Mary and Child

[xxxMidgexxx]

Mary and Child by Born Against

Once again the battle field is your body
and those who want control have laid
Down their terms in black & white
and red all over they keep the backstreet
Butchers in business as advertised from a bullhorn and the all knowing man
Has set up his make-believe graveyard with tiny white crosses for millions of
Make-believe souls someday I'd like to see a cross set up for a real live
Human being who bled to death to maintain the sanctity of mary
'mary & child'
Scream the bigots who couldn't care less about human life obey their self-
Righteous lies while your sisters & daughters die
all decisions are final
your Body is forbidden

[JGJR]

Mary and Child by Born Against

Once again the battle field is your body
and those who want control have laid
Down their terms in black & white
and red all over they keep the backstreet
Butchers in business as advertised from a bullhorn and the all knowing man
Has set up his make-believe graveyard with tiny white crosses for millions of
Make-believe souls someday I'd like to see a cross set up for a real live
Human being who bled to death to maintain the sanctity of mary
'mary & child'
Scream the bigots who couldn't care less about human life obey their self-
Righteous lies while your sisters & daughters die all decisions are final your
Body is forbidden

This song has been on my mind quite a bit lately.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5505&p=80846&hilit=born+against#p80842

[jaybird]

At the risk of further alienating the good posters of Daghouse, I'll go on record as saying Roe v. Wade was a bad decision, based on questionable legal/logical premises, and that the country, and the long-term legality of abortion would have been better served if it had been left to the States to determine gradually, rather than by legal fiat in 1973. It has mostly just poisoned American politics for nearly 50 years running.

But don't just take my word for it:

“My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum on the side of change,” Ginsburg said. She would’ve preferred that abortion rights be secured more gradually, in a process that included state legislatures and the courts, she added. Ginsburg also was troubled that the focus on Roe was on a right to privacy, rather than women’s rights.

https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/justi ... hool-visit

[xxxMidgexxx]

Her body, her choice.
Not mine, not yours and certainly not the government's. Regardless of what part of the map you're standing on.

[jaybird]

Her body, her choice.
Not mine, not yours and certainly not the government's. Regardless of what part of the map you're standing on.

Well, that's certainly an opinion shared by many. But approximately half of the country sincerely disagrees with that point of view to at least some extent. And when perhaps the greatest legal advocate for women's rights and equality over the last 60 years frankly admits that Roe v. Wade rests on shaky legal foundations, that would seem to pose a serious problem for the pro-choice side of the issue... It's been a long time coming, and people who were really attuned to the real-deal legal arguments underpinning the decision have seen the writing on the wall for at least the last decade or so. So I'm not that surprised that it finally looks like RvW is on the verge of being significantly curtailed, if not overturned outright.

That's the just way the fetus fumbles, or something.

[xxxMidgexxx]

Her body, her choice.
Not mine, not yours and certainly not the government's. Regardless of what part of the map you're standing on.

Well, that's certainly an opinion shared by many. But approximately half of the country sincerely disagrees with that point of view to at least some extent. And when perhaps the greatest legal advocate for women's rights and equality over the last 60 years frankly admits that Roe v. Wade rests on shaky legal foundations, that would seem to pose a serious problem for the pro-choice side of the issue... It's been a long time coming, and people who were really attuned to the real-deal legal arguments underpinning the decision have seen the writing on the wall for at least the last decade or so. So I'm not that surprised that it finally looks like RvW is on the verge of being significantly curtailed, if not overturned outright.

That's the just way the fetus fumbles, or something.

If this country thought that they saw public outrage on a big scale while BLM were burning down sheriffs’ offices, just wait until Roe is overturned. The magnitude of blowback will be epic.

[SamDBL]

I have thought long and hard about abortion. I still can’t make a call. Not being a religious person, I don’t believe in gods will or that soul enters a fertilized egg, or whatever. So, like, a morning after pill makes total sense. It’s an inconsequential glob of cells.
On the other hand, we *all* agree that a baby a day before it is ejected from a pussy is exactly the same as a new born infant. Therefore, I assume we would all agree that an abortion the day before birth is kind of fucked.
So *somewhere* there is a line of when abortion is ok, and when it becomes not ok. I have been unable to determine where that line is. I don’t thing the heartbeat/viability dividers are that compelling.
Anyway, the roe v wade thing is interesting to me. I’ve always heard it is not a masterpiece, legally speaking. I have no idea. I can’t imagine the Supreme Court justices want to pull the pin on that grenade. But I certainly have been surprised by a ton of shit, politically, in the last 5 or so years. If they did shit can it, I think people would lose their minds. I don’t know that the protests would be violent riots like many of the blm things were. For the simple reason that the blm riots had a lot of males present. I assume whatever protests would happen for roe v wade would be more populated by females and Uber betas, for the most part. A much less violent demographic.

[kel]

..we *all* agree that a baby a day before it is ejected from a pussy is exactly the same as a new born infant. Therefore, I assume we would all agree that an abortion the day before birth is kind of fucked.
So *somewhere* there is a line of when abortion is ok, and when it becomes not ok. I have been unable to determine where that line is.

And that's the rub, no?

"Life" is a concept that seems to change when different species are involved: Smash an endangered California condor's egg? You're gonna get rightly keelhauled, and no one prosecuting will question if that fertilized egg might or might not equal a baby condor. Literally headlines were written last time a "precious egg" was found, no debate or differing opinions on its worth.
Smash a human fetus? "Ahem, very complex issue that's, uh, well, we don't really know if -or when- that's a life or not, existentially speaking..."

I doubt this is soley because there's lots of unvalued people and not a lot of valued large birds.

There's definitely shifting codes of when it's okay to take a life. (I enjoyed David Grossman's book "On Killing" which explores the processes we as humans go through to make the unnatural act of killing more acceptable. (BTW: I don't recall the book discussing euthanasia, abortion, or such... It's mostly about combat.) One way he points out is the dehumanizing process. Call the enemy a degrading slang term, cartoon them, make them in every and any way less and different than one's fellow person, and it becomes easier to take their life. History showed that fewer people were able to kill their neighbors down the street in the U.S. Civil war, because they were folks that looked and talked just like you. But enemies in WWII on any side of the quarrels? They were made into characters: Gaijin, Krauts, Japs, etc. that had funny skin or different names, strange diets, and such. Makes it easier to kill someone when they aren't known to you.)

Similarly, very few unprimed people will kill a baby, or stomp a condor egg flat. But a ball of cells? Something they've been taught isn't like them, just a confusingly-named sequence of genes and debatable trimestered dates and stuff? Makes it easier to get over.

I don’t know that the protests would be violent riots like many of the blm things were. For the simple reason that the blm riots had a lot of males present. I assume whatever protests would happen for roe v wade would be more populated by females and Uber betas, for the most part. A much less violent demographic.

Spot on. You've got a different demographic there.

There's also different levels of violence that comes from people that have more (or less) to lose in their 'real life' / day job, families, finances, etc.

Example:
• As a political statement, a protestor smokes weed on the D.C. Capitol steps to protest drug laws, and gets arrested.
No problem for them: that arrest record won't stop them from continued use of drugs that were illegal in the first place.
• As a political statement, a protestor carries a firearm across the D.C. bridge from a free state to protest gun laws, and gets arrested.
Problem: that arrest could cost them their rights to continue to legally own them in the future back in their home state.

That analogy would probably have some crossover in the BLM vs. potential abortion protest comparisons. From what I saw in Portland, and my earlier experiences of spending some time at the WTO riots waybackwhen in Seattle (similar crowd, IMHO)... I frankly wouldn't characterize many of the folks I saw tossing bricks through windows to be too worried about arrests complicating their going back to a stable day job and house payments. Whereas abortion rights folks are more spread through all levels of society, with many having say, houses and jobs that don't jibe well with being detained and arraigned.

Shrug. It's always easier to burn down a city if you didn't pay the taxes to build it.



"When you ain't got nothing, you got nothing to lose." - Bob Dylan

[JGJR]

Her body, her choice.
Not mine, not yours and certainly not the government's. Regardless of what part of the map you're standing on.

This. If men were able to get pregnant, they'd be performing that shit at CVS and Duane Reade and morning after pills would be sold like Tic-Tacs.

You all are entitled to your own opinions, of course, but I'm not gonna lie and say that this thread/discussion really bums me out as does any right-wing leanings in punk.

