7 ms·

The no exceptions whatsoever bans are the model for the national ban that will come ones Republicans have the power to do it. If they believe all abortion is mu

by fundad 4y ago

The no exceptions whatsoever bans are the model for the national ban that will come ones Republicans have the power to do it. If they believe all abortion is murder, what amount of murder would you expect them to tolerate?

ModernMech 4y ago
- fknorangesite 4y ago
  > And it is this feeling of disconnect from the real consequences of the post-Roe era that is causing most here to completely miss the vast political project that is underway, a project that cares not for philosophical arguments, because it really cares about control and obedience. God this whole comment is a breath of fresh air. Thank you.
- throwaway894345 4y ago
  > I've read through most comments, and it's what you would expect from a group of largely white, upper class, men I'll hazard some unsolicited advice: besides being boring and morally reprehensible, tropes only diminish your credibility. > I've read through most comments, and it's what you would expect from a group of largely white, upper class, men - a philosophical debate that barely even touches on the real experiences of women and minorities who will be the ones whose lives are most affected as a result of the new laws being passed. There has been virtually no appetite to discuss the women who have had negative abortion experiences over the last 50 years (or at least not in my lifetime) under Roe v. Wade whether minority or otherwise. Cherry-picking experiences isn't a good formulation for constructive public debate. > No matter when a life begins, the posters here on HN feel they will largely be unaffected, so the debate remains in the clouds. On the contrary, it's such a serious topic that it deserves a dispassioned treatment. This is genuinely the first time I've seen an abortion debate that doesn't immediately devolve into "you want to murder babies" and "you want to oppress women". It's good to challenge our emotions with reason. > The post-Roe era will be blanket and extreme abortion bans wherever the GOP has full control. They are telegraphing this and many posters here are seemingly willfully blind to what they have in store. So far they have said they desire to pass the most extreme bans possible regarding abortion at a national level, and when they are done with that they are coming after contraception, gay marriage, and even sexual acts they find distasteful. I don't know why anyone here is dismissing the possibility as far-fetched. It's pretty hard to believe Republicans in general are coming for things like gay marriage when 55% of Republicans approve of it per a 2022 Gallup poll (I would imagine conservatives approve of contraception even more). I think perhaps the left-wing media may be exaggerating right now, as partisan media are want to do. I think it's a good idea to establish legislative protections for these things, particularly by building a broad, bipartisan coalition (maybe take lessons from the gay rights movement, considering its remarkable success in reversing even Republican opinion). If Republicans want to pander to their extreme wings, then take their moderates (reverse the 2016-2022 trend).
  - ModernMech 4y ago
    > tropes only diminish your credibility. And yet there is a reason the discussion here barely touches on women. We know how the demographics of HN skew, and that creates a huge bias in the discussion here. We shouldn't naval gaze through this debate, and instead recognize that of the hundreds of comments here going in circles about stealing kidneys, hypothetically poisoning people, and hypothetical lives born or dying, there are real people who are actually in harms way right now due to laws being passed. > There has been virtually no appetite to discuss the women who have had negative abortion experiences over the last 50 years There's definitely an appetite, but is there space? It's certainly not created here. > it's such a serious topic that it deserves a dispassioned treatment. Maybe it deserves a dispassionate treatment (I'm certainly not going to provide that), but certainly not a myopic one. The high-minded philosophical arguments here miss the forest for the trees in my opinion. > It's pretty hard to believe Republicans in general are coming for things like gay marriage when 55% of Republicans approve of it per a 2022 Gallup poll Republicans "in general" aren't who I'm talking about; I'm talking about politicians. If you haven't noticed, gerrymandering has created a situation where Republicans can choose their voters, so they remain in power no matter how extreme their positions. Maybe also flying under your radar is a complete disdain among many Republicans for the concept of elections and democracy as a concept. Perhaps you haven't noticed that the Supreme Court will soon decide on a case that determines whether state legislatures are able to have complete control, without judicial review, of their election results? Frankly, it doesn't matter what Republicans writ large want. The extremists have taken control of the party, and they are stacking the deck to make sure they never have to lose an election again. Last time they lost an election they literally plotted and attempted to execute a coup. Now they are trying to make what they did in 2020 legal. What do you think happens next? Genuine question there.
