The Abortion Thread

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 9704
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by nicole » 28 May 2019, 14:58

JasonL wrote:
28 May 2019, 14:19
As I mentioned upthread, I'm pro choice pretty much up to the date of delivery but would not have dramatic concerns about restrictions on late term abortions. I generally view the right to bodily autonomy as the paramount moral question in play and I tend the view the issue of personhood through the lens of self reflective mental spaces rather than morphology or genetics. I'm also generally opposed to the argument that a potential for future personhood should matter very much. A non entity future person doesn't in my view have moral standing. A person does.

That said, here is the problem I find most compelling going in the other direction:

If a pregnant woman engages in behavior that it high risk to a fetus, say using heroin in quantity, carries the child to term, there are adverse complications affecting that child such as a cognitive disorder - does the child have any remedy later in life? Is that child abuse or anything at all? Maybe consider both a moral and a legal standpoint - is this behavior wrong, should it be punished under the law.

If the same exact fact pattern exists but instead of carrying to term the mother aborts a week before due date, if there were moral or legal implications - did she do nothing wrong because the moral wrong was to actually have the child?

I find that set of conditions troubling.
I think this is an area where lots of people think there's a morally relevant difference between what the pregnant woman/person does while the fetus exists vs. before it has been conceived, but I don't really think that. E.g., the question "is it okay to make your fetus stupid by taking drugs?" doesn't actually seem to me like it should be different from "is it okay to make your fetus stupid by being stupid and conceiving it with a stupid father?" The result is the same. "Is it okay to make your fetus unhealthy by drinking?" vs "is it okay to make your fetus unhealthy by having a hereditary disease and still deciding to have bio-children?"
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"Sliced bagels aren't why trump won; it's why it doesn't matter who wins." -dhex

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 18772
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by D.A. Ridgely » 29 May 2019, 14:20

As the philosopher Ron White said, you can't fix stupid. And we'll never rid the world of stupid people because there are more of them and they breed more than non-stupid people. More importantly in this context, the law can't (and even if it could, probably shouldn't try to) solve all the various ways parents (who just for the sake of this particular topic I'm stipulating includes pregnant women and the men who impregnated them) can and will be bad parents. Nor can we systematize in a way that will be rationally defensible all the ways the law now regards child abuse and neglect.

In many states, if an unborn but viable child is harmed or killed by a third party attacker, that third party can be held criminally guilty and civilly liable for his acts. I don't think many people think that's wrong. I don't, in any case. But the range of possibilities of whatever constitutes optimal prenatal care and responsible behavior to the unintentional or even intentional behavior of the pregnant mother that is or could be harmful to the unborn is probably endless. For the most part, I think social norms and mores are the preferable method of encouraging pregnant women who do want to see their unborn through to birth to act responsibly, e.g., not smoke or drink alcohol or use recreational drugs, to eat a healthy diet, seek appropriate medical care, etc. We all know that's going to have no effect on the people Nicole are talking about, but I think it's the right approach and far better than dangling the threat of some sort of legal sanctions over women.

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 24243
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by Jennifer » 29 May 2019, 15:23

Clarence Thomas compares birth control and abortion to Nazi eugenics. Because "letting a woman choose whether to be a mother or not" is JUST LIKE "the state murdering people en masse."

Remember when Thomas wrote "I’ll put an end to the idea that a woman’s body belongs to her… the practice of abortion shall be exterminated with a strong hand"? Whoops, my bad -- 'twas actually HITLER who wrote that. And the forced-birthers think he had the right idea.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 24243
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by Jennifer » 07 Jun 2019, 07:07


@kazweida wrote:Missouri state officials are requiring physicians to perform a pelvic exam at least 72 hours before every abortion, a medically unnecessary and invasive procedure doctors say is intended to harass and shame women.
@AmyAddante wrote: Today I was forced by the state of Missouri to perform an unnecessary pelvic exam on a patient terminating her pregnancy for a fetal anomaly. She is heartbroken over her situation and I was forced to do an invasive, uncomfortable exam. It broke me as a physician to do this to her
The important thing is, that sex-havin' slut is being punished.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 24243
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by Jennifer » 14 Jun 2019, 16:42

In Alabama, rape victims are not allowed to abort their rapists' progeny, but rapists ARE granted paternal rights. Despite everything, it is still somehow considered crass to suggest these abortion bans are motivated by "deep-seated issues with women" as opposed to, y'know, love of da babeez.

https://www.knoe.com/content/news/Alaba ... 95642.html

"Alabama court forces rape survivor to allow rapist to have visitation with children"
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
dead_elvis
Posts: 1253
Joined: 01 May 2010, 15:26

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by dead_elvis » 14 Jun 2019, 17:17

Truly horrifying.
"Never forget: a war on undocumented immigrants by necessity is a war on all of our freedoms of association and movement."

