussing abortion policy it has no place here. for the purposes of policy discussion, rejecting evidential burdens in the first place is a non-starter. unless you really just want a shouting match.

i will not accept a rejection of a need to show causation in lieu of evidence for causation, and nobody else who remains coherent can do so either. at least, not if their position is to claim a causal relationship between abortion policy and some negative outcome disparity for a particular race.

though again, depending on your opinion about abortion in the first place, which direction the disparity is harming changes.