The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
[Abortion] - it's good as hell, y'all
TL DR
Not at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered User regular
Not at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered User regular
A goddamn separate thread to talk about abortion.
This will be a broad thread, addressing a topic that relates to a history ranging from of abortion becoming politicized as a Republican tactic, to the demonization of midwives and use of 'witch burning' to discipline women into capitalism and force their role in reproducing the labor necessary to perpetuate wage workers to be invisible, devalorized, and uncompensated -(read Caliban and the Witch. Seriously.). Health justice is on the table; this is a poverty issue, an education issue, an immigration status issue, and a question of the rights of people to enjoy a secular society unhampered by theocracy. With the maternal death rate for black women in the US being three to four times that of white women, abortion access is a racial justice issue.
Abortion rights are directly linked to the autonomy of women and uterus-having people in the same way that divorce rights and pay equity are - women who are made to be dependent on men face higher rates of domestic violence and death than those who are not.
Womens' resistance to being reduced to a market input is very old, but it also occurs throughout history and not only in late-feudal Europe. Black slaves in the United States practiced abstinence to deny their masters additional human capital at their expense and took abortificants to prevent unwanted pregnancy, at a time when the average number of children birthed by a slave women is estimated to be seven.
Reproductive healthcare exists in an extremely-precarious position in the United States, with the landmark Supreme Court ruling Roe v Wade upholding the right to abort a nonviable fetus but neither providing specific protections for access to abortion services nor consequences for the denial of those services. Anti-choice forces have focused both on incrementally chipping away at the fringes of abortion access using methods like restricting the time during which a pregnancy can be terminated and closing clinics through onerous bureaucratic requirements such as requiring them to have admitting privileges at local hospitals. These efforts are often struck down in the courts, but installation of far-right judges has been a great success of the Republican party in recent years and further challenges to existing jurisprudence are inevitable.
Fake abortion clinics, sometimes operating just across the street from real clinics, lie to patients and tell them that abortion is impossible for medical reasons, or encourage them to 'think it over' until such time when it would actually be more medically difficult. They are subject to little or no regulatory oversight on the local, state, or federal level, meaning that they can distribute information to women that is not supported by scientific evidence or backed by medical consensus.
A coherent view of the abortion issue can be had by interpreting the actions of the Right as being intended to render women as subservient to men and to reduce their autonomy and power as much as possible. From doing everything possible to increase the number of unwanted pregnancies on one hand, such as mandating failed abstinence-only sex ed in schools and reducing access to contraception to making it less attractive to carry a pregnancy to term by aggravating poverty conditions and slashing social benefits, not to mention access to pre-natal health services such that the maternal death rate has actually increased in the United States, the slogan "Pro-Life is a lie; they don't care if women die" rings true.
In addition to fighting legal battles, advocates for reproductive rights are doing direct action in the form of abortion funds. This helps folks who are unable to pay for abortion or, as clinics continue to be shut down, have to travel long distances to get the necessary service. Heroes volunteer as clinic escorts, walking patients through lines of protesters with banners displaying shock images and slogans condemning the patient to hell. Volunteers drive patients long distances to access services.
Perhaps the most common take on abortion is that it's a necessary evil. I'm of the opinion that it's emancipatory and should be celebrated. Destigmatizing abortion and singing the praises of everyone involved in granting people greater control over their own lives is an important step on the road to liberation. As I said elsewhere, the stated position that "abortion should be rare" is common but highly suspect. If that can be taken to mean "the circumstances that lead people to need abortions (poverty, unwanted pregnancy, poor access to contraception and information) should be rare", great. Otherwise, it's the equivalent of side-eyeing leg casts instead of focusing on the violence that results in broken bones to begin with. In a #MeToo era where we are just starting to reckon with the unacceptable failure of our society to teach and expect healthy consent culture, a debate that is entirely framed on punishing women for being impregnated is disingenuous from the outset.
This will be a broad thread, addressing a topic that relates to a history ranging from of abortion becoming politicized as a Republican tactic, to the demonization of midwives and use of 'witch burning' to discipline women into capitalism and force their role in reproducing the labor necessary to perpetuate wage workers to be invisible, devalorized, and uncompensated -(read Caliban and the Witch. Seriously.). Health justice is on the table; this is a poverty issue, an education issue, an immigration status issue, and a question of the rights of people to enjoy a secular society unhampered by theocracy. With the maternal death rate for black women in the US being three to four times that of white women, abortion access is a racial justice issue.