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 24243
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by Jennifer » 27 Jun 2019, 15:50

A pregnant Alabama woman who miscarried after being shot has been charged with manslaughter. However, it remains dishonest to say that laws against abortion will also harm women who never intended to get one. The only people who support such laws are the ones who looooove babies and also are 100% free of issues with women's sexuality.

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory ... z2CFo_HVHM
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 18772
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by D.A. Ridgely » 27 Jun 2019, 15:56

Serious question, albeit a bit of a digression from Jennifer's relentless axe-grinding. At last night's debate, when the topic of abortion came up one of the candidates in mid-defense of women's reproductive rights added, obviously on the fly, "and trans people."

Yes, it was unthinking vote pandering and lefty virtue signaling, but my question is: is there actually anything about abortion rights, per se, relevant to transsexuals? Rape is an issue. In fact, a big issue. But abortion?

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 24243
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by Jennifer » 27 Jun 2019, 16:07

Presumably, a transman who still has fully functional female reproductive organs would be punished just as harshly as a ciswoman who loses a pregnancy for whatever reason. And all can take comfort in knowing "The horrors the government is inflicting on me are naught but a bit of axe-grinding from Jennifer. There is nothing to complain about here."
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 18772
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by D.A. Ridgely » 27 Jun 2019, 16:15

Jennifer wrote:
27 Jun 2019, 16:07
Presumably, a transman who still has fully functional female reproductive organs would be punished just as harshly as a ciswoman who loses a pregnancy for whatever reason. And all can take comfort in knowing "The horrors the government is inflicting on me are naught but a bit of axe-grinding from Jennifer. There is nothing to complain about here."
There's no serious question you're axe grinding, whether there's anything to complain about or not. (For the record, there is and I often agree with some of what you say, and keep saying, and keep saying....)

Back to my question, though. Okay, so a F2M transsexual could presumably still become pregnant at some non-surgical stage of the transition. That's fair enough. It is not, however, as far as I know even at the lowest end of transsexuals' concerns except perhaps as a psychological point of solidarity and identity.

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 24243
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by Jennifer » 27 Jun 2019, 16:23

D.A. Ridgely wrote:
27 Jun 2019, 16:15
Jennifer wrote:
27 Jun 2019, 16:07
Presumably, a transman who still has fully functional female reproductive organs would be punished just as harshly as a ciswoman who loses a pregnancy for whatever reason. And all can take comfort in knowing "The horrors the government is inflicting on me are naught but a bit of axe-grinding from Jennifer. There is nothing to complain about here."
There's no serious question you're axe grinding, whether there's anything to complain about or not.
In such specific contexts as "a pregnant woman is facing criminal consequence for losing the fetus after being shot," I'd say there is something to complain about. Especially to libertarians who, in every other context, will talk about the importance of "individual rights" and "keeping innocent people out of prison" and whatnot -- unless the individual is a woman with a fertilized egg inside of her.

Okay, so a F2M transsexual could presumably still become pregnant at some non-surgical stage of the transition. That's fair enough. It is not, however, as far as I know even at the lowest end of transsexuals' concerns except perhaps as a psychological point of solidarity and identity.
Coincidentally, not even a week ago I had someone (who knows me IRL AND knows my civil-liberty record) accuse me of being a transphobe bigot for suggesting that, gender identity notwithstanding, a biologically female adolescent or adult IS going to be physically weaker than a same-size biologically male adolescent or adult, and that human sexual dimorphism is an inherent biological thing to our species rather than a deliberate plot by the patriarchy. Which means -- this sounds like I'm being snarky, but after that thoroughly surreal conversation I don't think I am -- ANYONE capable of getting pregnant has a legit concern, and your focus on the pregnant person's gender identity makes you a bigot (presumably not as bigoted as I am, but still pretty bad), and I'll go on a limb and speculate that your mention here of "transexuals' concerns" is bigoted on at LEAST two levels: one, you suggested they're all a homogenous mass who all think alike; and two, it's transGENDER, not tranSEXUAl, your vile bigoted TERF you.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Ellie
Posts: 12409
Joined: 21 Apr 2010, 18:34

