The Roe Countdown

[Armitage72]

The only way you can ignore this is because you don't have a womb.

I saw this on another forum.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Again the differences between the opinions of men and women about abortions are minimal on a demographic level, only about a 5% difference.

I get how cathartic the "hardy har men" jokes are, but they don't actually represent the reality.

Neither anti-abortion women or pro-abortion men are some minor fringe group.

 

[BobTheCoward]

A good distillation of the clerical fascist worldview, from our friend Ross Douthat at the NyTimes:



https://twitter.com/DouthatNYT/status/1522556804252770304

Declining social and material conditions can't be explained by any kind of class or policy analysis, clearly the result of a society that is too permissive of women slutting it up without consequence.

We're living in a world that is increasingly strained by the unchecked depravities of capitalism/neoliberalism, but these fascists will simply ascribe all the various inequities and social inadequacies as the consequence of weak character, then use that logic to turn the screws on segments of the population they determine degenerate.

Sure thing Douthat, turning back the sexual revolution will make every working man a king again.

This makes me laugh

Worth noting that in the 50 yrs since Roe, men have become less likely to find a spouse, less likely father kids or live with the kids they father, and less likely to participate in the workforce.

Those all seem like pretty good things

 

[Armitage72]

Again the differences between the opinions of men and women about abortions are minimal on a demographic level, only about a 5% difference.

The bigger question is if the differences are the same among the people who are actually making the rules for everyone else.

 

[Ziggurat]

"But the left is real racist!"

Get a goddamn new tune.

Are you capable of thinking anything that isn't a Republican talking point?

Are you capable of arguing with me without using straw men? "The left" is too broad, and it isn't what I said. Get a new tune indeed.

Most liberals and democrats don't support racial segregation. But when you find racial segregation on college campuses, for example, it's not coming from the right, it's coming from the left. And in perhaps the most Orwellian twist, it is now an axiom among many radical leftists that trying to be color blind is itself racist.

There absolutely is racism on the far right, but have blinded yourself to, and therefore tolerated, racism on the far left.

 

[JoeMorgue]

The bigger question is if the differences are the same among the people who are actually making the rules for everyone else.

Yeah but that has nothing to do with making snipply little comments at "men" as a street level demographic.

And besides there's plenty of women Republicans and men Democrats in high government.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Are you capable of arguing with me without using straw men?

Are you capable of understanding that every argument against you isn't a straw man?

When did wrong people both fall in love with that term and forget what it actually means?

Oh right I forgot, when you decided being wrong on purpose was your only trick.

 

[cosmicaug]

A good distillation of the clerical fascist worldview, from our friend Ross Douthat at the NyTimes:

Worth noting that in the 50 yrs since Roe, men have become less likely to find a spouse, less likely father kids or live with the kids they father, and less likely to participate in the workforce.

Harder to measure "big risks" but rates of new business formation and even moving from state to state have also declined.

https://twitter.com/DouthatNYT/status/1522556804252770304

Why is it that mainstream conservative discourse these days can so easily be indistinguishable from discourse originating in the depths of incel slime pits?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Why is it that mainstream conservative discourse these days can so easily be indistinguishable from discourse originating in the depths of incel slime pits?

Because they are on a mission to actually do everything they screeched about being a "strawman" a few years back as flex.

Again strip everything away and it's all about restablishing power, then "We can do anything we want and you can't stop us."

More than anything that's what this and everything else they do is about.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Again the differences between the opinions of men and women about abortions are minimal on a demographic level, only about a 5% difference.

I get how cathartic the "hardy har men" jokes are, but they don't actually represent the reality.

Neither anti-abortion women or pro-abortion men are some minor fringe group.

Yeah, the reality is there is no shortage of women who support these kinds of policies. Men have no monopoly on moralizing about sex and seeing unwanted children as some cosmic justice for loose women. I suppose you could categorize this as internalized misogyny, but the "men controlling women's bodies" line doesn't really hold up considering the rather slim difference in opinion.

Likewise, men also benefit for many of the same reasons women do from abortion. Obviously women are the ones primarily impacted by pregnancy, but I'm sure there are plenty of men out there who's lives are much, much better off because they were not forced to become parents to unwanted children.

The systems to identify fathers and extract child support are much, much better than they were decades ago. Forcing pregnant women to birth unwanted children is not strictly a women's issue (though obviously they bear the lion's share of the burdens) and men and women share many of the same concerns.

 

[Ziggurat]

Are you capable of understanding that every argument against you isn't a straw man?

Yours was. I pointed out why. You have no response to the substance of my argument.

Oh right I forgot, when you decided being wrong on purpose was your only trick.

You have yet to actually even argue what I'm wrong about. Curious, one might expect you to focus on that, but you never seem to.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Yours was. I pointed out why. You have no response to the substance of my argument.



You have yet to actually even argue what I'm wrong about. Curious, one might expect you to focus on that, but you never seem to.

Dude I do not have to jump through hoops to debate you.

You're wrong. Proudly so. You have zero idea what you are talking about.

Just keep calling everything a strawman like all the other proudly wrong Right Wingers until your masters tell you what to think next.

 

[shemp]

7 persistent claims about abortion, fact-checked

Claim: There is big support for ending Roe in America.

Fact: 6 in 10 U.S. adults (61%) say that abortion should be legal in most or all cases.

Claim: After Roe, abortions skyrocketed.

Fact: While the rate of abortions increased significantly in the decade after Roe v. Wade, it has since decreased to below the 1973 level.

Claim: Abortion is dangerous.

