[RD] Abortion, once again

[Kyriakos]

* cis men

* cis white men

 

[MaryKB]

Anyone born without a uterus.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

The idea that people are pro-abortion is just nonsense. Its a hard decision and experience for any women to go through, but not one someone else should be making for us.

Exactly. The hardline anti-abortion bunch that post on my news site insist that I run around telling women to get abortions. My explanation that being pro-choice means being in favor of CHOICE and therefore also allowing the woman or girl the right to keep the baby if she wants even though her parents, boyfriend, or husband might be threatening her safety if she doesn't abort... just whooshes overhead, as though they've never fathomed a man who doesn't want the expense or responsibility of parenthood ordering the woman to abort or he'll kick her out on the street or move out and leave her without support or help, or parents who only think of the "scandal" and kick the girl out of the house.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

It's great to illustrate why any abortion restriction is evil. No woman wants an abortion. Men are incapable of understanding whatsoever, which is why they need to not have an opinion.

you need men to enforce the policy you want, especially when claiming they are "rights", rights i note only count for you when they're ones you agree with. perhaps flagrant misandry such as quoted isn't constructive to that end. perhaps telling people they are incapable of understanding, makes them want to understand and act on that understanding even less.

"any" is over-broad, since it ignores the question of personhood. something you can't ignore, if you want coherent policy...and if you want to claim personhood doesn't count, what standard are you using such that "men" should acknowledge...say...your personhood and protect rights?

i don't think consistency of standards allows quoted position.

 

[João III]

claiming they are "rights", rights i note only count for you when they're ones you agree with

In a world of ethical/moral relativism, human rights can be whatever you want them to be

 

[Gorbles]

"you need men to enforce the policy you want" in a post undermining that policy sure is a good faith take that should be taken seriously.

 

[El_Machinae]

But then a man stepped in to help defend the policy she wants!

Telling men to shut up might not work, strategically. Pro-life women will be able to convince pro-life men to assist them, because they don't believe that it is solely a woman's issue. Now, men can work on suppressing the voices of other men, but that will never contain things. It's playing a reactive and defensive game. And then anybody misunderstanding the Commandment to just shut up runs the potential for being paralyzed.

There's the final concern. There is the chance that the person asking you to be quiet isn't doing a very good job advocating. Yeah, yeah it could be mansplaining. Alternatively, she could be doing a bad job. Everybody here knows that I'm in favor of funding advocates, but the need to fund the advocate is inversely proportional to your ability to advocate. And then canvassing success is proportionate to your advocation talents.

Curating allies for their money and training them to only suppress other men is certainly a worthy goal. But treating the discussion as if it's opinion, in the relativism sense, might not work. It butts up against a hard stop of the heuristic that it's not an opinion.

 

[AmazonQueen]

But then a man stepped in to help defend the policy she wants!

Telling men to shut up might not work, strategically. Pro-life women will be able to convince pro-life men to assist them, because they don't believe that it is solely a woman's issue. Now, men can work on suppressing the voices of other men, but that will never contain things. It's playing a reactive and defensive game. And then anybody misunderstanding the Commandment to just shut up runs the potential for being paralyzed.

There's the final concern. There is the chance that the person asking you to be quiet isn't doing a very good job advocating. Yeah, yeah it could be mansplaining. Alternatively, she could be doing a bad job. Everybody here knows that I'm in favor of funding advocates, but the need to fund the advocate is inversely proportional to your ability to advocate. And then canvassing success is proportionate to your advocation talents.

Curating allies for their money and training them to only suppress other men is certainly a worthy goal. But treating the discussion as if it's opinion, in the relativism sense, might not work. It butts up against a hard stop of the heuristic that it's not an opinion.

The way its phrased matters.
Saying you need broad support, which will include men (and not all women sadly) is one thing, suggesting you need men which could be read as saying that men have a veto on what is acceptable is quite another.

 

[Gorbles]

But then a man stepped in to help defend the policy she wants!

A man did? After TMIT's post? Must've missed that. I'm not sure João's is, and yours appears to be on a different tangent. Mine is meta-commentary

Telling men to shut up might not work, strategically.