Abortion rights are directly linked to the autonomy of women and uterus-having people in the same way that divorce rights and pay equity are - women who are made to be dependent on men face higher rates of domestic violence and death than those who are not.
Womens' resistance to being reduced to a market input is very old, but it also occurs throughout history and not only in late-feudal Europe. Black slaves in the United States practiced abstinence to deny their masters additional human capital at their expense and took abortificants to prevent unwanted pregnancy, at a time when the average number of children birthed by a slave women is estimated to be seven.
Reproductive healthcare exists in an extremely-precarious position in the United States, with the landmark Supreme Court ruling Roe v Wade upholding the right to abort a nonviable fetus but neither providing specific protections for access to abortion services nor consequences for the denial of those services. Anti-choice forces have focused both on incrementally chipping away at the fringes of abortion access using methods like restricting the time during which a pregnancy can be terminated and closing clinics through onerous bureaucratic requirements such as requiring them to have admitting privileges at local hospitals. These efforts are often struck down in the courts, but installation of far-right judges has been a great success of the Republican party in recent years and further challenges to existing jurisprudence are inevitable.
Fake abortion clinics, sometimes operating just across the street from real clinics, lie to patients and tell them that abortion is impossible for medical reasons, or encourage them to 'think it over' until such time when it would actually be more medically difficult. They are subject to little or no regulatory oversight on the local, state, or federal level, meaning that they can distribute information to women that is not supported by scientific evidence or backed by medical consensus.
A coherent view of the abortion issue can be had by interpreting the actions of the Right as being intended to render women as subservient to men and to reduce their autonomy and power as much as possible. From doing everything possible to increase the number of unwanted pregnancies on one hand, such as mandating failed abstinence-only sex ed in schools and reducing access to contraception to making it less attractive to carry a pregnancy to term by aggravating poverty conditions and slashing social benefits, not to mention access to pre-natal health services such that the maternal death rate has actually increased in the United States, the slogan "Pro-Life is a lie; they don't care if women die" rings true.
In addition to fighting legal battles, advocates for reproductive rights are doing direct action in the form of abortion funds. This helps folks who are unable to pay for abortion or, as clinics continue to be shut down, have to travel long distances to get the necessary service. Heroes volunteer as clinic escorts, walking patients through lines of protesters with banners displaying shock images and slogans condemning the patient to hell. Volunteers drive patients long distances to access services.
Perhaps the most common take on abortion is that it's a necessary evil. I'm of the opinion that it's emancipatory and should be celebrated. Destigmatizing abortion and singing the praises of everyone involved in granting people greater control over their own lives is an important step on the road to liberation. As I said elsewhere, the stated position that "abortion should be rare" is common but highly suspect. If that can be taken to mean "the circumstances that lead people to need abortions (poverty, unwanted pregnancy, poor access to contraception and information) should be rare", great. Otherwise, it's the equivalent of side-eyeing leg casts instead of focusing on the violence that results in broken bones to begin with. In a #MeToo era where we are just starting to reckon with the unacceptable failure of our society to teach and expect healthy consent culture, a debate that is entirely framed on punishing women for being impregnated is disingenuous from the outset.
DJ Eebs on
+45
Posts
On other points, I kind of stumble on the idea of celebrating abortion. Its not that I oppose it or think its bad, it just feels...weird. Like celebrating hernia surgery. I know the feeling isn't dishonest in those who hold it but it's hard to feel like it isn't a performance.
This depends pretty heavily on how they handle it. Like "I am opposed to abortion therefore I'll not get one and ask people not to using truthful information" is s lot different than advocating it be banned is different from lying about it in order to further promote banning it, etc
They both don't talk about it a ton, but Liz is of the opinion last I checked that at this time the best way to get rid of abortions is massive and direct welfare and socialist policies. They are, in a lot of ways, exactly what pro-choice people claim religious pro-lifers should be.
Sure, but neither is particularly compatible with a strong pro-choice world view. They're advocating policies, in part, because they think they'll reduce the number of abortions while pro-choice people advocate them for other reasons. Its an interesting crossroads to examine who one will accept as allies.