[xxxMidgexxx]

I have thought long and hard about abortion. I still can’t make a call. Not being a religious person, I don’t believe in gods will or that soul enters a fertilized egg, or whatever. So, like, a morning after pill makes total sense. It’s an inconsequential glob of cells.
On the other hand, we *all* agree that a baby a day before it is ejected from a pussy is exactly the same as a new born infant. Therefore, I assume we would all agree that an abortion the day before birth is kind of fucked.
So *somewhere* there is a line of when abortion is ok, and when it becomes not ok. I have been unable to determine where that line is. I don’t thing the heartbeat/viability dividers are that compelling.
Anyway, the roe v wade thing is interesting to me. I’ve always heard it is not a masterpiece, legally speaking. I have no idea. I can’t imagine the Supreme Court justices want to pull the pin on that grenade. But I certainly have been surprised by a ton of shit, politically, in the last 5 or so years. If they did shit can it, I think people would lose their minds. I don’t know that the protests would be violent riots like many of the blm things were. For the simple reason that the blm riots had a lot of males present. I assume whatever protests would happen for roe v wade would be more populated by females and Uber betas, for the most part. A much less violent demographic.

I would say that I agree with this entire statement. Sad part is that there are many right wing talking heads who try to convince gullible Americans that abortions are being carried out within a few minutes (or even AFTER) birth; which is NOT happening. At least not legally. I have family members who believe this bullshit. Especially my mom who watches Fox News for most of her day. And a few short years ago, she got herself all bothered because Carly Fiorina was running for POTUS on the premise that she would put an end to these 'murders'.

[captain2man]

The argument of the pro-life / anti-abortion movement is that the fetus is a living, human being - and that killing a fetus is tantamount to murder.

In that case, will we now be granting fetuses citizenship? Will a fetus get a Social Security Number? Will we now consider the date of conception as the date of birth and retroactively make all of us nine months older than we are right now?

Will a fetus who kills the mother during childbirth be tried for murder? Conversely, can a woman under threat of dying in childbirth legally abort the child under the grounds of self-defense?

If the answer is "no" to all of these, then we are admitting there is a difference between a fetus and a human being who exited the birth canal and had the umbilical cord cut.

Abortion is another wedge issue that will only divide the country and will continue to. Roe v. Wade being overturned sends it to the states. In some states it will be legal, in some states it won't (and in many states - it'll be instant since they already have laws on the books that will immediately go into effect upon the repeal of the Roe decision).

The rich will always find a way to get abortions....pocket change to travel to a state where it's legal. So, it's just another way that a law will give rise to inequity based on class. Look for a major crime surge in about 15-20 years as well.

[JGJR]

The argument of the pro-life / anti-abortion movement is that the fetus is a living, human being - and that killing a fetus is tantamount to murder.

In that case, will we now be granting fetuses citizenship? Will a fetus get a Social Security Number? Will we now consider the date of conception as the date of birth and retroactively make all of us nine months older than we are right now?

Will a fetus who kills the mother during childbirth be tried for murder? Conversely, can a woman under threat of dying in childbirth legally abort the child under the grounds of self-defense?

If the answer is "no" to all of these, then we are admitting there is a difference between a fetus and a human being who exited the birth canal and had the umbilical cord cut.

Abortion is another wedge issue that will only divide the country and will continue to. Roe v. Wade being overturned sends it to the states. In some states it will be legal, in some states it won't (and in many states - it'll be instant since they already have laws on the books that will immediately go into effect upon the repeal of the Roe decision).

The rich will always find a way to get abortions....pocket change to travel to a state where it's legal. So, it's just another way that a law will give rise to inequity based on class. Look for a major crime surge in about 15-20 years as well.

Thanks for bringing that up. This is honestly what REALLY gives me pause beside the personal liberty/keep your laws off my body angle (which is a big one, too). I first read about this connection in Freakonomics and it was referenced on Orange is the New Black as well and probably other places. It's the type of thing that I don't think can be directly proven for obvious reasons, but it makes sense to me. It's not a coincidence that crime dropped so much in the '90s (and has basically stayed the same since).

[SamDBL]

This. If men were able to get pregnant,

Dude, get with the times. Men can indeed menstruate, get pregnant, etc. You're undermining trans theory with your antiquated right-wing assertions.

[jaybird]

Her body, her choice.
Not mine, not yours and certainly not the government's. Regardless of what part of the map you're standing on.

This. If men were able to get pregnant, they'd be performing that shit at CVS and Duane Reade and morning after pills would be sold like Tic-Tacs.

You all are entitled to your own opinions, of course, but I'm not gonna lie and say that this thread/discussion really bums me out as does any right-wing leanings in punk.

Speaking for myself, I do count myself on the pro-choice side of the issue. But at the same time, I can't pretend to ignore that there are long-standing, and serious criticisms of the legal strategy and rationale that upholds Roe v. Wade, even from people who are solidly liberal in their credentials, as RBG was. And frankly, the idea that discussing the issue from a legally critical standpoint is "unpunk" or whatever, is immature and ridiculous.

I do think it's odd though that anti-abortion views are necessarily considered "right-wing"... I mean, I realize that anti-abortion views currently are considered right-wing in the U.S., but there's no reason that being against abortion HAS to be right-wing when you consider that it has many commonalities and over-lapping arguments with such causes as veganism/animal rights, the abolitionist and civil rights movements, etc., all which have been historically seen as left-wing, emancipatory struggles against social or political structures that deny representation or rights to supposed "non-persons". I think there's a good argument to be made that the current "right-wing" designation of anti-abortion activism is more due to contingent historical and social circumstance than any necessary a-priori political commitments... to put it another way, i don't think being anti-abortion is necessarily "right-wing" in the way that say, laissez-faire economics tends to be. In fact, the more doctrinaire libertarians out there tend to be solidly pro-choice, and see anti-abortion views as being inherently collectivist and statist.

Look for a major crime surge in about 15-20 years as well.

Thanks for bringing that up. This is honestly what REALLY gives me pause beside the personal liberty/keep your laws off my body angle (which is a big one, too). I first read about this connection in Freakonomics and it was referenced on Orange is the New Black as well and probably other places. It's the type of thing that I don't think can be directly proven for obvious reasons, but it makes sense to me. It's not a coincidence that crime dropped so much in the '90s (and has basically stayed the same since).

I agree that there is a strong correlation with the availability of abortion and lowered crime rates. I'd also note that this is a much noted and gleefully promoted argument among white-supremacists, for obvious reasons that i don't need to elaborate. So just saying, this is not an argument without seriously ugly follow-on "right-wing" implications.

[jaybird]

This. If men were able to get pregnant,

Dude, get with the times. Men can indeed menstruate, get pregnant, etc. You're undermining trans theory with your antiquated right-wing assertions.

[FormerLurker]

lol

[JGJR]

This. If men were able to get pregnant,

Dude, get with the times. Men can indeed menstruate, get pregnant, etc. You're undermining trans theory with your antiquated right-wing assertions.

I know the above is satire, but c'mon man. I meant biological males, obviously. Now if you want to get into gender identity/constructs, trans identities, etc. that's fine, but we should do it in another thread or privately just to keep the focus on the matter at hand (can't believe I'm typing that since I sometimes diverge/deviate like crazy in any given thread, but fuck it). I can promise that it won't be that much fun for anyone, though. I take anti-trans shit personally for reasons I won't go into now.

[JGJR]

I agree that there is a strong correlation with the availability of abortion and lowered crime rates. I'd also note that this is a much noted and gleefully promoted argument among white-supremacists, for obvious reasons that i don't need to elaborate. So just saying, this is not an argument without seriously ugly follow-on "right-wing" implications.

Well, a broken clock can still be right twice a day.

[FormerLurker]

LOL "If only the justices had listened to this Born Against song before ruling."

[jaybird]

LOL "If only the justices had listened to this Born Against song before ruling."

[JGJR]

I do think it's odd though that anti-abortion views are necessarily considered "right-wing"... I mean, I realize that anti-abortion views currently are considered right-wing in the U.S., but there's no reason that being against abortion HAS to be right-wing when you consider that it has many commonalities and over-lapping arguments with such causes as veganism/animal rights, the abolitionist and civil rights movements, etc., all which have been historically seen as left-wing, emancipatory struggles against social or political structures that deny representation or rights to supposed "non-persons". I think there's a good argument to be made that the current "right-wing" designation of anti-abortion activism is more due to contingent historical and social circumstance than any necessary a-priori political commitments... to put it another way, i don't think being anti-abortion is necessarily "right-wing" in the way that say, laissez-faire economics tends to be. In fact, the more doctrinaire libertarians out there tend to be solidly pro-choice, and see anti-abortion views as being inherently collectivist and statist.