I never claimed it did. But the issue here isn't what works or what doesn't work. I was just commenting on the investment of the reply to Mary, and how seriously I felt it should've been taken.

Personally, I don't think we stop enough to think why people might feel like no men can understand the problem. I really feel we should probably work on that. Instead of feeling the need to stroke our egos because a woman (upset at very real things that impact her and not us cis guys) said something. But maybe that's just me!

(it isn't just me, to be clear. But it does feel like "not enough", as I said already)

 

[Lexicus]

In a world of ethical/moral relativism, human rights can be whatever you want them to be

That's correct. Some people even claim to support human rights while in fact supporting a regime of unprecedented and near-totalitarian social and legal control of women's behavior.

 

[MaryKB]

... Yeah, yeah it could be mansplaining...

It absolutely is.

I said no one born without a uterus can understand. This is a fact. You have nothing to relate to. Expressing your opinion about it is the ultimate example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

If you were born without a uterus, your ONLY opinion should be "This is a women's issue and so I support women's rights" and nothing more.

 

[El_Machinae]

Yes, I stepped in to defend her. Of course, I clarified what she should mean rather than what she actually said. If we're asked to not have an opinion, it's self-ruinous. If we're being asked to only suppress other testicles, then it's strategically difficult.

Yes, no cis-men can understand the problem. OTOH, it seems that only a subset of women "understand biology", if the gist of the majority of the argument is to be believed. Of course that's condescending, but the 'side' whose men believe that more has the inherent advantage.

The way its phrased matters.
Saying you need broad support, which will include men (and not all women sadly) is one thing, suggesting you need men which could be read as saying that men have a veto on what is acceptable is quite another.

Yes, true. The phrasing matters. Given how basically zero conversation on CFC has changed anyone's mind, I truly hope that some pro-choice people here are canvassing for their local advocates. Some States had legal teams ready to go when Roe vs Wade was overturned. To expect these people to work for free is bonkers. And, like I say, the less convincing my arguments are, the more it means that I should be funding an advocate. Due to whatever politeness metrics are here, no one is going to say "oh, you need to be funding an advocate". Even worse if there is some bias in that politeness.

And this whole thing is also complicated by whether someone bothers to help in the more disadvantaged regions of the world, where we'd have to butt up against the cultural belief that men get a veto. I've mentioned before, I have to play a defensive game against American contagion now, but the paralyses of relativism really need to be worked around if the underlying message is misphrased.

 

[MaryKB]

Yes, I stepped in to defend her.

No, you stepped in to mansplain.

Of course, I clarified what she should mean rather than what she actually said.

Do not presume to tell me what I should be saying. You're no better than all the other guys who thinks he should be deciding for women.

 

[El_Machinae]

No, you stepped in to mansplain.

You weren't my target, so we might have different definitions of 'mansplaining'. [Meta sentence explaining mansplaining ] In fairness, I tried to unpack 3 sentences into a couple of paragraphs of discussion, so the odds of me containing an error are 100%.

You're no better than all the other guys who thinks he should be deciding for women.

In our last back-and-forth, we completely misunderstood each other. It got to the point where I couldn't even understand why you were interpreting the way you were. We might be at loggerheads, where some previous damage causes serial miscommunication.

 

[Farm Boy]

Conflicting requests and guidance received.
Suggested criterion for weighted assessment inadequate. Activate alternate criterion. Work order understood.

 

[Gorbles]

Yes, I stepped in to defend her.

I didn't read it that way, but it might be because of this:

Of course, I clarified what she should mean rather than what she actually said.

Which is inconsistent with the claim of defense (as Mary has already pointed out). As has been said, the phrasing matters, and the reality is that it matters throughout, regardless of good or bad intent. So it becomes about separating out that intent, which is possibly the least constructive aspect of it all, but unfortunately necessary.

You might not get a lot of mileage out of that, I don't know.

 

[MaryKB]

... so the odds of me containing an error are 100%.

I'll accept that as an (oddly phrased) apology, thank you. In the future, when trying to defend women, please just defend what we're saying and not taking over with what you think we should be saying.