Along with good sex education and free contraception of any kind the user chooses, that would greatly *reduce* abortions, but there is really no way of eliminating them. Even banning them legally wouldn't reduce them much, especially since these days abortions are mostly done via a pill that induces miscarriage in the first trimester - you don't even need a midwife or doctor willing to illegally perform a surgical abortion, you just need to smuggle a bunch of tiny pills in from a country where it is legal (eg Canada.)
I certainly understand people like TLDR who are skeptical of "abortion should be rare" arguments, but I do believe that under an ideal pro-choice policy environment it would be the case. A society that values sexual education, family planning, and birth control would rationally see fewer abortions than the one we have that values none of these things and I think all three are a more pleasant experience. I don't really think of this as any different than saying "I support heart surgery but think it should be rare in a preferred society where people life healthier lives to begin with".
This might be off into the weeds a bit but OP does say broad thread so, I think both pro-lifers and pro-choicers kind of fail in the some of the same ways as movements. Its obvious with regard to the pro-life movement and we talk about it constantly. The people who are making women bear children are also the first to cut shit like food stamps, but I think the pro-choice wing of American politics has failed here as well. Real reproductive freedom requires the means and opportunity to choose to reproduce, not just to choose to abort. Liberal politics have failed dramatically on basic necessities for raising families, like housing costs. I don't view that as meaningfully different than failing new families on welfare programs.
chat
Chat, obvs
This seems to be relevant only if you've conceded that the cluster of cells is "human life," which is of course the philosophical disagreement that ostensibly drives the insoluble argument. The left definitely has a large segment that fundamentally disagrees with that premise (up to a certain and highly contentious transition point in the pregnancy).
That the left has failed to successfully support families and parents in having and raising children in accordance with its broader values (in the US and other nations) is a separate argument but a valid one.
I'm certainly not of any firm mind on the personhood argument, though I'm inclined to view a tie going to the affirmative. It's not as easy an answer for me as for some others and I think there's a chance its largely a semantic point born out of imperfect language. Like asking what life means. Grammatically correct but lacking substance.
Either way it doesn't change my end result.
But of course they don't care about the history of their own religions stance, just about whatever gives them a power trip.
I'm also somewhat conflicted, because I really don't like the idea of abortions (raised evangelical). But my personal feelings on a medical procedure should have no bearing on what other people are allowed.
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
Sometimes we presume that things are in the Bible because they are part of our moral code, but in fact they are not. I'm opposed to gambling on moral grounds, which I assumed were religious, but on researching it, I found that there's actually nothing against it in the Bible.
Abortion is the one issue I don't really like to get into because I was raised this evangelical as well. Intellectually I understand the need for abortion in a just society, but there are still nagging cultural arguments and half truths I was raised on that give me pause.
But it's so essential to the moral question that asserting it without support is tantamount to declaring your conclusion without support. It's not really fallacious, but it's... I'm not sure what to call it exactly.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/26583381/
I cannot imagine them caring much about abortion in the first few weeks.
This is more of a broad look, but this was what sort of started me into looking closer.
https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/23/health/abortion-history-in-united-states/index.html
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
I think that's a medical history question. Before the 20th century, abortion was a risky procedure, not easy to do, and not safe. So it wasn't on the radar of religious authorities, in the same way as the question of "Are pig organ transplants kosher?" was not relevant before such a thing was possible.
I honestly think that the rights argument, on either side, is at best a complete non-sequitur and I hate that it dominates the discussion. Maybe it's politically easier to reduce the argument to legalistic definitions, but it just completely ignores the central issue here, which is outright human suffering.
There's this complete mismatch in these broad philosophical ideas and narratives tossed around and the decisions that actual women are making and why they are making them when they have an abortion. No woman I've ever known who has had an abortion has done so because it was her right to her own body or whatever, she has done it because not doing it would've ruined many people's lives, not least of all her own. None of the "Pro-Choice" arguments I hear from academia have fuck-all to do with the reasoning a woman actually has to go through, and unpacking the things they do go through generally expands into much deeper and messier fundamental issues in society.
The real reason women should be allowed to make the decision to abort is because it would be deeply, horrifically cruel not to.
If the baby could be easily extracted from the womb and taken to full term in an artificial womb (like in the Vorkosigan saga) perhaps it might be said to be immoral to abort, but to force a woman to give birth is immoral.
