Half of the US bans abortion. Then what?

[Lexicus]

Not a Tory either. Never have and (unless something very bizarre happens) never will vote for them.

He votes for UKIP guys C'MON GET IT RIGHT

I think if you're claiming the right to name your opposition according to the worst interpretation of their stance as you percieve it, you have to concede the right for them to call you "baby murderers".

"Anti-abortion" is a neutral description of their position. The equivalent to calling us baby murderers would be calling them patriarchal morons or something.

 

[HoloDoc]

Oh yes, well but your situation would be an intentional pregnancy (on her part), and my article I linked to is talking about unintentional pregnancies

I'm not sure it was intentional or not on her part. She was very screwed up mentally, and didn't know what she wanted. I think a big part of not taking her pill was to prove that she didn't need to do what her doctors told her, because she as smarter than everyone else. Which kind of takes me back to my point about free legal services keeping people out of gaol, because I would have killed her in self-defence years ago if divorce wasn't an option.

 

[HoloDoc]

He votes for UKIP guys C'MON GET IT RIGHT



"Anti-abortion" is a neutral description of their position. The equivalent to calling us baby murderers would be calling them patriarchal morons or something.

"Baby murderers" sounds like a description of babies that are murdering people. And not just through lack of sleep, which is how my daughters murdered my spirit.

And BNP all the way baby! Mosley for PM!

 

[Synobun]

Given that I was replying to list of bullet points, every single one of which contained the word "she" or "her", maybe you need to rethink your stance. It's not exactly reasonable to expect me to be gender-neutral in response to a gendered statement.

It is very reasonable to expect you to grok contextual clues. If you really read and comprehended Mary's post, you'd understand that it was more than an Uppity Woman's Wishlist of Socialist Nightmares and that the terms set within are not only reasonable but also beneficial to men as well.

 

[HoloDoc]

Because you think that I think men deserve to be given free stuff?



Well I'm not disagreeing that most of the things on the list aren't probably good things, though I definitely wouldn't categorise most of them as "basic necessities". But they way you listed them all together like that is basically saying "give me everything and pay for everything". Free healthcare, free access to education, free childcare, paid maternity leave. None of that's "bad" as such, but saying that a parent "needs" all that stuff as a basic necessity is just removing all responsibility from the parent to actually raise and provide for their own child.

Plus your basic point seems to be that a lack of access to these things, which would mean some people would be unable to support a child, is what leads to more abortion. Which is no doubt true, but ignores the rather large elephant in the room that people who know they can't support children do have other options other than abortion to avoid having them. But again, that would require them to have some responsibility of their own. So you could remove all of those things and still not be "forcing people to have a babies they can't handle" in the vast majority of cases.

Also I'm not a pro-lifer. Just a tax payer who isn't overly enamoured with the burden of having to pay for other people's children because of their irresponsibility.



Nope, she should have been born a straw[wo]man



I think if you're claiming the right to name your opposition according to the worst interpretation of their stance as you percieve it, you have to concede the right for them to call you "baby murderers".



Not a Tory either. Never have and (unless something very bizarre happens) never will vote for them.

Did you edit in responses to me after making your post? Because I didn't see any of them when I read it earlier.

Can't be a strawman when I was making a general point. In order for it to be a strawman I would have to argue with you over a point you never made. I wasn't even replying to you.

Again, didn't call you a Tory. Called that attitude a Republican attitude, and the Tories Republicans at heart. Not my fault that you are parroting their talking points.

 

[HoloDoc]

It is very reasonable to expect you to grok contextual clues. If you really read and comprehended Mary's post, you'd understand that it was more than an Uppity Woman's Wishlist of Socialist Nightmares and that the terms set within are not only reasonable but also beneficial to men as well.

"An Uppity Woman's Wishlist of Socialist Nightmares" is what I'm calling my next novel. Thanks Synsensa.

Provided J.K. Rowling doesn't beat me to it. "Harry Potter and An Uppity Woman's Wishlist of Socialist Nightmares" could hurt my sales.

By the way, context is for rich educated liberals. That's why it has "con" in it, because they're conning the public.

 

[Lexicus]

JK Rowling actually believes that most of the things Mary wrote are Socialist Nighmares, she is a committed Blairite and hates Jeremy Corbyn and apparently the entire left-wing of the Labour Party.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

He votes for UKIP guys C'MON GET IT RIGHT

Also never voted for UKIP. Maybe you need to face up to the fact that the world isn't populated exclusively by 1-dimensional stereotypes.