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by Ellie » 27 Jun 2019, 16:30

D.A. Ridgely wrote:
27 Jun 2019, 16:15
Back to my question, though. Okay, so a F2M transsexual could presumably still become pregnant at some non-surgical stage of the transition. That's fair enough. It is not, however, as far as I know even at the lowest end of transsexuals' concerns except perhaps as a psychological point of solidarity and identity.
Yeah, I don't see trans rights and abortion rights as having any overlap whatsoever beyond the (accurate, but one of thousands of similar cases) that we should be saying "pregnant people" instead of "pregnant women" because some nonbinary peeps and trans dudes get knocked up too.

Edited to add: and while as DAR already said, rape is a big problem, and overall the trans community experiences sexual assaults at a higher-than-average rate, the statistics* for rape of trans men and cis women are about the same.

*based on my exhaustive research of 10 seconds on Google, so take that for what it's worth
"2019 has got to stop injecting dmt straight in the dick hole." - dhex

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 28177
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by thoreau » 27 Jun 2019, 16:35

Ellie wrote:
27 Jun 2019, 16:30
Yeah, I don't see trans rights and abortion rights as having any overlap whatsoever beyond the (accurate, but one of thousands of similar cases) that we should be saying "pregnant people" instead of "pregnant women" because some nonbinary peeps and trans dudes get knocked up too.
I get that, but I feel like if I ran around saying "Why do you treat breast cancer as a women's health issue? Cis-men get breast cancer too!" I'd be the jerk.
"They were basically like D&D min maxers, but instead of pissing off their DM, they destroyed the global economy. Also, instead of their DM making a level 7 paladin fight a beholder as punishment, he got a +3 sword of turning."
--Mo

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 18772
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by D.A. Ridgely » 27 Jun 2019, 16:50

Jennifer wrote:
27 Jun 2019, 16:23
Coincidentally, not even a week ago I had someone (who knows me IRL AND knows my civil-liberty record) accuse me of being a transphobe bigot for suggesting that, gender identity notwithstanding, a biologically female adolescent or adult IS going to be physically weaker than a same-size biologically male adolescent or adult, and that human sexual dimorphism is an inherent biological thing to our species rather than a deliberate plot by the patriarchy. Which means -- this sounds like I'm being snarky, but after that thoroughly surreal conversation I don't think I am -- ANYONE capable of getting pregnant has a legit concern, and your focus on the pregnant person's gender identity makes you a bigot (presumably not as bigoted as I am, but still pretty bad), and I'll go on a limb and speculate that your mention here of "transexuals' concerns" is bigoted on at LEAST two levels: one, you suggested they're all a homogenous mass who all think alike; and two, it's transGENDER, not tranSEXUAl, your vile bigoted TERF you.
You misspelled "homogeneous."

Hard to keep up with contemporary LGBQTXYZ terminology, but my previous understanding was that "transgender" is a broader term than "transsexual," the latter referring exclusively or at least primarily to trans people who are committed to one degree or another to transforming their bodies to match their sexual identities, where "sexual" is indeed the binary male or female alternative.

Not being the IRL person who called you a bigot, I will say, however, that both your and your accuser's arguments, at least as you've stated them here, strike me as overly simplistic. Some trans people will have the biologically inherent physical strength advantage or disadvantage of their birth sex and others won't, because there is obviously a vast range from the mean in such biological determinants among members of either sex. Put differently, had I transitioned to female at the absolute tip-top of my male physical prowess, any mid-level woman pro tennis player could still wipe the court with me. Similarly, it doesn't matter if the infantry soldier can't toss the grenade far enough to keep from blowing up the platoon because she's a woman or because he's a guy with below-average (for men) upper body strength, of whom there are many.

