Abortion news and discussion

[Isgrimnur]

Moving this to an appropriate thread:

Nope, but not many are willing to see the non-extreme right's point of view as valid - even if they disagree. Too many of us equate anything right of the center as being the same as MAGA, which amplifies the us-vs-them issue.

For example, I'm pro choice, as is pretty much everyone here. But how many are willing to stop and look at the other side's view? How many will think about what abortion would mean if they genuinely believed that a fetus was an actual living person? How willing would you be to compromise if that was your genuine belief?

How many can at least say, "I don't agree, but I honestly get it?"

It's easy to lump the understandable views in with the extreme views (mandatory Bible lessons in public schools, Trump won, etc) and react to everything right of center with anger and intolerance.

Again, anger is the easiest emotion, and a cathartic one.

I don't agree, but I honestly get it.

HOWEVER, the reality doesn't back it up.

Approximately 10 to 15% of confirmed pregnancies spontaneously abort, and over 80% of spontaneous abortions occur in the first trimester.

In a national database study, the risks of miscarriage across maternal age groups were as follows: < 20 years (17%); 20 to 24 (11%); 25 to 29 (10%); 30 to 34 (11%); 35 to 39 (17%); 40 to 44 (33%); > 45 (57%)

So the number one killer of actual living persons is ... ?

Seems to me there's some culling going on before birth.

[Isgrimnur]

I feel like things are continuing to get worse:

Alabama Chief Justice Tom Parker ... also quoted a Bible verse in which God told the prophet Jeremiah, “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you.”

Jeremiah 1:5

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew[a] you,
before you were born I set you apart;
I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”

[a] or chose

That sure sounds like it was a conversation between two entities, not a blanket statement about the normal operations of things. So Mr. Parker here isn't even pulling a verse out of context, he's paring down to one-third of a verse.

Expanding the context of the quote doesn't back Mr. Parker's assertions.

[YellowKing]

There are 100,000 ectopic pregnancies per year according to the CDC. That's 100,000 women facing death if they're not allowed to terminate a clump of cells that has a ZERO percent chance of becoming a baby.

That's why I find it hard to reason with people on this topic because "religion." They're arguing from a place which has zero basis in scientific fact or medicine, and they're voting for policies to be put into place by people with zero medical experience. I'm guessing these same people would be appalled if I told them my auto mechanic was going to decide how their cancer was treated. But they seemingly have no problem letting a politician decide the best medical treatment for my wife or daughter.

[Blackhawk]

And again, before this gets personal, I am pro-choice. The original quote, in context, wasn't about that, and it wasn't agreeing with the other side. It also wasn't about reasoning with the other side, or compromising with the other side. It wasn't about what arguments to use against them. It was, 100%, about trying to see an argument from the other side's point of view. Nothing more.

I'm a skeptic and an atheist (well, an agnostic atheist.) But I am aware that there are certain topics where different religions feel differently than I do - and they're not always contradictory. Instead, many often add an additional layer, an extra criteria.

All I was suggesting was trying to look at contentious issues from the other side's point of view. Not all have validity - there's no basis for considering 'Trump won in 2020.' But many, where the opposing view is different from my own, are more nuanced than that. I can understand how and why a Christian is anti-abortion. I don't agree, and the peripheral cost is something that's often ignored in the arguments. But as long as I can understand where they're coming from, I can accept that their view may be more about honest beliefs, and less about the malicious intent that we often ascribe to them.

I can also understand that, from their perspective, most of our arguments include the idea of 'Your religion is wrong, your beliefs are wrong, and your culture is wrong. We're going to make you live by our ideals.' Again, I'm not saying I agree with them - but it absolutely does (and should) color how I interact with those people, and how I discuss the issues with them.

The left has grown increasingly intolerant and hostile (and a big to whoever responds with, 'But they started it!') We've given up compromise as much as the right has. It's really starting to show here on OO, where we've replaced disagreement with, anger, mockery, and straight up belligerence. If that's what people feel they need to do, then do it - but it's something else that I'm going to argue against.

[hepcat]

When “Christians” on their second, third or fourth wife are telling me how to live the right away I have to laugh….ruefully.

[YellowKing]

I've made the same argument here before (more tolerance), but it depends on what mood I'm in that week as to whether I follow my own advice. There's a lot of societal pressure right now and while I agree in theory that we should all try to get along, in practice sometimes I feel like my kids are being threatened and that makes papa grizzly bear come out.

[Blackhawk]

I do not encourage tolerance of bullshit.