"Anti-abortion" is a neutral description of their position. The equivalent to calling us baby murderers would be calling them patriarchal morons or something.

Yes it is, I'm 100% behind "anti-abortion" (you may also remember me being 100% behind "pro-abortion" in another thread in the past, which is an equally factual and neutral description, but it still raised hackles). I don't really know how you could have read the quote, and my reply to it, and come away thinking I was referring to "anti-abortion" there?!

 

[Manfred Belheim]

It is very reasonable to expect you to grok contextual clues. If you really read and comprehended Mary's post, you'd understand that it was more than an Uppity Woman's Wishlist of Socialist Nightmares and that the terms set within are not only reasonable but also beneficial to men as well.

Please stop saying grok.

Never called anyone an uppity woman, stop strawmanning.

Have explained why I used the word "her". Even if you didn't get it at the time, my explanation should have maide it clear. It's not because I "hate women" or whatever other made-up reason you want to ascribe it to.

Did you edit in responses to me after making your post? Because I didn't see any of them when I read it earlier.

Yes, I was replying to multiple people so I was editing the same post. It's attracted ire when I've not done that before (although I've just realised that I have actually just made two consecutive posts anyway, and yes this is another edit).

Can't be a strawman when I was making a general point. In order for it to be a strawman I would have to argue with you over a point you never made. I wasn't even replying to you.

Yeah okay. Mary was replying directly to me (though not addressing me, as is her wont), and what you said was a direct response. So you'll have to forgive me for inferring that it might have been at least somewhat a comment on what I said.

Again, didn't call you a Tory. Called that attitude a Republican attitude, and the Tories Republicans at heart. Not my fault that you are parroting their talking points.

Same with this, given that it was given in response to it being pointed out that I'm British. But again, not specifically directed specifically at me specifically, so yes.

 

[Synobun]

First you try to police women and now you're trying to police language. Sad.

Your explanation is... is why I made the remark about understanding contextual clues. Although if you're going to go the "I am a victim of unreasonable strawmanning" route, it's worth stating that I never said you hated women.

 

[Lexicus]

Also never voted for UKIP. Maybe you need to face up to the fact that the world isn't populated exclusively by 1-dimensional stereotypes.

Meh, it was a joke, I didn't actually think you voted for UKIP. My real guess is you're either a non-voter or vote for the Liberals.

Yes it is, I'm 100% behind "anti-abortion" (you may also remember me being 100% behing "pro-abortion" in another thread in the past, which is an equally factual and neutral description, but it still raised hackles). I don't really know how you could have read the quote, and my reply to it, and come away thinking I was referring to "anti-abortion" there?!

It is not a factual or neutral description of most people who support abortion rights because most of them are not actually pro-abortion, as was explained to you in that thread. There is a subset of feminists who could be described as pro-abortion, but even that is not really accurate as they unapologetically support abortion merely as a means to women having control over their reproduction and thus fully autonomous lives. I don't know if there is anyone out there who would say, for example, that abortion is preferable to contraception or even that they are equally desirable methods of reproductive control.

But, I did not read carefully - "patriarchal moron" is basically the same as "anti-women's rights", so, you were right.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I hope this doesn't come to pass. Abortion is indicative of something that went wrong (decisions, unfortunate health issues, could be several things). I don't see any reason to make an already bad situation worse though. It's not something to be celebrated and it's better for everyone to avoid the need for it where possible.

It's kind of sad that we're worried about court rulings here. Do we have any substantive evidence that banning it contributes to net good in some way? I mean tangible, IRL net good, not somebody's feelings about morality.

 

[HoloDoc]

I hope this doesn't come to pass. Abortion is indicative of something that went wrong (decisions, unfortunate health issues, could be several things). I don't see any reason to make an already bad situation worse though. It's not something to be celebrated and it's better for everyone to avoid the need for it where possible.

It's kind of sad that we're worried about court rulings here. Do we have any substantive evidence that banning it contributes to net good in some way? I mean tangible, IRL net good, not somebody's feelings about morality.

It wins votes for conservatives. That's about it.