I see what you're saying here, especially about the statist/libertarian argument, and the entire Hardline movement pretty much proved you correct in terms of the connection between anti-choice folks and vegan/animal rights folks, but that isn't representative at all of most vegans/animal rights people at all, at least in my experience.

Furthermore (and believe me they do their best to hide this), but the modern anti-abortion movement has its roots going back to the segregation era (and anti-segregation efforts in general) as well as Phyllis Schlafly and others who were emboldened by Barry Goldwater in 1964 until Reagan was elected in 1980 with the help of religious conservatives who have been dominating the political discourse (though they are a relative small but still sizable minority in the U.S.) ever since then on this issue and others.

Also, just to clarify, I never said that discussing this issue from a legal standpoint or any other is "unpunk" (whatever that means), just that old punks who are now right-wingers or always were just bum me out. If you choose to take that personally, that's on you, but it's how I feel. Society/the system/the world in general is right-wing enough without having it infiltrate a group I choose to spend my free time in.

[JGJR]

LOL "If only the justices had listened to this Born Against song before ruling."

Should be blared outside of there 24/7 if I was in charge of things until it's an inalienable right along with food, shelter, water, any other form of health care, et al.

[SamDBL]

This. If men were able to get pregnant,

Dude, get with the times. Men can indeed menstruate, get pregnant, etc. You're undermining trans theory with your antiquated right-wing assertions.

I know the above is satire, but c'mon man. I meant biological males, obviously. Now if you want to get into gender identity/constructs, trans identities, etc. that's fine, but we should do it in another thread or privately just to keep the focus on the matter at hand (can't believe I'm typing that since I sometimes diverge/deviate like crazy in any given thread, but fuck it). I can promise that it won't be that much fun for anyone, though. I take anti-trans shit personally for reasons I won't go into now.

It’s not satire. I knew exactly what you were saying. But if you have signed on to the prevailing left idea that trans males and females *are* males and females, full stop, then this distinction you are making is incoherent. Whoopi Goldberg is getting hammered as transphobic as we speak for making the same claim on the View that you just did. The more sensible legacy libs of 10-15 years ago have blindly backed this completely reality-free ideology for no good reason. And the abortion debate is going to be a perfect illustrator, for anyone paying attention, of how ludicrous gender ideology and reality are non-compatable. Hell, making the simple declaration that you just did, that bio males are different from trans males, is enough to get you suspended from most social media platforms. Just sayin’. The ‘men can’t get pregnant’ argument is totally out-dated. If you still want to use it, you’d have to reject the gender-is-divorced-from-biology bullshit… which is what I choose to do.

For the record, I didn’t say anything anti trans… you did.

[SamDBL]

LOL "If only the justices had listened to this Born Against song before ruling."

[JGJR]

This. If men were able to get pregnant,

Dude, get with the times. Men can indeed menstruate, get pregnant, etc. You're undermining trans theory with your antiquated right-wing assertions.

I know the above is satire, but c'mon man. I meant biological males, obviously. Now if you want to get into gender identity/constructs, trans identities, etc. that's fine, but we should do it in another thread or privately just to keep the focus on the matter at hand (can't believe I'm typing that since I sometimes diverge/deviate like crazy in any given thread, but fuck it). I can promise that it won't be that much fun for anyone, though. I take anti-trans shit personally for reasons I won't go into now.

It’s not satire. I knew exactly what you were saying. But if you have signed on to the prevailing left idea that trans males and females *are* males and females, full stop, then this distinction you are making is incoherent. Whoopi Goldberg is getting hammered as transphobic as we speak for making the same claim on the View that you just did. The more sensible legacy libs of 10-15 years ago have blindly backed this completely reality-free ideology for no good reason. And the abortion debate is going to be a perfect illustrator, for anyone paying attention, of how ludicrous gender ideology and reality are non-compatable. Hell, making the simple declaration that you just did, that bio males are different from trans males, is enough to get you suspended from most social media platforms. Just sayin’. The ‘men can’t get pregnant’ argument is totally out-dated. If you still want to use it, you’d have to reject the gender-is-divorced-from-biology bullshit… which is what I choose to do.

For the record, I didn’t say anything anti trans… you did.

Well, it's a good thing that I'm not a "legacy liberal" or any other kind of ideology that's acceptable in today's polarized, 2-party system hyper-partisan world, though to be fair during the '90s and '00s (especially during the Bush years), I would've proudly called myself a liberal. I'm officially a Democratic Socialist (I'd call myself a libertarian socialist in years past and still do occasionally, but labels are less important than ideas, of course), but really just a leftist who's just skeptical of any kind of authority.

I'd have to see this Whoopi thing for myself since I don't typically watch The View (I find it really really limiting and frustrating in terms of its perspectives and occasinally infuriating like when Meghan McCain speaks), so I don't know the context here, but I stand by what I said.

I'm not saying anything anti-trans, so please don't accuse me of that and if some keyboard warrior who wasn't even born when I was going to pro-choice marches and working to defeat Nazis running for Senate in the deep South wants to do that, fine come at me.

I'l put it to you another way so we can (hopefully) put this side-topic (you diverted this) to rest. Just because trans women (those who were born male biologically) can't get pregnant nor do they menstruate doesn't negate the sentiment of what I wrote. It would still be true.

At the end of the day, I don't care that much about who's considered male or female or whatever social wedge issue the powers that be want us to all obsess over. I care way more that we're getting into another Cold War (this time with China) and about environmental destruction, not to mention the ever-shifting pendulum of wealth going towards the top 0.1% or less over the past 40+ years and accelerated recently.

[SamDBL]

So, in essence, saying that a person born female, then transitioned to male *is* a male even if she still has a vagina and uterus and that any other claim is transphobic and people should be punished for suggesting otherwise is well and good until it comes down to brass tax and comes in conflict with a concrete issue such as abortion rights. Then it's totally acceptable to write the whole thing off with some 'aw shucks/not really/you know what I mean' bullshit. Besides being totally disingenuous, I don't think that'd sit too well with transgender activists I assume you align yourself with.

The reason I don't whole sale buy into the gender ideology thing is precisely because I knew it would contaminate all of the actual gender issues in the world. Sexism, abortion, pay gap, sports, etc. Real issues. All of this has to be re-calibrated if you accept the new anti-reality that anyone can be a male or female just by speaking it so. No offense, but talking to you about this stuff makes me realize how little thought has been put into the consequences of blindly accepting these absolutely drastic world views.

And it's not an unrelated side-topic. Transgender ideology is at the forefront of American politics. The left made it so. So now we are all just supposed to forget about that for the time being because it's inconvenient to the argument? How can you say that gender has nothing to do with the abortion rights debate when it is the center of your argument?

[JGJR]

So, in essence, saying that a person born female, then transitioned to male *is* a male even if she still has a vagina and uterus and that any other claim is transphobic and people should be punished for suggesting otherwise is well and good until it comes down to brass tax and comes in conflict with a concrete issue such as abortion rights. Then it's totally acceptable to write the whole thing off with some 'aw shucks/not really/you know what I mean' bullshit. Besides being totally disingenuous, I don't think that'd sit too well with transgender activists I assume you align yourself with.

The reason I don't whole sale buy into the gender ideology thing is precisely because I knew it would contaminate all of the actual gender issues in the world. Sexism, abortion, pay gap, sports, etc. Real issues. All of this has to be re-calibrated if you accept the new anti-reality that anyone can be a male or female just by speaking it so. No offense, but talking to you about this stuff makes me realize how little thought has been put into the consequences of blindly accepting these absolutely drastic world views.

And it's not an unrelated side-topic. Transgender ideology is at the forefront of American politics. The left made it so. So now we are all just supposed to forget about that for the time being because it's inconvenient to the argument? How can you say that gender has nothing to do with the abortion rights debate when it is the center of your argument?

Christ. This is why I normally don't talk politics on the internet. If you presume that I'm being disingenuous and if you think that my responses are thoughless, we can't have a serious discussion. I'll leave it at that.

[jaybird]

I do think it's odd though that anti-abortion views are necessarily considered "right-wing"... I mean, I realize that anti-abortion views currently are considered right-wing in the U.S., but there's no reason that being against abortion HAS to be right-wing when you consider that it has many commonalities and over-lapping arguments with such causes as veganism/animal rights, the abolitionist and civil rights movements, etc., all which have been historically seen as left-wing, emancipatory struggles against social or political structures that deny representation or rights to supposed "non-persons". I think there's a good argument to be made that the current "right-wing" designation of anti-abortion activism is more due to contingent historical and social circumstance than any necessary a-priori political commitments... to put it another way, i don't think being anti-abortion is necessarily "right-wing" in the way that say, laissez-faire economics tends to be. In fact, the more doctrinaire libertarians out there tend to be solidly pro-choice, and see anti-abortion views as being inherently collectivist and statist.