I encourage making the attempt to understand the other side's views and deciding (and it will be different for every person and every issue) whether you can at least get why they feel that way. We're labeling too many different views as being evil views.

And again, this wasn't about abortion. This was about general interactions with other people. I used abortion as a single example (mostly because I can recognize why they're so adamant about that than on, say, gun control.)

[Skinypupy]

The left has grown increasingly intolerant and hostile (and a big to whoever responds with, 'But they started it!') We've given up compromise as much as the right has. It's really starting to show here on OO, where we've replaced disagreement with, anger, mockery, and straight up belligerence. If that's what people feel they need to do, then do it - but it's something else that I'm going to argue against.

Maybe because "compromise" increasingly feels like this? (different topic, but you get the point)

[Blackhawk]

I do not encourage tolerance of bullshit.

Not everything is deserving of compromise.

I said 'making an attempt to understand.' Not every issue has a reasonable motivation behind it to be understood.

[Blackhawk]

Why (to nobody in particular) does not toeing the line on every issue seem to mean to people that I accept and support every position?

We really are starting to feel tribal, and I'm not sure that I want to be in either tribe.

[Kraken]

Why (to nobody in particular) does not toeing the line on every issue seem to mean to people that I accept and support every position?

We really are starting to feel tribal, and I'm not sure that I want to be in either tribe.

I think we all have some disagreements with our tribe. For example, as somebody who edits advocacy stories about campus DEI initiatives almost every day, I think they've lost sight of the "I" part. I'm not on board with exclusionary identity policies, but that's just what you'd expect from an elderly while cisgender male like me. That said, even though I don't like everything about my tribe I wouldn't last 10 minutes in the other one.

[YellowKing]

I'm insanely (perhaps overly) tolerant of people with opposing views in real life. I have plenty of friends who are avid Trump supporters, and we get along just fine as long as we're not talking about politics.

The problem with a message board devoted to politics is that, well, you're talking politics.

[LordMortis]

Maybe because "compromise" increasingly feels like this? (different topic, but you get the point)

This. Though there is 1) an increasing "progressive" faction (or perhaps the same amount getting louder) that is more extreme and 2) "the Civil Rights" side is acting more and more entitled to my support and I don't accept that, even if I'm stuck with it. "The bright side" is that will make me more and more willing to compromise if the "kill black people" side ever come off the ledge and cease to be that side.

[Unagi]

and an atheist (well, an agnostic atheist.)

whew, that sounds complicated.


I suggest you describe yourself as "not a theist". I imagine it's perfectly accurate and it puts the theism back on their docket, not yours.

And I don't expect you to listen to that suggestion. I expect you will tell me a nuance about your position that makes my suggestion unhelpful.

[TheMix]

And I don't expect you to listen to that suggestion. I expect you will tell me a nuance about your position that makes my suggestion unhelpful.

It's nice to know I'm not alone.

[Blackhawk]

I'm very confused by both responses (I still can't read between the lines, so I can never tell when people are hinting around - I have thanked people for far too many insults, and gotten offended at too many compliments because I can't tell the difference.)

And my views aren't complicated. I think atheism is the 'correct' answer, but I also think it's intellectually dishonest to say that there's absolutely no 'god.' So I leave a little wiggle room - I don't think there's any form of god out there, but I acknowledge that I could be proven wrong in the future. On paper I'm technically an agnostic, but everything I think and do is as an atheist.

[Unagi]

First, neither of us meant any insult.
You are *(truly, no snark) a very universally respected member of this community.

You are (you will admit, and do) a very nuanced individual and I've just noticed that it's very hard (to the point of silly/pointless) to suggest something to you ((in the very broadest of '10,000 ft view' on things here... nothing specific)) and have you actually just reply with something like "good point" - there is often a good long reply that makes sense and tells the other person why what they wrote doesn't apply exactly for what it is you are going for.


Case in point:

" And my views aren't complicated. I think atheism is the 'correct' answer, but I also think it's intellectually dishonest to say that there's absolutely no 'god.' So I leave a little wiggle room - I don't think there's any form of god out there, but I acknowledge that I could be proven wrong in the future. On paper I'm technically an agnostic, but everything I think and do is as an atheist. "


Yeah. Okay. I pretty much got that from your first statement - right? It's a lot. I suggest(ed) you describe yourself as "not a theist".

I don't expect you to listen to that suggestion.

[Blackhawk]

You're half wrong.

I listen to every suggestion and criticism. I don't just listen, I dwell on them and overthink them to the point of anxiety.