Fact: Pregnancy and childbirth are far more dangerous than getting an abortion, according to data from the CDC.

Claim: The only people getting abortions are straight, cisgender women.

Fact: About 500 transgender or nonbinary people had abortions in 2017, according to a Guttmacher Institute survey.

Claim: People are getting abortions late in pregnancy.

Fact: Over 90% of abortions happen in the first trimester (by 13 weeks).

Claim: Fetuses feel pain early in a pregnancy.

Fact: Medical researchers agree a fetus is not capable of experiencing pain until the third trimester, somewhere between 29 or 30 weeks. Despite this, 16 states have passed abortion bans based on the notion that fetuses experience pain at or around 22 weeks.

Claim: People who are religious don’t get abortions.

Fact: More than 60% of abortion patients have a religious affiliation.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I'll have to find the article but there was an abortion provider who shared that religious, anti-abortion women get abortions ALL THE TIME and will literally condemn her to hell for performing abortions while PEFORMING THEIR ABORTIONS.

That's the level of mental walls these people have put up.

 

[Ziggurat]

Dude I do not have to jump through hoops to debate you.

You aren't debating at all. You're just throwing ad hominems at me and declaring me wrong, but you aren't actually explaining why I'm wrong, or even frankly what I'm wrong about. And it's rather peculiar to describe the expectation that you explain your argument and address your opponent's argument as jumping through hoops.

In fairness, you aren't under any obligation to debate me. But there's really no point in pretending you are debating when you aren't.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Again the differences between the opinions of men and women about abortions are minimal on a demographic level, only about a 5% difference.

I get how cathartic the "hardy har men" jokes are, but they don't actually represent the reality.

Neither anti-abortion women or pro-abortion men are some minor fringe group.

I think they do represent reality because it is men in power that are making these decisions, not the plurality of men.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I think they do represent reality because it is men in power that are making these decisions, not the plurality of men.

It's not like conservatives have any trouble finding women leaders willing to hawk the same BS though. Finding a token member of a certain demographic willing to gut their own rights is one of the right's favorite little pranks, like Thomas opposing civil rights laws or Coney Barret voting to overturn Roe. They've got quite the sense of humor in that way.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Intelligent, articulate with a bit of passion and fire, comes across well on camera (admittedly to a friendly interviewer), presumably experienced (though I'm making an ageist assumption there) - why wasn't this guy one of the leadership candidates for the Democrats?

Don't get me wrong, I liked some of the candidates but I could also see why others (unfairly in my opinion) wouldn't.

ETA Damn, just noticed his age (66)...still, younger than some of them were.

And just think of the cool reporting!

This just in…the Whitehouse White House will be nominating Justice Buford T. Justice to the Supreme Court.

 

[Ziggurat]

7 persistent claims about abortion, fact-checked

Where the hell are these supposed claims coming from? Some of them I've never heard before. For example:

Claim: The only people getting abortions are straight, cisgender women.

I don't think I've ever heard that claim. I don't see that it even matters. But OK, that one's false.

There are several of their fact checks which superficially look like refutations but are not. They are, at best, claims worth putting in context. For example:

Claim: After Roe, abortions skyrocketed.

Well, it did. Their own graph shows that abortion rates almost doubled. They subsequently came back down slowly over time, and are now below where they were in 1973, but abortions absolutely did skyrocket for a period of time after Roe. This context may well be important, but it's not a refutation of the claim.

Or here's another one:

Claim: People are getting abortions late in pregnancy.

Fact: Over 90% of abortions happen in the first trimester (by 13 weeks).

The fact doesn't refute the claim. The claim, as stated, is not that most abortions are occur in late pregnancy, but that there are late pregnancy abortions. And, well, there are, and their fact doesn't even dispute that. They may be a minority, but they exist. Considering that NPR thought it important that a mere 500 or so "transgender and nonbinary" people got abortions in 2017, it's not like they've taken the position that small numbers are irrelevant. Again, context may be important, and if you care about the difference between early and late abortions, it seems rather relevant to know how many are early rather than late. But it's still true that people are getting late abortions.

OK, one last one that's a bit more in depth:

Claim: Fetuses feel pain early in a pregnancy.

Fact: Medical researchers agree a fetus is not capable of experiencing pain until the third trimester, somewhere between 29 or 30 weeks. Despite this, 16 states have passed abortion bans based on the notion that fetuses experience pain at or around 22 weeks.

I always get suspicious about claims of agreement about things that seem hard to determine, so I looked into this. I was not surprised to find that there is not in fact agreement on the topic. The source they quote is from 2005. Here's a more recent paper from 2019 on the topic:

https://www.sfnmjournal.com/article/S1744-165X(19)30031-9/fulltext

"It appears that pain is a neuroadaptive phenomenon that emerges in the middle of pregnancy, at about 20–22 weeks of gestation, and becomes more and more evident for bystanders and significant for the fetus, throughout the rest of the pregnancy."

So the bans they reference are in line with this more recent research. Now, is the more recent research correct? No idea, honestly. But I don't need to resolve this conflict in order to recognize that the agreement NPR claims exists does not in fact exist.

BTW, this was pretty easy to find. All I had to do was look up what papers cited the paper NPR was using, and I will get more recent papers on the topic. NPR could have found this paper very, if they were actually interested in examining the state of research in the field. I don't think they were. I think this is deliberate dishonesty. To the extent that it's important to provide broader context on claims which are true (such as late abortions), they utterly failed to do that here.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

You forgot pedophiles.

Won’t someone think of the pedophiles!