I see what you're saying here, especially about the statist/libertarian argument, and the entire Hardline movement pretty much proved you correct in terms of the connection between anti-choice folks and vegan/animal rights folks, but that isn't representative at all of most vegans/animal rights people at all, at least in my experience.

I agree that most people who espouse vegan/animal rights views fail to carry over the implications of those philosophies into the abortion issue, but I would say that's a glaring contradiction/failure of logical consistency on their part... I have an extremely difficult time understanding the logic that say, eating a fried egg sandwich is more morally problematic than aborting a 15-week-old fetus... but that's whole 'nother argument.

Furthermore (and believe me they do their best to hide this), but the modern anti-abortion movement has its roots going back to the segregation era (and anti-segregation efforts in general) as well as Phyllis Schlafly and others who were emboldened by Barry Goldwater in 1964 until Reagan was elected in 1980 with the help of religious conservatives who have been dominating the political discourse (though they are a relative small but still sizable minority in the U.S.) ever since then on this issue and others.

That's true... partisans on both sides of the issue have their dirty laundry and embarrassing things in the history of their causes that they'd just rather not discuss anymore:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/ ... -eugenics/

Also, just to clarify, I never said that discussing this issue from a legal standpoint or any other is "unpunk" (whatever that means), just that old punks who are now right-wingers or always were just bum me out. If you choose to take that personally, that's on you, but it's how I feel. Society/the system/the world in general is right-wing enough without having it infiltrate a group I choose to spend my free time in.

Fair enough... I don't think anyone here has made any straight up anti-abortion arguments... for my own part, I simply think that there's plenty of evidence RvW was a legally dubious decision... it tried to do too much, too fast, with the result of basically turning a significant portion of the American electorate into scorched-earth, single-issue voters over the next 50 years... which is almost never a good development, IMO. I think it's likely that millions of people who would have otherwise been dependable members of the Democratic voter bloc have been voting against their economic interests for the last several decades for no other reason than on the basis of antipathy toward abortion. Had Roe been decided on a narrower basis, and not simply invalidated all nationwide anti-abortion legislation at a stroke, it would likely have not been the sort of wedge-issue it ultimately became. And I don't think acknowledgement or frank discussion of the deficiencies or weaknesses of Roe's legal standing and strategy is "right wing" whatsoever. That seems more like fearful refusal to face reality. But that's just me.

[SamDBL]

So, in essence, saying that a person born female, then transitioned to male *is* a male even if she still has a vagina and uterus and that any other claim is transphobic and people should be punished for suggesting otherwise is well and good until it comes down to brass tax and comes in conflict with a concrete issue such as abortion rights. Then it's totally acceptable to write the whole thing off with some 'aw shucks/not really/you know what I mean' bullshit. Besides being totally disingenuous, I don't think that'd sit too well with transgender activists I assume you align yourself with.

The reason I don't whole sale buy into the gender ideology thing is precisely because I knew it would contaminate all of the actual gender issues in the world. Sexism, abortion, pay gap, sports, etc. Real issues. All of this has to be re-calibrated if you accept the new anti-reality that anyone can be a male or female just by speaking it so. No offense, but talking to you about this stuff makes me realize how little thought has been put into the consequences of blindly accepting these absolutely drastic world views.

And it's not an unrelated side-topic. Transgender ideology is at the forefront of American politics. The left made it so. So now we are all just supposed to forget about that for the time being because it's inconvenient to the argument? How can you say that gender has nothing to do with the abortion rights debate when it is the center of your argument?

Christ. This is why I normally don't talk politics on the internet. If you presume that I'm being disingenuous and if you think that my responses are thoughless, we can't have a serious discussion. I'll leave it at that.

The fuck? You lob that shit at me all the time. 'Keyboard warrior', 'read a book', etc. I'm not saying you, personally, are thoughtless or disingenuous. I'm just saying this line of thought on the trans stuff in relation to actual male/female issues would lead *anyone* to make those errors. There's no way around it.

[SamDBL]

I do think it's odd though that anti-abortion views are necessarily considered "right-wing"... I mean, I realize that anti-abortion views currently are considered right-wing in the U.S., but there's no reason that being against abortion HAS to be right-wing when you consider that it has many commonalities and over-lapping arguments with such causes as veganism/animal rights, the abolitionist and civil rights movements, etc., all which have been historically seen as left-wing, emancipatory struggles against social or political structures that deny representation or rights to supposed "non-persons". I think there's a good argument to be made that the current "right-wing" designation of anti-abortion activism is more due to contingent historical and social circumstance than any necessary a-priori political commitments... to put it another way, i don't think being anti-abortion is necessarily "right-wing" in the way that say, laissez-faire economics tends to be. In fact, the more doctrinaire libertarians out there tend to be solidly pro-choice, and see anti-abortion views as being inherently collectivist and statist.

I see what you're saying here, especially about the statist/libertarian argument, and the entire Hardline movement pretty much proved you correct in terms of the connection between anti-choice folks and vegan/animal rights folks, but that isn't representative at all of most vegans/animal rights people at all, at least in my experience.

I agree that most people who espouse vegan/animal rights views fail to carry over the implications of those philosophies into the abortion issue, but I would say that's a glaring contradiction/failure of logical consistency on their part... I have an extremely difficult hard time understanding the logic that say, eating a fried egg sandwich is more morally problematic than aborting a 15-week-old fetus... but that's whole 'nother argument.

Furthermore (and believe me they do their best to hide this), but the modern anti-abortion movement has its roots going back to the segregation era (and anti-segregation efforts in general) as well as Phyllis Schlafly and others who were emboldened by Barry Goldwater in 1964 until Reagan was elected in 1980 with the help of religious conservatives who have been dominating the political discourse (though they are a relative small but still sizable minority in the U.S.) ever since then on this issue and others.

That's true... partisans on both sides of the issue have their dirty laundry and embarrassing things in the history of their causes that they'd just rather not discuss anymore:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/ ... -eugenics/

Also, just to clarify, I never said that discussing this issue from a legal standpoint or any other is "unpunk" (whatever that means), just that old punks who are now right-wingers or always were just bum me out. If you choose to take that personally, that's on you, but it's how I feel. Society/the system/the world in general is right-wing enough without having it infiltrate a group I choose to spend my free time in.

Fair enough... I don't think anyone here has made any straight up anti-abortion arguments... for my own part, I simply think that there's plenty of evidence RvW was a legally dubious decision... it tried to do too much, too fast, with the result of basically turning a significant portion of the American electorate into scorched-earth, single-issue voters over the next 50 years... which is almost never a good development, IMO. I think it's likely that millions of people who would have otherwise been dependable members of the Democratic voter bloc have been voting against their economic interests for the last several decades for no other reason than on the basis of antipathy toward abortion. Had Roe been decided on a narrower basis, and not simply invalidated all nationwide anti-abortion legislation at a stroke, it would likely have not been the sort of wedge-issue it ultimately became. And I don't think acknowledgement or frank discussion of the deficiencies or weaknesses of Roe's legal standing and strategy is "right wing" whatsoever. That seems more like fearful refusal to face reality. But that's just me.

That's basic operating procedure these days. A very simple, reasoned critique can't be taken at face-value without being labeled 'right-wing', which is now code for 'white supremacist', which gives the out of 'I don't have to entertain this conversation because you're evil'. Good luck convincing people of stuff with that tactic.

[SamDBL]

I feel like it was just yesterday that we were having terminology like ‘pregnant people’ and ‘chest feeding’ being introduced into the mainstream discourse. Lol.

[jaybird]

I feel like it was just yesterday that we were having terminology like ‘pregnant people’ and ‘chest feeding’ being introduced into the mainstream discourse. Lol.

[xxxMidgexxx]

[kel]

I do think it's odd though that anti-abortion views are necessarily considered "right-wing"... In fact, the more doctrinaire libertarians out there tend to be solidly pro-choice, and see anti-abortion views as being inherently collectivist and statist.

In the case of libertarians that don't believe life starts in the womb, I can see the "it's best to have no laws at all unless the law prevents harm to others"* maxim applying.


In the case of libertarians that believe life begins in the womb, there is a harm to others: a prenatal child has the natural right to be in the mother's body, and both the father and mother owe the growing fetus protection from harm. Some libertarians believe that no government can legally "de-person" a born or preborn person and deprive them of their rights.


