7 ms·

A good question that will be answered in a few years. Will the pre-RoeVWade crime rates return to some American states. Rich women in abortion illegal states wi

A good question that will be answered in a few years. Will the pre-RoeVWade crime rates return to some American states. Rich women in abortion illegal states will still get abortions. Poor women won't.

rbanffy 4y ago
Some of them will be desperate enough. It just won't be safe anymore.
- kingkawn 4y ago
  Alternatively I think that abortion access will improve in most red states because underground organizing will take off now that legal abortion has been banned. Unlike last time it was this way there are secure digital communication options that make autonomous logistics much more possible than in the past. Many red states had already reached near zero accessibility, and now there is massive attention and resources being poured into reaching women who were already de facto living under this new legal definition prior to its formalization.
  - SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
    Underground abortion access is already a robust infrastructure in red states. Please don’t forget that abortion has already been heavily chipped away at, with only single digit clinics in massive red states like Texas.
    - kingkawn 4y ago
      Yes, nothing you added is in contradiction to or invalidates my statement, yet I shouldn’t “forget.”
- FollowingTheDao 4y ago
  Serious question: Besides risk to ones life from natural child birth because of some health issue of the mother, why is it that woman are so desperate that they will risk dying by having a risky abortion rather than have a child?
  - pbowyer 4y ago
    Because they're not meant to be pregnant and their parents will get mad? And the decision between a risky abortion or my life turning upside down looks very different in that situation?
  - bojan 4y ago
    On top of my head: * There is something wrong with the child, due to which any semblance happy and fulfilled life will never be possible * The child is a product of an unwanted and traumatic sexual contact * The mother knows she can't support the child and will end up raising it on the street - until she can't any more
    - rbanffy 4y ago
      > * The mother knows she can't support the child and will end up raising it on the street - until she can't any more The pro-life crowd should actively work to ensure every mother has maternity leave and comprehensive support services, including healthcare, for both mother and child. Otherwise, they risk being called on their hypocrisy.
  - SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
    Well firstly, let’s stop spreading misinformation that abortion is inherently risky. Abortion is a safe practice, and medically induced abortion can occur at home. It’s safer than many routine procedures! Secondly, there is an uncountable number of reasons to have an abortion rather than carrying to term. I don’t know which reasons will meet your personal bar of acceptable, but we are talking about rape victims, children, mothers who cannot afford time off because there is minimal maternity leave and they need to provide for their already born kids, professionals who are building their careers, trans men with gender dysphoria, ectopic pregnancy, high-risk pregnancy, cannot afford to stop psychological medication that hasn’t been approved for pregnancy…
    - FollowingTheDao 4y ago
      I want to preface my comments by saying this is a legitimate inquiry. I am not anti-abortion, I am pro-choice. > Well firstly, let’s stop spreading misinformation that abortion is inherently risky. I wasn't, other people are saying that this is what it would lead to , more women choosing these "risky" abortions. > ectopic pregnancy, high-risk pregnancy, cannot afford to stop psychological medication that hasn’t been approved for pregnancy… These are all self defense cases in my opinion and so I do not consider it immoral. > rape victims I understand this as something that would put the life of the mother at risk because of the trauma involved. So not immoral. > children, mothers who cannot afford time off because there is minimal maternity leave and they need to provide for their already born kids, Well this is a problem with society then, yes? Does your suffering give you the right to kill another being (Since we still have not determined when life begins you have to admit this is a possibility.) > professionals who are building their careers I feel this is unacceptable. People make decisions that affect their career everyday. Having sex is one of them. When do you think life begins? I really do not know. So how late in a pregnancy can someone determine that a fetus is going to interfere with their career? > trans men with gender dysphoria Just going to stay away from this one becasue I do not know enough about it.
yucky 4y ago
This line of reasoning is but a small step away from eugenics..
- Taywee 4y ago
  No it's not. Nobody is making a genetic argument at all. It's simple to find statistics that show strong correlation between crime rates and growing up in poverty, though, or between poverty rates and lower rates of correct contraceptive use. It's not eugenics to suggest that more unwanted children growing up in poverty might lead to a higher crime rate.
  - yucky 4y ago
    So we should sterilize the poor then, right? Or at least, after 1 child...?
    - Taywee 4y ago
      No. That's a frankly ridiculous strawman. Taking something somebody says to an extreme strawman is not arguing in good faith.
  - usrn 4y ago
    I don't know if you listen to the discussions the far right has. Many of the pro abortion arguments are that certain groups produce children which tend to commit a disproportionate amount of crime are also the same groups which have a disproportionate number of abortions. Personally I think leaving it up to the states means that these groups will vote for it to be legal in their jurisdictions, so everyone (the left, the right, the moderates) ends up happy.
jmyeet 4y ago
I assume you're referring to the theory that legalizing abortion led to a drop in crime in ~18 years later. To be clear, this theory has merit but it's hard to definiteily say this was a significant factor. Another competing theory is lead in gasoline, for example. But let's assume it's the case. I don't htink we'll see a noticeable spike of crime in the future because of this, for several reasons: 1. Contraception is more readily available, particularly in terms of affordability, than it was 50+ years ago. I mean the Court may well make that illegal too but we'll burn that bridge when we get to it; 2. Medical advancements, specifically various abortion pills, some of which are incredibly effective and safe. These didn't exist before Roe v. Wade. States may well try to ban their distribution but this is clearly interstate commerce, which is explicitly stated in the Constitution as a Federal power, so even this Court will have trouble coming up with a post-hoc rationalization to ban it (I hope); 3. The Federal government can (currently at least and of course subject to review) codify access to abortion at a Federal level. The Freedom of Choice Act was something Obama campaigned on that he would sign on his first day in office yet immediately decided it wasn't a priority after taking office. He had a supermajority in the Senate then and wasted it. The Democrats have had many opportunities to override a filibuster. We shouldn't forget that. The current Senate could do this by simply eliminating the filibuster if they chose to. I guarantee you the first Republican Senate will do this immediately when it serves their needs; 4. The Federal government has the nuclear option available of being able to provide access to abortions if they so chose. Where? On Federal land (including military bases). Hell, you may even be able to do this on Native lands. The concern here isn't just overturning Roe and Casey. Obviously that's dire but the real issue is what this portends. The impact of this Evangelical Taliban court didn't end on Friday. It's only just beginning.
- mlyle 4y ago
  > 2. Medical advancements, specifically various abortion pills, some of which are incredibly effective and safe. These didn't exist before Roe v. Wade. States may well try to ban their distribution but this is clearly interstate commerce, which is explicitly stated in the Constitution as a Federal power, so even this Court will have trouble coming up with a post-hoc rationalization to ban it (I hope); States restrict commerce in all kinds of goods and already have different laws about medications in practice. The question is likely-- to what extent is that authority preempted by FDA regulation?