 

[El_Machinae]

In the real world, I'm not so much defending you as you're defending me during this political stress. The contagion from the States matters here, and your leverage completely dwarfs mine. This is strategic, but a 1% improvement on your end has a much greater effect than a 100% on mine. Your ability to influence people locally dwarfs the importance of changing my forum behavior. There are multiple power differentials at play, here.

Now, I think we'll have endemic miscommunication ongoing, but improving your local advocacy is vastly more important than improving my behavior here (obviously, both are concomitantly possible). And for the billions of people who're waiting until we devote significant resources towards them, our local success has a couple of really important pivot points. Like, they need us to slow the contagion. They'd like some actual help from our position of massive privilege.

This is a muddling way to say that I think that feedback on the perceived weakness of an argument are themselves valuable. If I do have insight, it's on what I find convincing. Even more, I have insight into what I find convincing enough to motivate action.

So it becomes about separating out that intent, which is possibly the least constructive aspect of it all, but unfortunately necessary.

I appreciate the critique. And I'm clipping out this because a sardonic agreeing laugh only works with this.

 

[sophie]

Just don’t tell women what they should be doing! Is that so hard?

If you want to be an ally, be an ally. That means asking people who can become pregnant what you can do to help, rather than presuming yourself a hero who needs to swing in and save the poor, confused, helpless ladies from their own misguided thoughts.

It’s hard enough facing the onslaught of rabid bloodthirsty conservative men who want to tell people who can become pregnant what they can and can’t do with their own bodies (for their own good) without also having to massage the fragile egos of well-meaning liberal men who want to help by telling people who can become pregnant what they should be doing with their own bodies (for their own good).

 

[TheMeInTeam]

In a world of ethical/moral relativism, human rights can be whatever you want them to be

i'm well aware. if we don't uphold and protect them, they do not exist. the universe doesn't care. regardless of the "right" in question. yet we agree on a framework to operate in terms of rights, that allows us to function. this framework can't only count at convenience. insofar as they are "rights" at all, they don't get to disappear arbitrarily.

Saying you need broad support, which will include men (and not all women sadly) is one thing, suggesting you need men which could be read as saying that men have a veto on what is acceptable is quite another.

when you cast aside a societal framework that reliably acknowledges a set of rights, it's a matter of practical reality that men get a veto. whether you like it or not. when rights of the individual don't matter consistently and you're in north korea or similar, men do in fact "get a veto", and they "veto" a lot more than abortions.

we have a society that generally manages to avoid most of that, and we have it via codifying individual rights. that is why personhood, despite OP article advocating otherwise, was always a mandatory consideration wrt abortion laws that anybody cares about. there is no basis for abortion restrictions absent the argument of fetal personhood, where the rights of both individuals therefore matter rather than just one person's.

in discarding that rationale, and claiming a huge % of people "need not have an opinion" on what amounts to a question of individual rights, the post i quoted isn't *just* misandry. it actively ignores the question of personhood and rights outright too. that's a hostile position to individual liberty, and to that end i wonder why anybody making it should think their own liberty an exception.

if "men need not have an opinion", try living in a country where yours doesn't even have a means to be heard, let alone compelling anybody to care through a process like voting.

Just don’t tell women what they should be doing! Is that so hard?

when policy compels people to act, this request stops being reasonable. there are fundamental rights at odds with each other on this topic, which is a big part of why it's emotionally charged and not easy to solve.

That means asking people who can become pregnant what you can do to help, rather than presuming yourself a hero who needs to swing in and save the poor, confused, helpless ladies from their own misguided thoughts.

in terms of setting abortion policy, neither of these things are useful.

It’s hard enough facing the onslaught of rabid bloodthirsty conservative men who want to tell people who can become pregnant what they can and can’t do with their own bodies (for their own good)

it would be comedy gold if it weren't serious! too bad this alleged affront to individual liberty isn't applied consistently. too bad we're still handwaving the only relevant question to this discussion as if it's already solved (fetal personhood).

in case it isn't obvious: there is a long list of things people can and can't do with their bodies legally, that applies to every person in the country, for every country with a functioning legal framework. i find it particularly amusing that some making the point "don't tell women what they can and can't do with their bodies" in this thread nevertheless advocated for...say...vaccine mandates. or putting people in jail (or even detaining them, legally or otherwise). or compelling people to pay for stuff.