In the case of the "right wing", I don't think their stance is terribly odd: It's generally accepted that "the right" tends to let Judeo-Christian spiritual values inform their moral sytems and thus their laws.

When it comes to consensual sex outside of marriage, or just choosing sexual mores that allow for procreating without taking responsibility for a child/disease/etc afterwards... then it seems natural that abortion would be viewed as a voluntary choice that follows another voluntary choice*. If one's spiritual guidelines say "Our moral code says we're not supposed to do that, it's wrong behavior that has consequences." then it's not odd that someone that "does wrong" isn't let off the hook for another downstream wrong. If the rulebook says "don't walk into traffic until the crosswalk light comes on to let you know it's okay to do so" and then someone gets killed walking into 70mph traffic, there's simply not going to be a huge momentum to build overpasses. The system was already set up to protect people.

I'd posit that the whole divisive debate is at least 90% entirely preventable by the woman's choice. Whether that's the woman choosing not to have sex outside of marriage, her choice to sterilize, her choice to simply say "no" when she doesn't want lifetime repercussions. Modern-age females are in control of the issue except in a small percentage of evil, forced crimes.

For a man or a woman, there's never been such a thing as actions without consequences. It seems an awful lot of the debate is over people not wanting to own theirs.





*But now we're back to "is abortion doing harm to a human life" conundrum and forever lost in deciding what timeline or event causes a human to be a human. As in the example above, is smashing a fertilized condor egg doing harm to an avian life? Can you kill a preemie baby with impunity just because it popped out too early? Is life only based on being able to draw air unassisted, have a heartbeat, etc.? How do these values apply to the old, hanicapped, or infirm?

**Just used the first random Google result, a USA Today article: "Just 1% of women obtain an abortion because they became pregnant through rape, and less than 0.5% do so because of incest" ... "exceptions for rape and incest are much more "symbolic than they are relevant," given that they don't apply to the majority of women having abortions." If that's a sticking point, pad talking points an extra 10% or something, but "largely voluntary" and "red herring" descriptors are still appropriate.

[kel]

Have you met our personal lord and savior, "Humbuckers"?

[xxxMidgexxx]

Have you met our personal lord and savior, "Humbuckers"?

[jaybird]

[quote="j
I'd posit that the whole divisive debate is at least 90% entirely preventable by the woman's choice. .

Now you've done it.

[JGJR]

Fair enough... I don't think anyone here has made any straight up anti-abortion arguments... for my own part, I simply think that there's plenty of evidence RvW was a legally dubious decision... it tried to do too much, too fast, with the result of basically turning a significant portion of the American electorate into scorched-earth, single-issue voters over the next 50 years... which is almost never a good development, IMO. I think it's likely that millions of people who would have otherwise been dependable members of the Democratic voter bloc have been voting against their economic interests for the last several decades for no other reason than on the basis of antipathy toward abortion. Had Roe been decided on a narrower basis, and not simply invalidated all nationwide anti-abortion legislation at a stroke, it would likely have not been the sort of wedge-issue it ultimately became. And I don't think acknowledgement or frank discussion of the deficiencies or weaknesses of Roe's legal standing and strategy is "right wing" whatsoever. That seems more like fearful refusal to face reality. But that's just me.

I see what you're saying here, but my counter-argument to it is this. I've long said that the period in time from the mid '50's to the early '70s was one of the most historically significant periods for long-term social change, all for the better. This includes, of course, the civil rights movement leading to the Civil Rights Act/Voting Rights Act and desegregation (at least on paper), womens' rights (leading to Roe), the gay liberation movement (epitomized by Stonewall in 1969), etc. and of course, last but not least, the anti-war movement. Without going into it too deeply, the powers that be did their best to try to silence all of these things via things like J. Edgar Hoover's program Cointelpro (Fred Hampton was murdered by the FBI 52 years ago yesterday), etc.

So, to me, no matter the result in the electorate or the mood of what is in reality a minority of citizens/voters (every survey I've ever seen shows that most Americans believe, to one extenr or another, that abortion should be free/cheap and easily accessible), there are certain inalienable rights and one of them should be what to do with something growing inside of you. So yes, it's OK that's there's been a ton of blowback/pushback leading up to what's happening in TX/MS and other states right now. Your perspective is defensive/fear-based (for good reason, sure, admittedly), but it's just not productive to govern like that or to interpret law like that coming from the SC side. I hope that all made sense.

I also think that you're overstating the impact of Roe on working-class white voters who (starting with Reagan in 1980), gradually turned away from Democrats and started voting for Republicans en masse or just sitting out elections (remember that the biggest political party in America is the non-voter party). You're ignoring a major elephant in the room, which is that the parties basically switched positions on race in the mid '60s, so it's almost inevitable that a lot of whites would drift there anyway. Furthermore, there has been 30 years of right-wing talk radio/Fox News type propaganda that specifically targets that demographic and other related ones. That's why I think people vote against their own economic interests, not just because of abortion and other social wedge issues (which admittedly are propped up on those propaganda networks).

I also don't think that the anti-abortion folks would give up trying to ban it outright even if it was left up to the states. Plus, the states' rights argument is one that's historically problematic and used to defend all sorts of fucked up shit, most notably slavery, Jim Crow, etc.

[JGJR]

So, in essence, saying that a person born female, then transitioned to male *is* a male even if she still has a vagina and uterus and that any other claim is transphobic and people should be punished for suggesting otherwise is well and good until it comes down to brass tax and comes in conflict with a concrete issue such as abortion rights. Then it's totally acceptable to write the whole thing off with some 'aw shucks/not really/you know what I mean' bullshit. Besides being totally disingenuous, I don't think that'd sit too well with transgender activists I assume you align yourself with.

The reason I don't whole sale buy into the gender ideology thing is precisely because I knew it would contaminate all of the actual gender issues in the world. Sexism, abortion, pay gap, sports, etc. Real issues. All of this has to be re-calibrated if you accept the new anti-reality that anyone can be a male or female just by speaking it so. No offense, but talking to you about this stuff makes me realize how little thought has been put into the consequences of blindly accepting these absolutely drastic world views.

And it's not an unrelated side-topic. Transgender ideology is at the forefront of American politics. The left made it so. So now we are all just supposed to forget about that for the time being because it's inconvenient to the argument? How can you say that gender has nothing to do with the abortion rights debate when it is the center of your argument?

Christ. This is why I normally don't talk politics on the internet. If you presume that I'm being disingenuous and if you think that my responses are thoughless, we can't have a serious discussion. I'll leave it at that.

The fuck? You lob that shit at me all the time. 'Keyboard warrior', 'read a book', etc. I'm not saying you, personally, are thoughtless or disingenuous. I'm just saying this line of thought on the trans stuff in relation to actual male/female issues would lead *anyone* to make those errors. There's no way around it.

I'm just saying that I'd rather not interact with you or anyone else on here in a way that would insult the other person. I'd rather just let that be. And furthermore, if there isn't good faith on each side, there's no point carrying on with this discussion.

[SamDBL]

So, in essence, saying that a person born female, then transitioned to male *is* a male even if she still has a vagina and uterus and that any other claim is transphobic and people should be punished for suggesting otherwise is well and good until it comes down to brass tax and comes in conflict with a concrete issue such as abortion rights. Then it's totally acceptable to write the whole thing off with some 'aw shucks/not really/you know what I mean' bullshit. Besides being totally disingenuous, I don't think that'd sit too well with transgender activists I assume you align yourself with.

The reason I don't whole sale buy into the gender ideology thing is precisely because I knew it would contaminate all of the actual gender issues in the world. Sexism, abortion, pay gap, sports, etc. Real issues. All of this has to be re-calibrated if you accept the new anti-reality that anyone can be a male or female just by speaking it so. No offense, but talking to you about this stuff makes me realize how little thought has been put into the consequences of blindly accepting these absolutely drastic world views.

And it's not an unrelated side-topic. Transgender ideology is at the forefront of American politics. The left made it so. So now we are all just supposed to forget about that for the time being because it's inconvenient to the argument? How can you say that gender has nothing to do with the abortion rights debate when it is the center of your argument?

Christ. This is why I normally don't talk politics on the internet. If you presume that I'm being disingenuous and if you think that my responses are thoughless, we can't have a serious discussion. I'll leave it at that.

The fuck? You lob that shit at me all the time. 'Keyboard warrior', 'read a book', etc. I'm not saying you, personally, are thoughtless or disingenuous. I'm just saying this line of thought on the trans stuff in relation to actual male/female issues would lead *anyone* to make those errors. There's no way around it.