If I were to hazard a guess, I'd guess that gestation and recovery periods in homo sapiens had more to do with the sexual selection that resulted in men, on average, having significantly greater upper body strength and that, the law of unintended consequences being what it is, that in turn led to humanity's history of sexual discrimination against women, given that the vast bulk of that history favored physical strength over pretty much any other trait. It's a just-so story, but it makes sense to me as such.

User avatar
Dangerman
Posts: 6732
Joined: 07 May 2010, 12:26

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by Dangerman » 27 Jun 2019, 17:03

There are like sixteen lights at this point. Just keep counting until the pain stops

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 24243
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by Jennifer » 27 Jun 2019, 17:08

D.A. Ridgely wrote:
27 Jun 2019, 16:50
Jennifer wrote:
27 Jun 2019, 16:23
Coincidentally, not even a week ago I had someone (who knows me IRL AND knows my civil-liberty record) accuse me of being a transphobe bigot for suggesting that, gender identity notwithstanding, a biologically female adolescent or adult IS going to be physically weaker than a same-size biologically male adolescent or adult, and that human sexual dimorphism is an inherent biological thing to our species rather than a deliberate plot by the patriarchy. Which means -- this sounds like I'm being snarky, but after that thoroughly surreal conversation I don't think I am -- ANYONE capable of getting pregnant has a legit concern, and your focus on the pregnant person's gender identity makes you a bigot (presumably not as bigoted as I am, but still pretty bad), and I'll go on a limb and speculate that your mention here of "transexuals' concerns" is bigoted on at LEAST two levels: one, you suggested they're all a homogenous mass who all think alike; and two, it's transGENDER, not tranSEXUAl, your vile bigoted TERF you.
You misspelled "homogeneous."
I also said "biological male" rather than "transgirl." Because where semantics are concerned, I am BAD TO THE BONE.
Not being the IRL person who called you a bigot, I will say, however, that both your and your accuser's arguments, at least as you've stated them here, strike me as overly simplistic.
Brief summary: there's a lawsuit brewing in Connecticut (I read one news article about it but cannot re-read it, because I reached the Hartford Courant's free-article limit for the month). According to my friend, some cisgirls on a high school track team are suing because they did poorly compared to their transgirl teammates. The transgirls have been breaking records since joining the team; my friend suggested that, rather than sue their trans teammates, the cisgirls should be INSPIRED by the track records their trans teammates have been breaking. (However, she refused to go into detail regarding what records they broke, or by how much. Also considered dishonest and transphobic to consider the question "Well, let's suppose ALL girls track records end up being held by transgirls; would the cisgirl runners have a legit complaint then?")

Similarly, it doesn't matter if the infantry soldier can't toss the grenade far enough to keep from blowing up the platoon because she's a woman or because he's a guy with below-average (for men) upper body strength, of whom there are many.
My discussion with that woman also veered into the issue of whether or not the US military should continue having separate fitness standards for men and women; my friend assured me that ANY discussion of sexual dimorphism is "a distraction" from the issue of discrimination against trans athletes. (Also, I'm pretty sure it's somehow misogynistic to suggest women might be inherently physically weaker than men, for reasons having entirely to do with biology rather than patriarchal brainwashing.) All this time I thought I was a feminist supporting legal equality for women, when I've actually been the atheist Taliban all along.

I did not bother asking if my principled opposition to "racism" requires me to pretend that, like, my pale pasty ass does NOT need more protection from the Georgia summer sun than my darker-skinned neighbors'. But I'd guess that it does: if opposing sexism requires one to deny sexual dimorphism, then opposing racism presumably should require one to deny different levels of melanin respond differently to the sun.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 24243
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by Jennifer » 27 Jun 2019, 17:40

D.A. Ridgely wrote:
27 Jun 2019, 16:50
If I were to hazard a guess, I'd guess that gestation and recovery periods in homo sapiens had more to do with the sexual selection that resulted in men, on average, having significantly greater upper body strength and that, the law of unintended consequences being what it is, that in turn led to humanity's history of sexual discrimination against women, given that the vast bulk of that history favored physical strength over pretty much any other trait. It's a just-so story, but it makes sense to me as such.
Seems likely to me as well -- especially the idea that humanity's long depressing history of legal misogyny stems precisely from men's greater physical strength relative to women.