    - smsm42 4y ago
      > so they remain in power no matter how extreme their positions If you watched actual Republican primaries, as opposed to reading about scary Republicans on Twitter, you'd see this is wildly inaccurate - there is substantial variety among Republican positions, and there are things which different Republican voters (gasp! Republicans voter can differ!) are willing and not willing to tolerate. Which kinda would be expected from a party uniting tens of millions of people, if you think about it a bit... > Maybe also flying under your radar is a complete disdain among many Republicans for the concept of elections and democracy as a concept. This is also wildly false - if anything, Republicans are very upset right now exactly because they feel the concept of elections is under attack. Whether it is true or not, it's exactly the opposite of what would happen if they disdained the concept of elections. > and they are stacking the deck to make sure they never have to lose an election again This canard is dusted off on every election, and it is as false today as it was first time when it was invented. Nobody is ensuring "they never have to lose an election again", however sweet that may sound to a partisan ear, and it's not possible for Republicans even more given that Democrats almost exclusively control large population centers. Yes, there are places where Republicans routinely win (as there are places where Democrats routinely win) - it's not a nefarious conspiracy, it's a demographic fact. But this will never become everywhere, elections in the US in general has always been competitive, and remain so. > Last time they lost an election they literally plotted and attempted to execute a coup. No they did not. They had a protest. Which led to nothing except Democrats trying to milk it for the last drops of that sweet partisan outrage juice for the last year and a half. That's all there was. > Now they are trying to make what they did in 2020 legal. What they did in 2020 - namely protesting - already is legal. What some of them did - like fighting with the police, stealing things and vandalizing things - is not legal, and nobody is trying to make it legal. > What do you think happens next? Genuine question there. Next there will be 2022 elections where Democrats suffer some serious drubbing due to Presidential party routinely suffering drubbing in the midterms, compounded by dismal performance of the current President and generally unfavorable surrounding conditions. Some Democrats (not the smartest ones) will scream the democracy is dead in the US and fascism has been finally installed, and this is the last elections ever. Then there would be 2024 elections as usual, with the usual appropriate screaming and running around from parties involved. I have no idea who would win, but I am sure it'd be as close as ever, and whatever party wins, the other party would claim the election has been stolen and the democracy in the US has ended and fascism has been installed. The democracy will continue as it did for the last 250 years.
- rayiner 4y ago
  > women and minorities Women and men don’t significantly differ in their views toward abortion: https://www.vox.com/2019/5/20/18629644/abortion-gender-gap-public-opinion https://www.vox.com/2019/5/20/18629644/abortion-gender-gap-p.... Women make up the majority of voters in states passing restrictive abortion laws. 53% of voters in 2020 in Oklahoma were women, and they voted for Donald Trump 62-37. In Mississippi (the state that enacted the law that was upheld in Dobbs) women outnumbered men 55-45, and voted 56-43 for Trump. Conservative women are the backbone of the anti-abortion movement, just as liberal women are the backbone of the pro-choice movement. And numerically, those two groups are evenly matched, with most women falling in the mushy middle: https://news.gallup.com/poll/388988/political-ideology-steady-conservatives-moderates-tie.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/388988/political-ideology-stead... As to minorities, they are much more likely to view abortion as a morally complex issue than white liberals. The 25% or so of the Democratic Party that identifies as pro life is predominantly Black and Hispanic. In Georgia, for example, Black people and white people have identical views on abortion—half of Black people oppose it, despite voting democrat: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/ https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-stu... It’s incredibly frustrating when minorities are used as tokens and proxies to advance views that are predominantly held by white liberals. It’s goddamn disrespectful to their political autonomy.
  - ModernMech 4y ago
    You're not replying to what I said: > barely even touches on the real experiences of women and minorities who will be the ones whose lives are most affected as a result of the new laws being passed. I qualified "women and minorities". There are many women and minorities who will not be affected at all by a ban on abortion. Specifically, the wealthiest ones can afford to have high-minded philosophical opinions about what life is, because if/when they ever encounter the real need for an abortion, they can just get one! And we know they will because that's what history and experience shows us happens in places where abortions are banned; abortions are not eliminated, they are just displaced and made more dangerous. But that doesn't change the fact that the people who will be most affected by these bans, the people whose lives are on the line, are in fact women and minorities. And it doesn't change the fact that real experiences of actual people are completely missing from the discussion here. I mean, if you want to take your position, where is the discussion from the pro-life crowd about people who weren't aborted and appreciate that? Or the people who decided against an abortion and what changed their mind? That would be a good discussion to have too and would reify the whole philosophical debate. But that's absent as well! And I'm sorry it so frustrates you that you believe minorities are used at proxies to advance views that are predominately held by white liberals and find it so disrespectful, but a lot of people also feel that you championing the government to control our bodies is indeed very disrespectful, so there's enough disrespect to go around.
- smsm42 4y ago
  > it's what you would expect from a group of largely white, upper class, me If you try to see everything through identarian lens, no wonder your picture comes out skewed. > No matter when a life begins, the posters here on HN feel they will largely be unaffected So, you think we should shut up about it, because it's not for us to discuss such things. But you, yourself, do not. Because it's different for you, of course. You brought us the revelation of us being (statistically, because this is the only thing that matters) of wrong race and gender, and thus you are the exception from the rules. > vast political project that is underway, a project that cares not for philosophical arguments, because it really cares about control and obedience. Oh, you mean like we're being censored on every social network, deplatformed, fired from jobs for saying a wrong word at a wrong time, locked down, forced to surrender control of our movements, what we put into our bodies, what we wear, who we do business with, how we speak, how we teach our children? Constantly surveilled and monitored, and continuously gaslighted by our own government? Yeah, I feel you, I don't like that too. Not sure why you mentioned it out of the blue, but that's bad, I agree. But I have an idea. Maybe a bit less of power centralization would allow us to fight this control and obedience project? I mean, if the guys in control of it didn't have the power to tell the whole nation what to do - maybe they could demand less obedience and exercise less control? A wild thought, I know.
  - fundad 4y ago
    The no exceptions whatsoever bans are the model for the national ban that will come ones Republicans have the power to do it. You’re so pressed about being silenced but I’m the one who’s downvoted.
    - smsm42 4y ago
      Downvoting is disagreement. Deplatforming is refusing to discuss. Do I need to explain the difference between the two?
- Dracophoenix 4y ago
  > I've read through most comments, and it's what you would expect from a group of largely white, upper class, men - a philosophical debate that HN seems focused on the definition of life and drawing tortured analogies because seemingly no one here can actually relate to what it's like to need an abortion to save their own life. This is a site geared towards philosophical discussion. What were you expecting exactly? I would add that your claim regarding the people here being "unaffected" is disingenuous and presumptive. That no one here is on a moral crusade on your behalf, does not mean no one cares about the issue. We wouldn't be talking about it otherwise. > barely even touches on the real experiences of women and minorities who will be the ones whose lives are most affected as a result of the new laws being passed. Firstly, the absolute and relative populations of biological females on this forum are low. How exactly do you expect people to comprehend the "lived experiences" of a demographic that one is unlikely to run into on this forum? Secondly, women and minorities are not ideological monoliths. Polls indicate that there are about as many women against abortion as there are for them across all ethnicities, levels of wealth, creeds, and religions. The lived experiences of a female South Korean Presbyterian or female Ugandan Anglican are going to fall closer to that of the stereotypical Christian male Republican than they do to the stereotype of the disenfranchised single mother-to-be. > The second and third order effects of the recent court decision will change many aspects of our lives and our society, and it seems that has not actually caught up with many people here yet. If you had taken the time to read a number of the comments, many have touched on the same point by way of the very philosophical discussion you disdain. Of course, this ruling has long-term effects. However, your approach to it ignores the hows and then whys and isn't conducive to discussion.
- scarmig 4y ago
  This comment is dangerous and harmful. It only mouths a nostrum that flatters white coastal elite sensibilities--that any discussion of abortion has to be about how sexist and racist(?) opponents of it are. It presupposes that minorities are incapable of considering moral or philosophical arguments. And, perhaps worst of all, it's damaging to the cause of protecting access to abortion: insulting people only serves to validate yourself to the in-group you're signaling to, as opposed to convincing people of abortion being an important right. In a time where elections have to be won if we want to protect abortion rights, you've got to learn to make arguments stronger than "you're a white man."
  - ModernMech 4y ago
    Dangerous and harmful? Sorry for my wrongthink I guess. I'm not saying any discussion has to be about racism and sexism, I'm saying that this discussion filled with thought experiments and tortured analogies barely even considers the prospect that there's something more at play here. As if there is no power dynamic whatsoever. This debate is as political (probably more so) as it is philosophical. Your post seems to presuppose that there aren't sexism and racism dynamics at play, which seems equally "dangerous and harmful" to me if we're going to go down that road. As for in-group signaling, there's a lot of that going on here, including in your very comment (white coastal elite sensibilities). Talk about making a strong argument -- maybe saying a comment is "dangerous and elitist" isn't putting your best foot forward. Roe v. Wade didn't fall because more people were convinced it should fall. A minority of the country elected a President that appointed the current Justices. A Senate representing a minority of the country used hardball power-plays to install those justices on the bench. Those Justices lied (according to two Senators that voted for them) and obfuscated to make sure they would be confirmed, some of whom passed by the slimmest of margins and certainly wouldn't have gotten on the bench if they had been candid about their intentions. Abortion rights are falling because people in power used their power to get what they wanted, regardless of anyone's opinion. For me, this whole issue has taught me that the best way to get what you want isn't to convince people and build a coalition (who have largely made up their minds anyway), but to use power in cynical ways to reach your desired outcome, the consequences be damned.
    - 4y ago

by fundad 4y ago

ModernMech 4y ago

fknorangesite 4y ago
> And it is this feeling of disconnect from the real consequences of the post-Roe era that is causing most here to completely miss the vast political project that is underway, a project that cares not for philosophical arguments, because it really cares about control and obedience. God this whole comment is a breath of fresh air. Thank you.
throwaway894345 4y ago
> I've read through most comments, and it's what you would expect from a group of largely white, upper class, men I'll hazard some unsolicited advice: besides being boring and morally reprehensible, tropes only diminish your credibility. > I've read through most comments, and it's what you would expect from a group of largely white, upper class, men - a philosophical debate that barely even touches on the real experiences of women and minorities who will be the ones whose lives are most affected as a result of the new laws being passed. There has been virtually no appetite to discuss the women who have had negative abortion experiences over the last 50 years (or at least not in my lifetime) under Roe v. Wade whether minority or otherwise. Cherry-picking experiences isn't a good formulation for constructive public debate. > No matter when a life begins, the posters here on HN feel they will largely be unaffected, so the debate remains in the clouds. On the contrary, it's such a serious topic that it deserves a dispassioned treatment. This is genuinely the first time I've seen an abortion debate that doesn't immediately devolve into "you want to murder babies" and "you want to oppress women". It's good to challenge our emotions with reason. > The post-Roe era will be blanket and extreme abortion bans wherever the GOP has full control. They are telegraphing this and many posters here are seemingly willfully blind to what they have in store. So far they have said they desire to pass the most extreme bans possible regarding abortion at a national level, and when they are done with that they are coming after contraception, gay marriage, and even sexual acts they find distasteful. I don't know why anyone here is dismissing the possibility as far-fetched. It's pretty hard to believe Republicans in general are coming for things like gay marriage when 55% of Republicans approve of it per a 2022 Gallup poll (I would imagine conservatives approve of contraception even more). I think perhaps the left-wing media may be exaggerating right now, as partisan media are want to do. I think it's a good idea to establish legislative protections for these things, particularly by building a broad, bipartisan coalition (maybe take lessons from the gay rights movement, considering its remarkable success in reversing even Republican opinion). If Republicans want to pander to their extreme wings, then take their moderates (reverse the 2016-2022 trend).
- ModernMech 4y ago
  > tropes only diminish your credibility. And yet there is a reason the discussion here barely touches on women. We know how the demographics of HN skew, and that creates a huge bias in the discussion here. We shouldn't naval gaze through this debate, and instead recognize that of the hundreds of comments here going in circles about stealing kidneys, hypothetically poisoning people, and hypothetical lives born or dying, there are real people who are actually in harms way right now due to laws being passed. > There has been virtually no appetite to discuss the women who have had negative abortion experiences over the last 50 years There's definitely an appetite, but is there space? It's certainly not created here. > it's such a serious topic that it deserves a dispassioned treatment. Maybe it deserves a dispassionate treatment (I'm certainly not going to provide that), but certainly not a myopic one. The high-minded philosophical arguments here miss the forest for the trees in my opinion. > It's pretty hard to believe Republicans in general are coming for things like gay marriage when 55% of Republicans approve of it per a 2022 Gallup poll Republicans "in general" aren't who I'm talking about; I'm talking about politicians. If you haven't noticed, gerrymandering has created a situation where Republicans can choose their voters, so they remain in power no matter how extreme their positions. Maybe also flying under your radar is a complete disdain among many Republicans for the concept of elections and democracy as a concept. Perhaps you haven't noticed that the Supreme Court will soon decide on a case that determines whether state legislatures are able to have complete control, without judicial review, of their election results? Frankly, it doesn't matter what Republicans writ large want. The extremists have taken control of the party, and they are stacking the deck to make sure they never have to lose an election again. Last time they lost an election they literally plotted and attempted to execute a coup. Now they are trying to make what they did in 2020 legal. What do you think happens next? Genuine question there.
  - smsm42 4y ago
    > so they remain in power no matter how extreme their positions If you watched actual Republican primaries, as opposed to reading about scary Republicans on Twitter, you'd see this is wildly inaccurate - there is substantial variety among Republican positions, and there are things which different Republican voters (gasp! Republicans voter can differ!) are willing and not willing to tolerate. Which kinda would be expected from a party uniting tens of millions of people, if you think about it a bit... > Maybe also flying under your radar is a complete disdain among many Republicans for the concept of elections and democracy as a concept. This is also wildly false - if anything, Republicans are very upset right now exactly because they feel the concept of elections is under attack. Whether it is true or not, it's exactly the opposite of what would happen if they disdained the concept of elections. > and they are stacking the deck to make sure they never have to lose an election again This canard is dusted off on every election, and it is as false today as it was first time when it was invented. Nobody is ensuring "they never have to lose an election again", however sweet that may sound to a partisan ear, and it's not possible for Republicans even more given that Democrats almost exclusively control large population centers. Yes, there are places where Republicans routinely win (as there are places where Democrats routinely win) - it's not a nefarious conspiracy, it's a demographic fact. But this will never become everywhere, elections in the US in general has always been competitive, and remain so. > Last time they lost an election they literally plotted and attempted to execute a coup. No they did not. They had a protest. Which led to nothing except Democrats trying to milk it for the last drops of that sweet partisan outrage juice for the last year and a half. That's all there was. > Now they are trying to make what they did in 2020 legal. What they did in 2020 - namely protesting - already is legal. What some of them did - like fighting with the police, stealing things and vandalizing things - is not legal, and nobody is trying to make it legal. > What do you think happens next? Genuine question there. Next there will be 2022 elections where Democrats suffer some serious drubbing due to Presidential party routinely suffering drubbing in the midterms, compounded by dismal performance of the current President and generally unfavorable surrounding conditions. Some Democrats (not the smartest ones) will scream the democracy is dead in the US and fascism has been finally installed, and this is the last elections ever. Then there would be 2024 elections as usual, with the usual appropriate screaming and running around from parties involved. I have no idea who would win, but I am sure it'd be as close as ever, and whatever party wins, the other party would claim the election has been stolen and the democracy in the US has ended and fascism has been installed. The democracy will continue as it did for the last 250 years.
rayiner 4y ago
> women and minorities Women and men don’t significantly differ in their views toward abortion: https://www.vox.com/2019/5/20/18629644/abortion-gender-gap-public-opinion https://www.vox.com/2019/5/20/18629644/abortion-gender-gap-p.... Women make up the majority of voters in states passing restrictive abortion laws. 53% of voters in 2020 in Oklahoma were women, and they voted for Donald Trump 62-37. In Mississippi (the state that enacted the law that was upheld in Dobbs) women outnumbered men 55-45, and voted 56-43 for Trump. Conservative women are the backbone of the anti-abortion movement, just as liberal women are the backbone of the pro-choice movement. And numerically, those two groups are evenly matched, with most women falling in the mushy middle: https://news.gallup.com/poll/388988/political-ideology-steady-conservatives-moderates-tie.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/388988/political-ideology-stead... As to minorities, they are much more likely to view abortion as a morally complex issue than white liberals. The 25% or so of the Democratic Party that identifies as pro life is predominantly Black and Hispanic. In Georgia, for example, Black people and white people have identical views on abortion—half of Black people oppose it, despite voting democrat: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/ https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-stu... It’s incredibly frustrating when minorities are used as tokens and proxies to advance views that are predominantly held by white liberals. It’s goddamn disrespectful to their political autonomy.
- ModernMech 4y ago
  You're not replying to what I said: > barely even touches on the real experiences of women and minorities who will be the ones whose lives are most affected as a result of the new laws being passed. I qualified "women and minorities". There are many women and minorities who will not be affected at all by a ban on abortion. Specifically, the wealthiest ones can afford to have high-minded philosophical opinions about what life is, because if/when they ever encounter the real need for an abortion, they can just get one! And we know they will because that's what history and experience shows us happens in places where abortions are banned; abortions are not eliminated, they are just displaced and made more dangerous. But that doesn't change the fact that the people who will be most affected by these bans, the people whose lives are on the line, are in fact women and minorities. And it doesn't change the fact that real experiences of actual people are completely missing from the discussion here. I mean, if you want to take your position, where is the discussion from the pro-life crowd about people who weren't aborted and appreciate that? Or the people who decided against an abortion and what changed their mind? That would be a good discussion to have too and would reify the whole philosophical debate. But that's absent as well! And I'm sorry it so frustrates you that you believe minorities are used at proxies to advance views that are predominately held by white liberals and find it so disrespectful, but a lot of people also feel that you championing the government to control our bodies is indeed very disrespectful, so there's enough disrespect to go around.
smsm42 4y ago
> it's what you would expect from a group of largely white, upper class, me If you try to see everything through identarian lens, no wonder your picture comes out skewed. > No matter when a life begins, the posters here on HN feel they will largely be unaffected So, you think we should shut up about it, because it's not for us to discuss such things. But you, yourself, do not. Because it's different for you, of course. You brought us the revelation of us being (statistically, because this is the only thing that matters) of wrong race and gender, and thus you are the exception from the rules. > vast political project that is underway, a project that cares not for philosophical arguments, because it really cares about control and obedience. Oh, you mean like we're being censored on every social network, deplatformed, fired from jobs for saying a wrong word at a wrong time, locked down, forced to surrender control of our movements, what we put into our bodies, what we wear, who we do business with, how we speak, how we teach our children? Constantly surveilled and monitored, and continuously gaslighted by our own government? Yeah, I feel you, I don't like that too. Not sure why you mentioned it out of the blue, but that's bad, I agree. But I have an idea. Maybe a bit less of power centralization would allow us to fight this control and obedience project? I mean, if the guys in control of it didn't have the power to tell the whole nation what to do - maybe they could demand less obedience and exercise less control? A wild thought, I know.
- fundad 4y ago
  The no exceptions whatsoever bans are the model for the national ban that will come ones Republicans have the power to do it. You’re so pressed about being silenced but I’m the one who’s downvoted.
  - smsm42 4y ago
    Downvoting is disagreement. Deplatforming is refusing to discuss. Do I need to explain the difference between the two?
Dracophoenix 4y ago
> I've read through most comments, and it's what you would expect from a group of largely white, upper class, men - a philosophical debate that HN seems focused on the definition of life and drawing tortured analogies because seemingly no one here can actually relate to what it's like to need an abortion to save their own life. This is a site geared towards philosophical discussion. What were you expecting exactly? I would add that your claim regarding the people here being "unaffected" is disingenuous and presumptive. That no one here is on a moral crusade on your behalf, does not mean no one cares about the issue. We wouldn't be talking about it otherwise. > barely even touches on the real experiences of women and minorities who will be the ones whose lives are most affected as a result of the new laws being passed. Firstly, the absolute and relative populations of biological females on this forum are low. How exactly do you expect people to comprehend the "lived experiences" of a demographic that one is unlikely to run into on this forum? Secondly, women and minorities are not ideological monoliths. Polls indicate that there are about as many women against abortion as there are for them across all ethnicities, levels of wealth, creeds, and religions. The lived experiences of a female South Korean Presbyterian or female Ugandan Anglican are going to fall closer to that of the stereotypical Christian male Republican than they do to the stereotype of the disenfranchised single mother-to-be. > The second and third order effects of the recent court decision will change many aspects of our lives and our society, and it seems that has not actually caught up with many people here yet. If you had taken the time to read a number of the comments, many have touched on the same point by way of the very philosophical discussion you disdain. Of course, this ruling has long-term effects. However, your approach to it ignores the hows and then whys and isn't conducive to discussion.
scarmig 4y ago
This comment is dangerous and harmful. It only mouths a nostrum that flatters white coastal elite sensibilities--that any discussion of abortion has to be about how sexist and racist(?) opponents of it are. It presupposes that minorities are incapable of considering moral or philosophical arguments. And, perhaps worst of all, it's damaging to the cause of protecting access to abortion: insulting people only serves to validate yourself to the in-group you're signaling to, as opposed to convincing people of abortion being an important right. In a time where elections have to be won if we want to protect abortion rights, you've got to learn to make arguments stronger than "you're a white man."
- ModernMech 4y ago
  Dangerous and harmful? Sorry for my wrongthink I guess. I'm not saying any discussion has to be about racism and sexism, I'm saying that this discussion filled with thought experiments and tortured analogies barely even considers the prospect that there's something more at play here. As if there is no power dynamic whatsoever. This debate is as political (probably more so) as it is philosophical. Your post seems to presuppose that there aren't sexism and racism dynamics at play, which seems equally "dangerous and harmful" to me if we're going to go down that road. As for in-group signaling, there's a lot of that going on here, including in your very comment (white coastal elite sensibilities). Talk about making a strong argument -- maybe saying a comment is "dangerous and elitist" isn't putting your best foot forward. Roe v. Wade didn't fall because more people were convinced it should fall. A minority of the country elected a President that appointed the current Justices. A Senate representing a minority of the country used hardball power-plays to install those justices on the bench. Those Justices lied (according to two Senators that voted for them) and obfuscated to make sure they would be confirmed, some of whom passed by the slimmest of margins and certainly wouldn't have gotten on the bench if they had been candid about their intentions. Abortion rights are falling because people in power used their power to get what they wanted, regardless of anyone's opinion. For me, this whole issue has taught me that the best way to get what you want isn't to convince people and build a coalition (who have largely made up their minds anyway), but to use power in cynical ways to reach your desired outcome, the consequences be damned.
  - 4y ago