I'm just saying that I'd rather not interact with you or anyone else on here in a way that would insult the other person. I'd rather just let that be. And furthermore, if there isn't good faith on each side, there's no point carrying on with this discussion.

That’s a total cop-out. I’m just asking you to clarify how you square up the formula that trans women *are* women/trans men *are* men = only biological females can have an opinion on abortion. There’s no bad faith there. If you have a way to make this incoherent position logical, I’d love to hear it.

[jaybird]

Fair enough... I don't think anyone here has made any straight up anti-abortion arguments... for my own part, I simply think that there's plenty of evidence RvW was a legally dubious decision... it tried to do too much, too fast, with the result of basically turning a significant portion of the American electorate into scorched-earth, single-issue voters over the next 50 years... which is almost never a good development, IMO. I think it's likely that millions of people who would have otherwise been dependable members of the Democratic voter bloc have been voting against their economic interests for the last several decades for no other reason than on the basis of antipathy toward abortion. Had Roe been decided on a narrower basis, and not simply invalidated all nationwide anti-abortion legislation at a stroke, it would likely have not been the sort of wedge-issue it ultimately became. And I don't think acknowledgement or frank discussion of the deficiencies or weaknesses of Roe's legal standing and strategy is "right wing" whatsoever. That seems more like fearful refusal to face reality. But that's just me.

I see what you're saying here, but my counter-argument to it is this. I've long said that the period in time from the mid '50's to the early '70s was one of the most historically significant periods for long-term social change, all for the better. This includes, of course, the civil rights movement leading to the Civil Rights Act/Voting Rights Act and desegregation (at least on paper), womens' rights (leading to Roe), the gay liberation movement (epitomized by Stonewall in 1969), etc. and of course, last but not least, the anti-war movement. Without going into it too deeply, the powers that be did their best to try to silence all of these things via things like J. Edgar Hoover's program Cointelpro (Fred Hampton was murdered by the FBI 52 years ago yesterday), etc.

So, to me, no matter the result in the electorate or the mood of what is in reality a minority of citizens/voters (every survey I've ever seen shows that most Americans believe, to one extenr or another, that abortion should be free/cheap and easily accessible), there are certain inalienable rights and one of them should be what to do with something growing inside of you. So yes, it's OK that's there's been a ton of blowback/pushback leading up to what's happening in TX/MS and other states right now. Your perspective is defensive/fear-based (for good reason, sure, admittedly), but it's just not productive to govern like that or to interpret law like that coming from the SC side. I hope that all made sense.

I also think that you're overstating the impact of Roe on working-class white voters who (starting with Reagan in 1980), gradually turned away from Democrats and started voting for Republicans en masse or just sitting out elections (remember that the biggest political party in America is the non-voter party). You're ignoring a major elephant in the room, which is that the parties basically switched positions on race in the mid '60s, so it's almost inevitable that a lot of whites would drift there anyway. Furthermore, there has been 30 years of right-wing talk radio/Fox News type propaganda that specifically targets that demographic and other related ones. That's why I think people vote against their own economic interests, not just because of abortion and other social wedge issues (which admittedly are propped up on those propaganda networks).

I also don't think that the anti-abortion folks would give up trying to ban it outright even if it was left up to the states. Plus, the states' rights argument is one that's historically problematic and used to defend all sorts of fucked up shit, most notably slavery, Jim Crow, etc.

Well, there's a lot in there I agree with, and a lot i disagree with, but I think it's fair to say we just don't agree on the overall strategy aspect of this issue. I think that national opinion on RvW/abortion has been remarkably stable given how contentious of an issue it is... the battle lines really have not changed all that much in 50 years - about 25-30% percent of the country say abortion should be legal in all or most circumstances, another 20%-25% say it should be illegal in all or most circumstances, and then the vast middle ground where people have all sorts of opinions on what regulations and restrictions should be in place (I don't know where you're seeing polls that solid majorities favor free abortions):



https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/wh ... -abortion/

So it is a historically contentious issue that shows little sign of abating, even after 50 years... other such decisions on earlier controversial social issues, such as gay marriage are nowhere near as acrimonious, even barely a decade later. Even most Conservatives and Republicans are completely over arguing about that issue anymore, and accept the 2011 ruling as settled law. So all of that suggests to me that abortion is not an issue that can ever be truly resolved by a judicial verdict, unlike some of these other issues... and for good reason, it really is an issue where compromise is probably impossible. One side sees it as a life and death issue, tantamount to legal genocide, and the other sees it as a matter of bedrock individual rights... so as a country, we can continue having this political war of attrition over this issue for the next 50 years, or maybe we should leave it to individual state legislatures to decide, like we're doing with drug/marijuana legalization... I realize it's not a perfect solution, but to me it seems like the best way forward at this point is to kick it back to the states and try to make more gradual progress. Or I guess we can make this yet another Casus Belli for Civil War 2.0.... like you said regarding the crime-rate argument that is so beloved by white-supremacists and pro-choicers alike, "even a broken clock is right twice a day".


Another side issue that i think also bears mentioning in this debate is that abortion is arguably becoming nearly irrelevant anyway, for the simple reason that fewer and fewer women are having unintended pregnancies any more... birth control is widely available and extremely reliable and effective, people are putting off having kids longer and longer, and the overall birth rate is cratering... I won't even get into the whole porn-addiction/incel/sex-drought/young-people-are-not-having-sex-anymore angle of it:

America’s Abortion Rate Has Dropped to Its Lowest Ever

New research suggests contraception and fewer pregnancies may be more responsible for the decline than state laws restricting abortion.

www.nytimes.com/2019/09/18/health/abort ... opped.html

[xxxMidgexxx]

Have you met our personal lord and savior, "Humbuckers"?

Strats don't come with humbuckers.

[kel]

Strats don't come with humbuckers.

http://www.fender.com/en-US/electric-series/player/guitars/player-stratocaster-hss/0144522500.html

(Nonplussed, as I look down at the humbucker'ed Strat plugged into my computer...)

[JGJR]

So, in essence, saying that a person born female, then transitioned to male *is* a male even if she still has a vagina and uterus and that any other claim is transphobic and people should be punished for suggesting otherwise is well and good until it comes down to brass tax and comes in conflict with a concrete issue such as abortion rights. Then it's totally acceptable to write the whole thing off with some 'aw shucks/not really/you know what I mean' bullshit. Besides being totally disingenuous, I don't think that'd sit too well with transgender activists I assume you align yourself with.

The reason I don't whole sale buy into the gender ideology thing is precisely because I knew it would contaminate all of the actual gender issues in the world. Sexism, abortion, pay gap, sports, etc. Real issues. All of this has to be re-calibrated if you accept the new anti-reality that anyone can be a male or female just by speaking it so. No offense, but talking to you about this stuff makes me realize how little thought has been put into the consequences of blindly accepting these absolutely drastic world views.

And it's not an unrelated side-topic. Transgender ideology is at the forefront of American politics. The left made it so. So now we are all just supposed to forget about that for the time being because it's inconvenient to the argument? How can you say that gender has nothing to do with the abortion rights debate when it is the center of your argument?

Christ. This is why I normally don't talk politics on the internet. If you presume that I'm being disingenuous and if you think that my responses are thoughless, we can't have a serious discussion. I'll leave it at that.

The fuck? You lob that shit at me all the time. 'Keyboard warrior', 'read a book', etc. I'm not saying you, personally, are thoughtless or disingenuous. I'm just saying this line of thought on the trans stuff in relation to actual male/female issues would lead *anyone* to make those errors. There's no way around it.

I'm just saying that I'd rather not interact with you or anyone else on here in a way that would insult the other person. I'd rather just let that be. And furthermore, if there isn't good faith on each side, there's no point carrying on with this discussion.

That’s a total cop-out. I’m just asking you to clarify how you square up the formula that trans women *are* women/trans men *are* men = only biological females can have an opinion on abortion. There’s no bad faith there. If you have a way to make this incoherent position logical, I’d love to hear it.

I told you earlier in this thread that I don't wish to debate gender identity/trans stuff on here (shouldn't even be a debate anyway; they're people, let them do what they want, et al.), but for the interest of clearing the record, I'll say that I've never once said that only women are allowed to have an opinion on abortion (or any other topic). After all, we're a bunch of men talking about it on here, right? Anyone can think whatever they want.

