[RD] Abortion, once again

[Gorbles]

Absolutely except I'm not trying to convince anyone on any particular belief.

Sure you do. Every time you spiel about the left, or winning votes, or how people need to enact change, etc.

It's an opinion, just like anyone elses'. Everyone's convinced that their position on a subject is the correct one; discussion is how we navigate that between ourselves. If you're fine with alienating others that you think you can get away with alienating, I don't see why you keep going on about leftists alienating those to the right of them. It'll happen, sure. So what? It happens across the political spectrum, and it works both ways (along the spectrum).

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Point it was drummed into us in 90's.

Just say no (drugs) and the std pictures worked in me though.

So today's kids are supposed to relate to public service announcements from 30 YEARS AGO?

People born after the internet age started seem to generally have the view that life before that was basically the stone age and hopelessly out of touch. Your sex education was in the '90s, I take it? Mine was in the '70s. Both of us lived in very different social climates from each other AND from today, whether it's sex education or drugs ("just say no" can also mean 'just say no to sex').

What do you say to kids who live in remote places where there may be only one pharmacy in town and the pharmacist won't sell contraception to anyone who isn't married, or won't sell to anyone at all due to "conscience" rights? There are pharmacists who refuse to fill birth control prescriptions at all, regardless if they're for the purpose of contraception (they are useful for other medical reasons).

I've read articles about people advocating for condoms to be made available in girls'/women's washrooms, to make doubly sure that at least one member of the couple is being responsible, or to have additional protection in case the first one fails. Of course the sanctimonious right-wing governments think that's encouraging kids to go out and have sex, rather than encouraging kids to be responsible while doing things they're determined to do anyway.

This "it's not a problem for me, so it's not a problem for anyone else" attitude is so Picard/TNG-nose in the air ANNOYING.

 

[Joij21]

Just to play a bit the devil's advocate: Ask the Aztecs. Or cannibals.
Such things change over time, hopefully to the better, but whatever is right now could have been wrong in the past, or the opposite.

(that said I don't know who's arguing for what right now lol)

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.

 

[Gorbles]

https://twitter.com/nchrastil/status/1521930170604699650

Tweet contents:

This just passed out of committee. In addition to making abortion a homicide by explicitly ignoring supreme court precedent, advocates in opposition said the bill will also criminalize some forms of birth control, in vitro fertilization, and miscarriages.

HB813 by @McCormick4LA to make abortion a crime of homicide in Louisiana regardless of U.S. Supreme Court decision being debated now in House Criminal Justice #lagov #lalege

So much for the "you're all panicking too much this won't lead to even worse things" position, eh?

 

[El_Machinae]

One of the first replies I see (I don't use twitter) is that this logically puts forced vasectomies on the table. While I don't approve of two wrongs making a right, I do believe in the lesser of two evils.

Get a woman pregnant when she doesn't want to host the fetus? Vasectomy.

I think it works.

 

[Remorseless1]

Ah okay, your initial post made it sound like you spoke with everyone in the pro-life movement but you're just making a broad statement based on anecdotal evidence

Gathered over four decades of life experience interacting with people from Massachusetts to California and points in between. So sure, anecdotal. Did I do a sociological study interviewing thousands of people? No, and I doubt you have either. However, 26 states have Republican dominated legislatures - take a look at the legislation they produced, and find me a law that disputes what I said.

Bottom line: in a decision this personal, I'd rather have the individual make the decision, not the government.

 

[Estebonrober]

Just because you read one post doesn't mean you understand my position; I said my first post was on page 11

I don't know what "forum debate games" you think I'm playing not do I understand how you're connecting that to misogyny. Although you seem to connect to everything. Do you have a quota or something?

I get it, everything's misogynistic. More to the point, you haven't really shown you understand my position at all

When and what have I been "consistently stating" about "legal ramifications"? I don't know what you're on about

ELI5 your position on abortion rights @João III .

 

[AmazonQueen]

Gathered over four decades of life experience interacting with people from Massachusetts to California and points in between. So sure, anecdotal. Did I do a sociological study interviewing thousands of people? No, and I doubt you have either. However, 26 states have Republican dominated legislatures - take a look at the legislation they produced, and find me a law that disputes what I said.

Bottom line: in a decision this personal, I'd rather have the individual make the decision, not the government.