rbanffy 4y ago

Some of them will be desperate enough. It just won't be safe anymore.

kingkawn 4y ago
Alternatively I think that abortion access will improve in most red states because underground organizing will take off now that legal abortion has been banned. Unlike last time it was this way there are secure digital communication options that make autonomous logistics much more possible than in the past. Many red states had already reached near zero accessibility, and now there is massive attention and resources being poured into reaching women who were already de facto living under this new legal definition prior to its formalization.
- SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
  Underground abortion access is already a robust infrastructure in red states. Please don’t forget that abortion has already been heavily chipped away at, with only single digit clinics in massive red states like Texas.
  - kingkawn 4y ago
    Yes, nothing you added is in contradiction to or invalidates my statement, yet I shouldn’t “forget.”
FollowingTheDao 4y ago
Serious question: Besides risk to ones life from natural child birth because of some health issue of the mother, why is it that woman are so desperate that they will risk dying by having a risky abortion rather than have a child?
- pbowyer 4y ago
  Because they're not meant to be pregnant and their parents will get mad? And the decision between a risky abortion or my life turning upside down looks very different in that situation?
- bojan 4y ago
  On top of my head: * There is something wrong with the child, due to which any semblance happy and fulfilled life will never be possible * The child is a product of an unwanted and traumatic sexual contact * The mother knows she can't support the child and will end up raising it on the street - until she can't any more
  - rbanffy 4y ago
    > * The mother knows she can't support the child and will end up raising it on the street - until she can't any more The pro-life crowd should actively work to ensure every mother has maternity leave and comprehensive support services, including healthcare, for both mother and child. Otherwise, they risk being called on their hypocrisy.
- SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
  Well firstly, let’s stop spreading misinformation that abortion is inherently risky. Abortion is a safe practice, and medically induced abortion can occur at home. It’s safer than many routine procedures! Secondly, there is an uncountable number of reasons to have an abortion rather than carrying to term. I don’t know which reasons will meet your personal bar of acceptable, but we are talking about rape victims, children, mothers who cannot afford time off because there is minimal maternity leave and they need to provide for their already born kids, professionals who are building their careers, trans men with gender dysphoria, ectopic pregnancy, high-risk pregnancy, cannot afford to stop psychological medication that hasn’t been approved for pregnancy…
  - FollowingTheDao 4y ago
    I want to preface my comments by saying this is a legitimate inquiry. I am not anti-abortion, I am pro-choice. > Well firstly, let’s stop spreading misinformation that abortion is inherently risky. I wasn't, other people are saying that this is what it would lead to , more women choosing these "risky" abortions. > ectopic pregnancy, high-risk pregnancy, cannot afford to stop psychological medication that hasn’t been approved for pregnancy… These are all self defense cases in my opinion and so I do not consider it immoral. > rape victims I understand this as something that would put the life of the mother at risk because of the trauma involved. So not immoral. > children, mothers who cannot afford time off because there is minimal maternity leave and they need to provide for their already born kids, Well this is a problem with society then, yes? Does your suffering give you the right to kill another being (Since we still have not determined when life begins you have to admit this is a possibility.) > professionals who are building their careers I feel this is unacceptable. People make decisions that affect their career everyday. Having sex is one of them. When do you think life begins? I really do not know. So how late in a pregnancy can someone determine that a fetus is going to interfere with their career? > trans men with gender dysphoria Just going to stay away from this one becasue I do not know enough about it.