As for the other issue you bring up (whether trans women are really women and whatnot), I don't really understand your obsession with it tbh. It represents a very small minority of abortion cases (trans men who can get pregnant), but ultimately I think anyone who needs/wants one should be able to get it any time, no questions asked. No parental notification laws, no restrictions, etc.
I don't know why that needs clarification. I don't care what gender they are.

[JGJR]

e that i think also bears mentioning in this debate is that abortion is arguably becoming nearly irrelevant anyway, for the simple reason that fewer and fewer women are having unintended pregnancies any more... birth control is widely available and extremely reliable and effective, people are putting off having kids longer and longer, and the overall birth rate is cratering... I won't even get into the whole porn-addiction/incel/sex-drought/young-people-are-not-having-sex-anymore angle of it:

America’s Abortion Rate Has Dropped to Its Lowest Ever

New research suggests contraception and fewer pregnancies may be more responsible for the decline than state laws restricting abortion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/18/healt ... opped.html

I think this is interesting (and good) for many reasons. Obviously, (though common sense is sure as fuck not common around here or elsewhere) the more sex ed is taught and the more birth control is available when people are starting to become sexually active, the fewer unintended pregnancies will occur, but really I just wanted to state that what baffles me is how a lot of the anti-abortion folks don't want either of those things that have been proven to reduce abortions.

[kel]

...the more sex ed is taught and the more birth control is available when people are starting to become sexually active, the fewer unintended pregnancies will occur, but really I just wanted to state that what baffles me is how a lot of the anti-abortion folks don't want either of those things that have been proven to reduce abortions.

Probably because, like in most all things debatable, there may be data "proving" either side of an issue.

Certainly the last couple years have shown that people from any side of a debate only seem to trust the science that they have religious-like faith in to begin with, and are quick to brand the "others" on either side as untrustworthy zealots -- usually without need to even examine the opposing data, which is sort of unscientific, no?



"Theory suggests that SRE (required sex education) may have an ambivalent effect on teenage pregnancy rates. Consistent with this, most empirical studies of particular sex education initiatives have found little evidence that they are effective in reducing teenage pregnancies...

...testing the effect of mandatory SRE laws on a panel of developed countries between 1990 and 2017. Consistent with Carr and Packham (2017) and Kearney and Levine (2015), we find no evidence that mandatory SRE laws can explain recent reductions in teenage fertility. Indeed, in contrast to those papers, we find some evidence that SRE mandates are associated with increases in teenage pregnancy rates."

( https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ful ... 2/hec.4021 )

[SamDBL]

So, in essence, saying that a person born female, then transitioned to male *is* a male even if she still has a vagina and uterus and that any other claim is transphobic and people should be punished for suggesting otherwise is well and good until it comes down to brass tax and comes in conflict with a concrete issue such as abortion rights. Then it's totally acceptable to write the whole thing off with some 'aw shucks/not really/you know what I mean' bullshit. Besides being totally disingenuous, I don't think that'd sit too well with transgender activists I assume you align yourself with.

The reason I don't whole sale buy into the gender ideology thing is precisely because I knew it would contaminate all of the actual gender issues in the world. Sexism, abortion, pay gap, sports, etc. Real issues. All of this has to be re-calibrated if you accept the new anti-reality that anyone can be a male or female just by speaking it so. No offense, but talking to you about this stuff makes me realize how little thought has been put into the consequences of blindly accepting these absolutely drastic world views.

And it's not an unrelated side-topic. Transgender ideology is at the forefront of American politics. The left made it so. So now we are all just supposed to forget about that for the time being because it's inconvenient to the argument? How can you say that gender has nothing to do with the abortion rights debate when it is the center of your argument?

Christ. This is why I normally don't talk politics on the internet. If you presume that I'm being disingenuous and if you think that my responses are thoughless, we can't have a serious discussion. I'll leave it at that.

The fuck? You lob that shit at me all the time. 'Keyboard warrior', 'read a book', etc. I'm not saying you, personally, are thoughtless or disingenuous. I'm just saying this line of thought on the trans stuff in relation to actual male/female issues would lead *anyone* to make those errors. There's no way around it.

I'm just saying that I'd rather not interact with you or anyone else on here in a way that would insult the other person. I'd rather just let that be. And furthermore, if there isn't good faith on each side, there's no point carrying on with this discussion.

That’s a total cop-out. I’m just asking you to clarify how you square up the formula that trans women *are* women/trans men *are* men = only biological females can have an opinion on abortion. There’s no bad faith there. If you have a way to make this incoherent position logical, I’d love to hear it.

I told you earlier in this thread that I don't wish to debate gender identity/trans stuff on here (shouldn't even be a debate anyway; they're people, let them do what they want, et al.), but for the interest of clearing the record, I'll say that I've never once said that only women are allowed to have an opinion on abortion (or any other topic). After all, we're a bunch of men talking about it on here, right? Anyone can think whatever they want.

As for the other issue you bring up (whether trans women are really women and whatnot), I don't really understand your obsession with it tbh. It represents a very small minority of abortion cases (trans men who can get pregnant), but ultimately I think anyone who needs/wants one should be able to get it any time, no questions asked. No parental notification laws, no restrictions, etc.
I don't know why that needs clarification. I don't care what gender they are.

Ok, so you agree the ‘men can’t have babies, so they should have no say in the abortion debate’ is completely negated by your own current standards of gender and should be retired from the discussion. See also; ‘if men could get pregnant, we wouldn’t be having a debate on abortion’. Glad to hear it!

For the 3rd time, I’m not debating the trans stuff. I literally was just asking you to clarify your assertion that this would be a different story if men could get pregnant. After your initial, somewhat puzzling, anti-trans response that callously suggested trans men are not actually men, you back peddled and are now implying that you misspoke and that you do indeed believe men can become pregnant and the whole point you were making was erroneous and incoherent. Fine. That’s all I was asking.

But since you brought it up my ‘obsession’ with transgenderism, I’ve explained it a million times. I’m just looking for a solid argument to redefine a fundamental aspect of human existence. I’m sorry, but ‘just let people do what they want’ is not compelling enough for me to sign on to rearranging everything from building codes to medical protocol and federal law. We are basically talking about a philosophy as non-sensical and anti-science as the flat earther movement. I’m not looking to hurt anyones feelings. But if its being demanded of me and all of society to take it on as an operating philosophy, I’ll need a little more than hollow platitudes to back it up, thanks very much. Abortion is a perfect place for someone like you to convince me, otherwise. You did not do a very good job. It's a very anti-scientific worldview. I'm a person that 'follows the science'. I'm also pro-choice. And I *do* think it's mostly a women's issue. And being an anti-sexist advocate for women... an ally if you will... I'm always on the look out for insincere interlopers horning in on their causes. Thoughtless sloganeering does more harm than good.

[JGJR]

So, in essence, saying that a person born female, then transitioned to male *is* a male even if she still has a vagina and uterus and that any other claim is transphobic and people should be punished for suggesting otherwise is well and good until it comes down to brass tax and comes in conflict with a concrete issue such as abortion rights. Then it's totally acceptable to write the whole thing off with some 'aw shucks/not really/you know what I mean' bullshit. Besides being totally disingenuous, I don't think that'd sit too well with transgender activists I assume you align yourself with.

The reason I don't whole sale buy into the gender ideology thing is precisely because I knew it would contaminate all of the actual gender issues in the world. Sexism, abortion, pay gap, sports, etc. Real issues. All of this has to be re-calibrated if you accept the new anti-reality that anyone can be a male or female just by speaking it so. No offense, but talking to you about this stuff makes me realize how little thought has been put into the consequences of blindly accepting these absolutely drastic world views.

And it's not an unrelated side-topic. Transgender ideology is at the forefront of American politics. The left made it so. So now we are all just supposed to forget about that for the time being because it's inconvenient to the argument? How can you say that gender has nothing to do with the abortion rights debate when it is the center of your argument?

Christ. This is why I normally don't talk politics on the internet. If you presume that I'm being disingenuous and if you think that my responses are thoughless, we can't have a serious discussion. I'll leave it at that.

The fuck? You lob that shit at me all the time. 'Keyboard warrior', 'read a book', etc. I'm not saying you, personally, are thoughtless or disingenuous. I'm just saying this line of thought on the trans stuff in relation to actual male/female issues would lead *anyone* to make those errors. There's no way around it.

I'm just saying that I'd rather not interact with you or anyone else on here in a way that would insult the other person. I'd rather just let that be. And furthermore, if there isn't good faith on each side, there's no point carrying on with this discussion.