And women will still make the decision themselves.
The problem is whilst the wealthy will just go to a clinic over the border the poor will face the risks and stigma associated with self-induced miscarriages and backstreet abortions. Oh, and being criminalised.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Thank you for your opinion, but...

lol

on what basis do abortion laws exist, anywhere? one example: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...g=&URL=0300-0399/0390/Sections/0390.0111.html

TERMINATION IN THIRD TRIMESTER; WHEN ALLOWED.—No termination of pregnancy shall be performed on any human being in the third trimester of pregnancy unless one of the following conditions is met:

these are the laws to which scotus ruling will apply, in fact numerous states have "trigger laws" that will rapidly go into effect contingent on scotus ruling similarly to leaked documents. i don't think what is written into law is opinion, but rather what the law is/should be and the basis for that is the topic of the thread.

also, i will ask you something:

why do you think anybody who is against abortion is against it? are you in favor of post-birth abortion? if not, perhaps you can explain to us why you believe post-birth abortions are wrong?

I would hate to think that one of the standard questions asked by the customs agents of female drivers/passengers might be if they're pregnant and if so, are they crossing the border to obtain an abortion.

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.

"Wokeism." Yes, it's a fabrication, but that doesn't mean politicians can't spin it into something that gets insanely out of control.

wokeism is real, functions something like one of the worst religions in world history (not literally the worst, but pretty bad), and is a major detriment to society generally.

it also isn't meaningfully related to abortion, and its usage should therefore be rejected in context of abortion discussion.

Yes they are, if you storm the Supreme Court.

i think this was made in jest, but i would like to point out that insofar as people should be protesting/getting angry/acting at all, it should be pressuring state legislatures. that is where influencing policy has a chance of being useful, if the state in question has a different policy than they believe is right.

You an attorney? You understand Roe used previous rulings on OTC contraceptive purchasing, allowing biracial marriage, etc. to justify Roe.

actually roe seems to have used an extremely questionable/loose connection to "privacy rights" while ducking the fundamental question of what is occurring during an abortion at a given time. it is not difficult to find attorneys that point this out, if you don't want to hear it from people here.

One of the first replies I see (I don't use twitter) is that this logically puts forced vasectomies on the table.

care to explain how this logically follows?

 

[El_Machinae]

care to explain how this logically follows?

The logic might never resonate with you. It relies on the assumption that not only do men have a greater moral responsibility in the creation of an unwanted pregnancy but also that men are capable of creating them in completely imbalanced ratios compared to women.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

It relies on the assumption that not only do men have a greater moral responsibility in the creation of an unwanted pregnancy but also that men are capable of creating them in completely imbalanced ratios compared to women.

i don't think there's a coherent justification for assigning greater "moral responsibility" to either man or woman in creation of a fetus. the only exception i would make for that is if both parties did not consent, which drastically alters the morality.

i do get the reasoning that men are "capable of creating them in imbalanced ratios". that's more or less fact. but i think generally abortion discussion seems to assume/deny people agency in their decisions. i don't think forced sterilization or forced abortions etc make sense in general, and therefore not justified either way.

 

[Lexicus]

A vasectomy is not the same as sterilization.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

wokeism is real, functions something like one of the worst religions in world history (not literally the worst, but pretty bad), and is a major detriment to society generally.

What the christ are you on about?

 

[El_Machinae]

i don't think there's a coherent justification for assigning greater "moral responsibility" to either man or woman in creation of a fetus. the only exception i would make for that is if both parties did not consent, which drastically alters the morality.

The last requisite and conscious step in the creation of an embryo is the male ejaculation, which will be (99.9% of the time, anyway) more under the control of the male than anyone else involved.

Sure, when I was sniping from a bell tower, my spotter helped me. But I pulled the trigger. That was the last conscious step, and 100% under my control.

i do get the reasoning that men are "capable of creating them in imbalanced ratios". that's more or less fact. but i think generally abortion discussion seems to assume/deny people agency in their decisions.

I very much agree that 'agency' gets weirdly discarded in the discussion, especially given the ratios. I only care insofar as I recognize the logical fallacy, since I only really care about late-term abortions. But that's not really part of the actual discussion at hand.

If we're allowing for agency, though, there's no forced vasectomies. They only happen if a guy makes an unwanted fetus. Might as well complain about a mouse-trap springing after you touched it. And, given the seriousness of forcing a woman to carry an unwanted fetus (and the seriousness of forcing an unwanted fetus into sentience), a vasectomy is a very low harm compared to not only the aggregate but also in comparison to further harms prevented.

Remember, I'm not saying 'forced vasectomies are fine'. I'm commenting on 'the bill will also criminalize some forms of birth control, in vitro fertilization, and miscarriages."