 

[Hrothbern]

I think three crucial factors around the abortion rate are:
A. Reduction of unwanted pregnancies (frank sexual education instilling respect-consent, shame free, no cost access to pills at request, no male dominance hindering the use of condoms, etc)
B. Support without hurdles for availability clinics, financials and guilt/shame (money, compassion, respect, culture).
C. Country/ethnicity culture

A. The teen pregnancy rate (60 per 1,000 for 15-19 year old) in the US is very high compared to other OECD countries and fortunately decreasing over time.
I think it is fair to conclude that there is a lot to gain by good sexual education programs doing more than just the mechanical technics.
On the impact of such a teen pregnancy. The US pregnancy rate for 15-19 was in 2014 just below 60 per 1,000. That means 5*60 per 1,000 for that 5 year period, or 3 in 10 teenagers get pregnant.

B. Most has already been said in earlier posts. Not that much to add than that I believe that the money needed to give a pregnant woman her own choice without external hurdles, is not only right and good for that woman, but also beneficial for the good of all.

C. The country/ethnicity culture has such a big effect on the statistics, that any reduction policy, program or package of available means, needs to understands the why's of those differences to be effective.
In my country, from 2008 national statistics, the abortion rate of autochtones is about 5 per 1,000. The abortion rate of the first and second generation Turkish and Moroccan women is around 15 per 1,000. For 1th-2nd generation Surinam women the rate is 32 per 1,000 (Afro-Surinams and Surinam people originally from India). For 1th-2nd generation Antillian women the rate is 39 per 1,000 (Afro-Antillians).
You could argue this is from economical differences, but our wellfare country, including a National Health Care, no-hurdle access to everybody and everything around anti-conception-abortus, is of too high level to explain those big differences in abortion rate.
Teen pregnancy rates in my countyry have a similar difference per ethnicity. The average for all groups being 12 per 1,000 resulting in 7 per 1,000 teen abortions and 5 per 1,000 teen births.
=> in your policies and programs you need to differentiate for your different target profiles.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Maybe you need to face up to the fact that the world isn't populated exclusively by 1-dimensional stereotypes.

Yes it is!
Get with the 1-D program fool!

 

[Manfred Belheim]

First you try to police women and now you're trying to police language. Sad.

What are you on about? Trying to police women? Okay fine, have your "grok".

Your explanation is... is why I made the remark about understanding contextual clues. Although if you're going to go the "I am a victim of unreasonable strawmanning" route, it's worth stating that I never said you hated women.

As interesting as it is to read your opinions and explanations of what you think my reply should have been, the fact is that I've explained the reason behind what my reply actually was, and that it isn't because I hold unkempt (?) views about women. That's just mud-slinging on your part.

You also seem to be shifting the goalposts too, unless your argument is somehow that missing contextual clues is direct evidence of unkempt views of women?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Meh, it was a joke, I didn't actually think you voted for UKIP. My real guess is you're either a non-voter or vote for the Liberals.

Voted for Labour in every General Election I've been eligible to vote in. In local council elections I've either voted for Labour, the Lib-Dems, or no-one at all, depending on who has most recently made a hash of things.

It is not a factual or neutral description of most people who support abortion rights because most of them are not actually pro-abortion, as was explained to you in that thread.

As was argued in that thread. I also argued why it is a factual and neutral description. Until God comes along and declares a winner, we'll have to leave it there (although I'm happy to adopt "anti-anti-abortion" if you like?).

But this is all an irrelevant aside because, as I said, I wasn't quibbling with the term "anti-abortion" anyway, as you'll see if you go back and read the quote and what I said.

But, I did not read carefully - "patriarchal moron" is basically the same as "anti-women's rights", so, you were right.

Indeed, they're both examples of mischaracterising the opposition with the least charitable portrayal of your interpretation of their views, as is "baby murderers" (or "baby-murderers" to avoid confusion this time).

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Also never voted for UKIP. Maybe you need to face up to the fact that the world isn't populated exclusively by 1-dimensional stereotypes.

No one said that it is. I always assume that the one dimensional persona that you display in your posts is a put on, intended to test how people here will react to the idea that such a horrific could actually exist.

 

[Broken_Erika]

No one said that it is. I always assume that the one dimensional persona that you display in your posts is a put on, intended to test how people here will react to the idea that such a horrific could actually exist.

Wanna see real a real one-dimensional horror?

Spoiler :

https://apolyton.net/forum/miscellaneous/off-topic/9337623-the-witch-hunt-revealed/page25

 

[HoloDoc]

Yes it is!
Get with the 1-D program fool!

Technically, the best way to reduce unwanted pregnancies would be to get more women on the 0-D program....