That’s a total cop-out. I’m just asking you to clarify how you square up the formula that trans women *are* women/trans men *are* men = only biological females can have an opinion on abortion. There’s no bad faith there. If you have a way to make this incoherent position logical, I’d love to hear it.

I told you earlier in this thread that I don't wish to debate gender identity/trans stuff on here (shouldn't even be a debate anyway; they're people, let them do what they want, et al.), but for the interest of clearing the record, I'll say that I've never once said that only women are allowed to have an opinion on abortion (or any other topic). After all, we're a bunch of men talking about it on here, right? Anyone can think whatever they want.

As for the other issue you bring up (whether trans women are really women and whatnot), I don't really understand your obsession with it tbh. It represents a very small minority of abortion cases (trans men who can get pregnant), but ultimately I think anyone who needs/wants one should be able to get it any time, no questions asked. No parental notification laws, no restrictions, etc.
I don't know why that needs clarification. I don't care what gender they are.

Ok, so you agree the ‘men can’t have babies, so they should have no say in the abortion debate’ is completely negated by your own current standards of gender and should be retired from the discussion. See also; ‘if men could get pregnant, we wouldn’t be having a debate on abortion’. Glad to hear it!

For the 3rd time, I’m not debating the trans stuff. I literally was just asking you to clarify your assertion that this would be a different story if men could get pregnant. After your initial, somewhat puzzling, anti-trans response that callously suggested trans men are not actually men, you back peddled and are now implying that you misspoke and that you do indeed believe men can become pregnant and the whole point you were making was erroneous and incoherent. Fine. That’s all I was asking.

But since you brought it up my ‘obsession’ with transgenderism, I’ve explained it a million times. I’m just looking for a solid argument to redefine a fundamental aspect of human existence. I’m sorry, but ‘just let people do what they want’ is not compelling enough for me to sign on to rearranging everything from building codes to medical protocol and federal law. We are basically talking about a philosophy as non-sensical and anti-science as the flat earther movement. I’m not looking to hurt anyones feelings. But if its being demanded of me and all of society to take it on as an operating philosophy, I’ll need a little more than hollow platitudes to back it up, thanks very much. Abortion is a perfect place for someone like you to convince me, otherwise. You did not do a very good job. It's a very anti-scientific worldview. I'm a person that 'follows the science'. I'm also pro-choice. And I *do* think it's mostly a women's issue. And being an anti-sexist advocate for women... an ally if you will... I'm always on the look out for insincere interlopers horning in on their causes. Thoughtless sloganeering does more harm than good.

There's far too much here for me to go into and respond to, but for now, all I'll say is that I regret getting involved in this thread. I don't know when the fuck this board turned into conservative punk or whatever that platform is called, but if that's its current state, I can't say it'll encourage me to participate further. Have a good night.

[SamDBL]

So, in essence, saying that a person born female, then transitioned to male *is* a male even if she still has a vagina and uterus and that any other claim is transphobic and people should be punished for suggesting otherwise is well and good until it comes down to brass tax and comes in conflict with a concrete issue such as abortion rights. Then it's totally acceptable to write the whole thing off with some 'aw shucks/not really/you know what I mean' bullshit. Besides being totally disingenuous, I don't think that'd sit too well with transgender activists I assume you align yourself with.

The reason I don't whole sale buy into the gender ideology thing is precisely because I knew it would contaminate all of the actual gender issues in the world. Sexism, abortion, pay gap, sports, etc. Real issues. All of this has to be re-calibrated if you accept the new anti-reality that anyone can be a male or female just by speaking it so. No offense, but talking to you about this stuff makes me realize how little thought has been put into the consequences of blindly accepting these absolutely drastic world views.

And it's not an unrelated side-topic. Transgender ideology is at the forefront of American politics. The left made it so. So now we are all just supposed to forget about that for the time being because it's inconvenient to the argument? How can you say that gender has nothing to do with the abortion rights debate when it is the center of your argument?

Christ. This is why I normally don't talk politics on the internet. If you presume that I'm being disingenuous and if you think that my responses are thoughless, we can't have a serious discussion. I'll leave it at that.

The fuck? You lob that shit at me all the time. 'Keyboard warrior', 'read a book', etc. I'm not saying you, personally, are thoughtless or disingenuous. I'm just saying this line of thought on the trans stuff in relation to actual male/female issues would lead *anyone* to make those errors. There's no way around it.

I'm just saying that I'd rather not interact with you or anyone else on here in a way that would insult the other person. I'd rather just let that be. And furthermore, if there isn't good faith on each side, there's no point carrying on with this discussion.

That’s a total cop-out. I’m just asking you to clarify how you square up the formula that trans women *are* women/trans men *are* men = only biological females can have an opinion on abortion. There’s no bad faith there. If you have a way to make this incoherent position logical, I’d love to hear it.

I told you earlier in this thread that I don't wish to debate gender identity/trans stuff on here (shouldn't even be a debate anyway; they're people, let them do what they want, et al.), but for the interest of clearing the record, I'll say that I've never once said that only women are allowed to have an opinion on abortion (or any other topic). After all, we're a bunch of men talking about it on here, right? Anyone can think whatever they want.

As for the other issue you bring up (whether trans women are really women and whatnot), I don't really understand your obsession with it tbh. It represents a very small minority of abortion cases (trans men who can get pregnant), but ultimately I think anyone who needs/wants one should be able to get it any time, no questions asked. No parental notification laws, no restrictions, etc.
I don't know why that needs clarification. I don't care what gender they are.

Ok, so you agree the ‘men can’t have babies, so they should have no say in the abortion debate’ is completely negated by your own current standards of gender and should be retired from the discussion. See also; ‘if men could get pregnant, we wouldn’t be having a debate on abortion’. Glad to hear it!

For the 3rd time, I’m not debating the trans stuff. I literally was just asking you to clarify your assertion that this would be a different story if men could get pregnant. After your initial, somewhat puzzling, anti-trans response that callously suggested trans men are not actually men, you back peddled and are now implying that you misspoke and that you do indeed believe men can become pregnant and the whole point you were making was erroneous and incoherent. Fine. That’s all I was asking.

But since you brought it up my ‘obsession’ with transgenderism, I’ve explained it a million times. I’m just looking for a solid argument to redefine a fundamental aspect of human existence. I’m sorry, but ‘just let people do what they want’ is not compelling enough for me to sign on to rearranging everything from building codes to medical protocol and federal law. We are basically talking about a philosophy as non-sensical and anti-science as the flat earther movement. I’m not looking to hurt anyones feelings. But if its being demanded of me and all of society to take it on as an operating philosophy, I’ll need a little more than hollow platitudes to back it up, thanks very much. Abortion is a perfect place for someone like you to convince me, otherwise. You did not do a very good job. It's a very anti-scientific worldview. I'm a person that 'follows the science'. I'm also pro-choice. And I *do* think it's mostly a women's issue. And being an anti-sexist advocate for women... an ally if you will... I'm always on the look out for insincere interlopers horning in on their causes. Thoughtless sloganeering does more harm than good.

There's far too much here for me to go into and respond to, but for now, all I'll say is that I regret getting involved in this thread. I don't know when the fuck this board turned into conservative punk or whatever that platform is called, but if that's its current state, I can't say it'll encourage me to participate further. Have a good night.

Dude, FUCK OFF with that constant mischaracterization. It's insulting and totally fucking slanderous. It also makes you sound like a total jackass that can't have nuanced conversation about something you claim to so fervently support. If someone asking you to clarify your position automatically gets the non sequitur response of 'YOU"RE AN EVIL CONSERVATIVE' so you can (you think) justify avoiding the question(s), then I'm sorry... you don't know what the fuck you're talking about and you have no idea what you actually think or why you support the things you do. I'll submit right here and now that I'm more of an actual liberal than you because the positions I have, pro-choice/pro-science/pro-equal rights/etc... I think about them long and hard. You're approach seems more like just blindly swallowing whatever social cause du jour the party feeds you with only 'just be nice' as the sole response. Which is a dangerously under-intellectualized position that falls apart after about 10 seconds of scrutiny. If I sound extra harsh on this post, it's because in today's climate and on a board like this, labelling someone a conservative when they are not is potentially as damaging and venomous as calling them a Nazi or a pedophile. And you know this. And you've done it more than once on this thread, alone. But I still luv ya. So I agree... let's drop it.

[xxxMidgexxx]

SOOOOO it looks as if the FDA is going to approve the dispensing of abortion pills by mail to women.

AAAAND already the 'Red states are trying to outlaw this practice to stop women from making decisions regarding their own health. Can't have that.

Because you know, life if precious. Until it leaves the womb that is.