I know an older woman who essentially died of having kids (gestational diabetes never went away and eventually caused a stroke) and an acquaintance who nearly died last year of complications of a c-section she had 20 years ago. Childbirth is dangerous!
I understand where you're coming from but I think that invites scrutinizing a given woman's reasons.
as a man, my opinion doesn't matter, and even if someone asked, the answer is obviously people should be allowed to choose what is best for them. It's their body, not anyone else's.
Maternal Mortality Is Rising in the U.S. As It Declines Elsewhere
Deaths per 100,000 live births
Chart: The maternal mortality rate in the U.S. (26.4) far exceeds that of other developed countries.
"Global, regional, and national levels of maternal mortality, 1990–2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015," The Lancet. Only data for 1990, 2000 and 2015 was made available in the journal.
The Bible had a section requiring abortion in case of suspected infidelity. Well ok it's phrased as a "trial by ordeal" but it's very clear the intent is to cause a miscarriage.
The ideological roots of anti-choice philosophy in the notion that a fetus is the property of the sperm donor are unavoidable.
Also, I do agree with:
"I have to abort because I can't afford it" is not actual freedom.
That passage is as clear as mud without the cultural context. It's probably not about abortion. It's certainly misogynistic.
I don't think its freedom if you have to personally justify exercising it. I think you misunderstood my point.
What I was saying there is that a woman who has to abort because she couldn't afford to feed her other children doesn't have reproductive freedom either.
America puts women in a nice bind, in that there is almost no help for a single mother, but also abortion is very hard and frowned upon (in red states.) This takes away women's choice from two different angles.
Which fits nicely into "I have to abort because I cannot afford having children". Sorry if I wasn't clear.
Agreed, which is why I wanted this to be a broad thread with leeway to really explore the edges of this issue. "I have to abort because I can't afford it" is preferable to "I can't afford it but I don't have access to abortion", certainly. This is exactly why it's a health justice issue, and why health justice is tied to poverty.
To remove access to abortion without addressing the circumstances that cause unwanted pregnancy is monstrous. To secure abortion access and not go on to address those same circumstances is horribly negligent.
Modern medicine introduces new dilemmas, such as ultrasound scans that can reveal that the baby will be born with a serious and agonizing illness incompatible with life. This is the situation that generally leads to the "late term abortions" that Republicans flip out over. But the alternative, letting the sick baby die naturally, seems rather analogous to exposing a child on a hillside.
It's also very clear that the cultures of the old testament considered life to begin with first breath, not conception. The Biblical case for abortion is basically non-existent, relying on some poetic phrasing about God knowing you *before you were conceived* to mean that life begins with conception. Meanwhile, Levitical law chose to consider the death of a fetus the equivalent of a property crime and not a murder.
I think they absolutely should be scrutinized, not as a judgment against the individual making them, but because you find out some really disgusting things about society when you do, and honestly those are the central problems we need to be tackling. The fact that there are people who would decide that the reasoning of the woman reflects poorly on them as a person is exactly the thing we need to be attacking itself. The question is not "is this person right for deciding this?" but "why would this person decide this?". What are the things that create a situation where someone becomes pregnant without wanting to take a child to term?
And yes, I do believe that devoid of any other factors a woman should be allowed to terminate simply because it's an imposition on her body, but I would argue that's a hypothetical largely unrelated to what is actually going on in real situations, and abstracting the argument to this leads to us ignoring much deeper problems.
We currently give parents broad leeway to fuck their kids up, because it's accepted that that's the cost of letting people raise their families as best they know how and in accordance with their beliefs. We don't allow infanticide, because we like to think that there are always other, better options. That's fine, as long as those options exist and it's acknowledged that it's the maintaining of those options securing a good and meaningful life and chance to grow into people with agency that makes this possible.
Regarding the "when does a fetus become a person" question, I think it's largely nonsense to shoot for a crisp definition like "upon conception" or "upon birth", when instead it would be consistent with the way we treat children to say that it generally happens gradually as adulthood is approached. What is personhood if not some function of agency or rights-having status as informed by what we know about the human condition, disabilities, the horrors of eugenics, etc?
I don't understand the line of thought here. You say that personal reasons and hardship justify getting to make the personal choice to abort or not, and when I say that invites scrutinizing a woman's individual choices (with the implication that weakens abortion rights) that's good because some people might look shitty in doing so?