Obligatory link to an abstract of an NIH study: "Gender differences in strength and muscle fiber characteristics."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8477683
Strength and muscle characteristics were examined in biceps brachii and vastus lateralis of eight men and eight women. Measurements included motor unit number, size and activation and voluntary strength of the elbow flexors and knee extensors. Fiber areas and type were determined from needle biopsies and muscle areas by computerized tomographical scanning. The women were approximately 52% and 66% as strong as the men in the upper and lower body respectively. The men were also stronger relative to lean body mass. A significant correlation was found between strength and muscle cross-sectional area (CSA; P < or = 0.05). The women had 45, 41, 30 and 25% smaller muscle CSAs for the biceps brachii, total elbow flexors, vastus lateralis and total knee extensors respectively. The men had significantly larger type I fiber areas (4597 vs 3483 microns2) and mean fiber areas (6632 vs 3963 microns2) than the women in biceps brachii and significantly larger type II fiber areas (7700 vs 4040 microns2) and mean fiber areas (7070 vs 4290 microns2) in vastus lateralis. No significant gender difference was found in the strength to CSA ratio for elbow flexion or knee extension, in biceps fiber number (180,620 in men vs 156,872 in women), muscle area to fiber area ratio in the vastus lateralis 451,468 vs 465,007) or any motor unit characteristics. Data suggest that the greater strength of the men was due primarily to larger fibers. The greater gender difference in upper body strength can probably be attributed to the fact that women tend to have a lower proportion of their lean tissue distributed in the upper body.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS).
Thing is -- regarding trans rights and women's rights, and for that matter the issues of racial or ethnic bigotries, too -- of course there is a definite debate to be had, over the question "How do we bring about legal and social equality for all, in a world where inherent inequalities of all types have always existed, and always will?" But, IMO, however this problem is to be solved, I don't think "denying that inherent inequalities exist at all, and anyone claiming otherwise can ONLY be a bigot" is the way to solve it.
Ellie wrote:
27 Jun 2019, 16:30
--stuff--
Quoting Ellie just so you'll get a notification: perchance, might this sub-discussion be broken off into its own thread?
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 15890
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by Aresen » 27 Jun 2019, 19:20

I am honestly unable to keep up with the alphabet soup of 'genders', much less the internecine squabbling between the factions. (It very much reminds me of the quarrels between the 57 different varieties of 'True Marxists' in my university days.)

My attitude is 'whatever and piss on you if you don't like the pronoun I used.'
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Never bring a knife to a joke fight" - dhex

User avatar
lunchstealer
Posts: 17336
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:25
Location: The Local Fluff in the Local Bubble

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by lunchstealer » 28 Jun 2019, 20:36

Aresen wrote:
27 Jun 2019, 19:20
Slagathor am honestly unable to keep up with the alphabet soup of 'genders', much less the internecine squabbling between the factions. (Slagathor very much reminds slagathor of the quarrels between the 57 different varieties of 'True Marxists' in slagathor university days.)

Slagathor attitude is 'slagathorever and piss on slagathor if slagathor don't like the pronoun Slagathor used.'
We talked about this.
"The constitution is more of a BDSM agreement with a safe word." - Sandy

"Neoliberalism. Austerity. Booga booga!!!!" - JasonL

"We can't confirm rumors that Lynndie England is in the running to be Gina Haspel's personal aide." - DAR

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 18772
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by D.A. Ridgely » 28 Jun 2019, 22:24

lunchstealer wrote:
28 Jun 2019, 20:36
Aresen wrote:
27 Jun 2019, 19:20
Slagathor am honestly unable to keep up with the alphabet soup of 'genders', much less the internecine squabbling between the factions. (Slagathor very much reminds slagathor of the quarrels between the 57 different varieties of 'True Marxists' in slagathor university days.)

Slagathor attitude is 'slagathorever and piss on slagathor if slagathor don't like the pronoun Slagathor used.'
We Slagathor talked about this slagathor.
FSFS

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 24243
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: The Abortion Thread

Post by Jennifer » 14 Aug 2019, 17:39

Steve King says he opposes rape and incest exceptions for abortion bans because without rape and incest babies, humanity might run out of people.

Somehow it is still considered beyond the pale to suggest that people seeking to use the power of the state to force pregnant women give birth against their will have issues with women.

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story ... SL0bQDcjCE
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests