4 ms·

>utter garbage like denying women modern medical care. As became clearly to many for the first time after the SC decision, abortion laws in the US would be con

>utter garbage like denying women modern medical care. As became clearly to many for the first time after the SC decision, abortion laws in the US would be considered extreme even in western Europe. I mean, elective abortion in the third trimester? This is literally justifying anyone who ever called it baby-killing. The fact that you summarize this kind of policy extremism as "modern medical care" that any "analytical person" would agree with, and any opposition to it as fundamentalism and backwards... that's a perfect illustration of the woke mindset yes. Utterly provincial, zero empathy for anyone who disagrees, and a massively unwarranted sense of self-importance.

crote 4y ago
You seem to be forgetting that a lot of US legislators are trying to ban all abortion, not just elective third trimester abortion.
- unconed 4y ago
  I am not. This is called whiplash. If you push and push and push, and call anyone who dissents an extremist, eventually someone will do that to you. You'd think the woke would have realized that by now. But they seem incapable of modeling their opponents as anything other than evil. Personally I think that if women want to unilaterally decide to keep or abort, then fatherhood should be opt-in. Fair is fair. And if fathers can't wiggle out of parenthood, neither should women. The argument that he should've kept it in his pants is the exact same as saying she should've kept her legs shut. Either you agree with both, or with neither.
  - mindslight 4y ago
    > Personally I think that if women want to unilaterally decide to keep or abort, then fatherhood should be opt-in Would it help convince you that I'm not a member of this strawman "woke mob" by saying I wholeheartedly agree with you on this? As I said in another comment, I'm not coming from this as a blue partisan, but rather a leave me alone libertarian who has been reluctantly pushed into voting conservative (which in 2023 means Democrat). Your argument here is just both sidesing "extremism" into moral relativism. In the real world, providing straightforward necessary medical care has been criminalized. This isn't hypothetical, but direct backwards-thinking oppression caused by a specific political movement, focusing on a straw man of third trimester elective abortions while writing off the collateral damage. For this not to be a straw man, you'd need to put forth statistics about the number of third trimester elective abortions (healthy normal pregnancies with no birth defects, etc), showing it's a significant topic. And if you want to advocate for banning that specifically, then I will understand where you're coming from. But so far you've just used it as a motte and bailey to ignore the scope of what has actually been criminalized.
mindslight 4y ago
For the longest time, I thought the right answer was to let states regulate it as they see fit. I thought differentiation/competition between the states was sufficient to provide access to the service, while sidestepping the political conundrum. I thought abortion should be thought of as a mostly elective procedure, as both the red and blue political marketing would lead you to believe. But then life happened, which put me in touch with the actual medical details. A basic scenario: A pregnant woman with ultrasound and genetic tests indicating severe birth defects. But there is still a "fetal heartbeat", an electrical signal that is necessary but not sufficient for life. It is now illegal to provide treatment for this condition in Texas [0], in favor of attempting to carry the non-viable growth to term and possibly dying as a result. So no, my characterization is not "policy extremism". Rather, what's extremist is this desire to prohibit straightforward medical care in favor of uninvolved collectivist woo. The reference to third trimester elective abortion "baby killing" is political nonsense. If someone is "using abortion instead of birth control", they're doing it in the first trimester, where they can take a pill rather than waiting and undergoing an invasive medical procedure. As for third trimester abortions, Pete Buttigieg put it extremely well: > So, let's put ourselves in the shoes of a woman in that situation. If it's that late in your pregnancy, that means almost by definition you've been expecting to carry it to term. We're talking about women who have perhaps chosen the name, women who have purchased the crib, families that then get the most devastating medical news of their lifetime, something about the health or the life of the mother that forces them to make an impossible, unthinkable choice. That decision is not going to be made any better, medically or morally, because the government is dictating how that decision should be made [0] eg https://www.wbtv.com/2022/09/08/texas-woman-travels-abortion-after-learning-baby-wouldnt-survive/ https://www.wbtv.com/2022/09/08/texas-woman-travels-abortion...

crote 4y ago

You seem to be forgetting that a lot of US legislators are trying to ban all abortion, not just elective third trimester abortion.

unconed 4y ago
I am not. This is called whiplash. If you push and push and push, and call anyone who dissents an extremist, eventually someone will do that to you. You'd think the woke would have realized that by now. But they seem incapable of modeling their opponents as anything other than evil. Personally I think that if women want to unilaterally decide to keep or abort, then fatherhood should be opt-in. Fair is fair. And if fathers can't wiggle out of parenthood, neither should women. The argument that he should've kept it in his pants is the exact same as saying she should've kept her legs shut. Either you agree with both, or with neither.
- mindslight 4y ago
  > Personally I think that if women want to unilaterally decide to keep or abort, then fatherhood should be opt-in Would it help convince you that I'm not a member of this strawman "woke mob" by saying I wholeheartedly agree with you on this? As I said in another comment, I'm not coming from this as a blue partisan, but rather a leave me alone libertarian who has been reluctantly pushed into voting conservative (which in 2023 means Democrat). Your argument here is just both sidesing "extremism" into moral relativism. In the real world, providing straightforward necessary medical care has been criminalized. This isn't hypothetical, but direct backwards-thinking oppression caused by a specific political movement, focusing on a straw man of third trimester elective abortions while writing off the collateral damage. For this not to be a straw man, you'd need to put forth statistics about the number of third trimester elective abortions (healthy normal pregnancies with no birth defects, etc), showing it's a significant topic. And if you want to advocate for banning that specifically, then I will understand where you're coming from. But so far you've just used it as a motte and bailey to ignore the scope of what has actually been criminalized.

mindslight 4y ago

For the longest time, I thought the right answer was to let states regulate it as they see fit. I thought differentiation/competition between the states was sufficient to provide access to the service, while sidestepping the political conundrum. I thought abortion should be thought of as a mostly elective procedure, as both the red and blue political marketing would lead you to believe. But then life happened, which put me in touch with the actual medical details. A basic scenario: A pregnant woman with ultrasound and genetic tests indicating severe birth defects. But there is still a "fetal heartbeat", an electrical signal that is necessary but not sufficient for life. It is now illegal to provide treatment for this condition in Texas [0], in favor of attempting to carry the non-viable growth to term and possibly dying as a result. So no, my characterization is not "policy extremism". Rather, what's extremist is this desire to prohibit straightforward medical care in favor of uninvolved collectivist woo. The reference to third trimester elective abortion "baby killing" is political nonsense. If someone is "using abortion instead of birth control", they're doing it in the first trimester, where they can take a pill rather than waiting and undergoing an invasive medical procedure. As for third trimester abortions, Pete Buttigieg put it extremely well: > So, let's put ourselves in the shoes of a woman in that situation. If it's that late in your pregnancy, that means almost by definition you've been expecting to carry it to term. We're talking about women who have perhaps chosen the name, women who have purchased the crib, families that then get the most devastating medical news of their lifetime, something about the health or the life of the mother that forces them to make an impossible, unthinkable choice. That decision is not going to be made any better, medically or morally, because the government is dictating how that decision should be made [0] eg https://www.wbtv.com/2022/09/08/texas-woman-travels-abortion-after-learning-baby-wouldnt-survive/ https://www.wbtv.com/2022/09/08/texas-woman-travels-abortion...