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The last requisite and conscious step in the creation of an embryo is the male ejaculation, which will be (99.9% of the time, anyway) more under the control of the male than anyone else involved.

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.

If we're allowing for agency, though, there's no forced vasectomies. They only happen if a guy makes an unwanted fetus.

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.

 

[El_Machinae]

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.

Both of us in the bell tower consented to be there. But the final trigger-pull was mine. Oh, the spotter needs to consent to be there. But no matter how much they cajole, agree, beg, or writhe, the pull is the last conscious choice involved. It's mine and only mine.

The 'victim' here is the unwanted fetus, not the consenting adults. The reason why abortion is being criminalized (putatively) is consideration for it, not for the couple. They're merely being forced to suffer the consequences of its creation.

who gets to decide the fetus is "unwanted"

Yes, being molested is commonly considered an exception. The other side of someone being molested is someone else being imprisoned. This isn't about that. We're talking about the State co-opting people's bodies to prevent a greater harm.

The level of consideration for 'who' is going to be tied to the relative burden involved in its creation and incubation. If a man doesn't want an unwanted fetus, the relative opportunity to not create one will be vastly imbalanced in his favor. The less incapable a man is in preventing the creation of unwanted fetuses (and then forcing women to incubate them), the more justified the vasectomy is.

I strongly suggest that you stop mentioning stealthing every opportunity. I think people recognize its theoretical existence, but to place it second in a list creates a prominence that it doesn't deserve. It's not 'wrong', but it's 'distracting'.

 

[Angst]

wokeism is real, functions something like one of the worst religions in world history (not literally the worst, but pretty bad), and is a major detriment to society generally.

it also isn't meaningfully related to abortion, and its usage should therefore be rejected in context of abortion discussion.

are you interested in talking about this in another thread? i could make one. i don't have much to say on it, just a small summary of why i think this is (bluntly) just wrong, but i'm sure others have their things to say.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The 'victim' here is the unwanted fetus, not the consenting adults.

sometimes that is true, but that depends on the degree to which we agree the fetus *can* be a victim. which is not a fixed variable.

This isn't about that. We're talking about the State co-opting people's bodies to prevent a greater harm.

which makes the "who gets to decide and why" thing really, really important.

If a man doesn't want an unwanted fetus, the relative opportunity to not create one will be vastly imbalanced in his favor.

again, sometimes that is true, sometimes it is not. much more often not, once we remove scenarios w/o consent.

I strongly suggest that you stop mentioning stealthing every opportunity. I think people recognize its theoretical existence, but to place it second in a list creates a prominence that it doesn't deserve. It's not 'wrong', but it's 'distracting'.

it belongs in the list i made, because i consider each bullet point to be ethically distinct (and should probably be legally distinct as well). while it's more rare than other items on the list, i'm not sure it is the most rare thing on the list, and if not singling it out is strange. either side can do it, too.

that list also creates some edge cases where a forced vasectomy is blatantly immoral/could reasonably justify violent resistance. i don't think it's good policy.

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.

are you interested in talking about this in another thread? i could make one. i don't have much to say on it, just a small summary of why i think this is (bluntly) just wrong, but i'm sure others have their things to say.

if you want to discuss something, go for it. i'm not sure i will engage, but i might. i do agree this isn't the place for that though. this topic far pre-dates it and doesn't seem to be meaningfully influenced by it.

 

[Angst]

if you want to discuss something, go for it. i'm not sure i will engage, but i might. i do agree this isn't the place for that though. this topic far pre-dates it and doesn't seem to be meaningfully influenced by it.

sure! i'll set up an op quoting your post this evening and give my own thoughts on it. feel free not to engage ofc

 

[El_Machinae]

sometimes that is true, but that depends on the degree to which we agree the fetus *can* be a victim. which is not a fixed variable.

This seems to be a distinction without a point. The entirety of the analogy was the relative moral culpability of the two people in the tower, assuming that both were willing participants.

That some of the people I shot were secretly suicidal and thus not technically 'victims' is immaterial to the point.

For someone who's frustrated that people don't acknowledge the women's agency in this discussion, you're definitely ignoring which of the two has more (and final) conscious agency when it comes to the actual fetus creation.

This might be a bias, because the actual biological facts are irrefutable. In the vast majority of consenting sexual encounters that create an embryo, it's the last requisite conscious step.

I guess 'sloppily pulling out a dam' would be an exception.