yucky 4y ago

This line of reasoning is but a small step away from eugenics..

Taywee 4y ago
No it's not. Nobody is making a genetic argument at all. It's simple to find statistics that show strong correlation between crime rates and growing up in poverty, though, or between poverty rates and lower rates of correct contraceptive use. It's not eugenics to suggest that more unwanted children growing up in poverty might lead to a higher crime rate.
- yucky 4y ago
  So we should sterilize the poor then, right? Or at least, after 1 child...?
  - Taywee 4y ago
    No. That's a frankly ridiculous strawman. Taking something somebody says to an extreme strawman is not arguing in good faith.
- usrn 4y ago
  I don't know if you listen to the discussions the far right has. Many of the pro abortion arguments are that certain groups produce children which tend to commit a disproportionate amount of crime are also the same groups which have a disproportionate number of abortions. Personally I think leaving it up to the states means that these groups will vote for it to be legal in their jurisdictions, so everyone (the left, the right, the moderates) ends up happy.

jmyeet 4y ago

I assume you're referring to the theory that legalizing abortion led to a drop in crime in ~18 years later. To be clear, this theory has merit but it's hard to definiteily say this was a significant factor. Another competing theory is lead in gasoline, for example. But let's assume it's the case. I don't htink we'll see a noticeable spike of crime in the future because of this, for several reasons: 1. Contraception is more readily available, particularly in terms of affordability, than it was 50+ years ago. I mean the Court may well make that illegal too but we'll burn that bridge when we get to it; 2. Medical advancements, specifically various abortion pills, some of which are incredibly effective and safe. These didn't exist before Roe v. Wade. States may well try to ban their distribution but this is clearly interstate commerce, which is explicitly stated in the Constitution as a Federal power, so even this Court will have trouble coming up with a post-hoc rationalization to ban it (I hope); 3. The Federal government can (currently at least and of course subject to review) codify access to abortion at a Federal level. The Freedom of Choice Act was something Obama campaigned on that he would sign on his first day in office yet immediately decided it wasn't a priority after taking office. He had a supermajority in the Senate then and wasted it. The Democrats have had many opportunities to override a filibuster. We shouldn't forget that. The current Senate could do this by simply eliminating the filibuster if they chose to. I guarantee you the first Republican Senate will do this immediately when it serves their needs; 4. The Federal government has the nuclear option available of being able to provide access to abortions if they so chose. Where? On Federal land (including military bases). Hell, you may even be able to do this on Native lands. The concern here isn't just overturning Roe and Casey. Obviously that's dire but the real issue is what this portends. The impact of this Evangelical Taliban court didn't end on Friday. It's only just beginning.

mlyle 4y ago
> 2. Medical advancements, specifically various abortion pills, some of which are incredibly effective and safe. These didn't exist before Roe v. Wade. States may well try to ban their distribution but this is clearly interstate commerce, which is explicitly stated in the Constitution as a Federal power, so even this Court will have trouble coming up with a post-hoc rationalization to ban it (I hope); States restrict commerce in all kinds of goods and already have different laws about medications in practice. The question is likely-- to what extent is that authority preempted by FDA regulation?