I'm also autistic, and that makes me very resistant to quick change. If it's something that changes the way I act or see the world, I have to take considerable time to digest it before slowly easing into it. I can't help that - quick change is near panic inducing.

And I overexplain because I frequently have people misunderstand what I'm saying (usually because I have an eccentric thought process) and reinterpreting it according to what they were expecting. I do the same thing in person. It's one of the reasons that people avoid me.

Also, I'm fully aware that I just proved your point. I'm not a nuanced person, I'm a pretty seriously damaged person.

[raydude]

I feel like there's a very quick and easy litmus test courtesy of Yellowking that we can use to determine whether to continue listening to the "other sider" person by person.

If we open with "hey, there's such a thing as ectopic pregnancies and those cells can never form a person. In fact, they may kill the mother if not removed in time."

and they respond with:

"But God said he talks to the fetus before they are born so how can those cells not be fetuses?"

Then you can check that person off the list as unreachable.

[Alefroth]

It's the mother's fault those cells won't become a person, so she deserves what she gets.

[YellowKing]

I mean I get it. People don't like to believe that the policies they vote for are going to kill women. If I was voting for policies that were going to put hundreds of thousands of women's lives in danger every single year, I wouldn't want to believe it either.

All I can say to that is I hope you never have to experience it happening to someone in your life.

And to be fair, I know there are people out there that completely believe in exceptions for when the mother's life is in danger. The problem is, you have states that aren't stopping there. They are going to push as far as they possibly can. So when you're voting these people into office, don't come crying to me when all of a sudden you can't even buy birth control.

[raydude]

I mean I get it. People don't like to believe that the policies they vote for are going to kill women. If I was voting for policies that were going to put hundreds of thousands of women's lives in danger every single year, I wouldn't want to believe it either.

Maybe. It is certainly an unscientific view. I mean, there's belief that the holocaust never happened and then there's mountains of evidence that it did. Similarly there's belief that strict non-abortion laws don't kill women and then there's medical evidence that shit happens and women die if they don't get abortions. It may not be an evil belief but it's certainly willful ignorance and I don't know if I can get past that.

[Blackhawk]

Still playing... not devil's advocate, and not saying they're right, but just trying to see other perspectives.

What if they know that the policies that they vote for was put hundreds of thousands of women's lives in danger, but also genuinely believe that the alternative is to put in excess of a million babies to death? If they genuinely and honestly believe that (regardless of whether they're right or wrong), isn't it at least understandable why they'd react so strongly to pro-abortion movements? I'm not asking anyone to agree or say they're right. All I'm asking is can you see why they might feel the way they do?

If you had a choice to make and believed that Choice A would result in two dead adults and more inflation, while Choice B would bring more financial stability, but would result in 10 dead children, which would you pick?

Can you at least admit that it's more complex than "they don't care about women's health", or "they just want to control women's bodies?"

The only thing that requires any acknowledgement to at least see the other side as other-than-hateful is the idea that they genuinely believe that the alternative is even more horrendous.

And again, it doesn't matter if they're right or wrong. I'm not talking about changing anyone's views - our or theirs. Just that we stop seeing everything so black-and-white, us-vs-them, good-vs-evil. Most (non-extremist) conservative voters are decent people who simply believe differently and have different priorities, but still want to make the world a better place. But when we meet face-to-face, we yell, accuse, and think them the worst human beings on the planet.

What's that gotten us?

It's gotten us a civil cold war, and it's both sides' fault.

[Smoove_B]

What if they know that the policies that they vote for was put hundreds of thousands of women's lives in danger, but also genuinely believe that the alternative is to put in excess of a million babies to death?

I'm just going to laser-focus on this tiny little bit. If their objections were that we're putting a million+ babies to death each year *and* they followed up with legislation (and funding) that would (1) provide food (2) healthcare and (3) community level support to pregnant women, infants and children then maybe I could take them seriously.

But instead they seem to conveniently forget about anything and everything associated with carrying a baby to term and then raising it.

And that doesn't even get into the body autonomy stuff, but it could at least provide a reasonable compromise.

[YellowKing]

I've never had a problem understanding why they believe what they believe. I voted with them for 25 years of my life. I just disagree vehemently with it.

Understanding why they believe what they believe does not bring me any closer to resolving my differences, particularly when they are making zero effort to understand why I believe what I believe.

Compromise is a two-way street, and I'm not sure how we get there when one side believes in magic vs reality.

[Blackhawk]

What if they know that the policies that they vote for was put hundreds of thousands of women's lives in danger, but also genuinely believe that the alternative is to put in excess of a million babies to death?

I'm just going to laser-focus on this tiny little bit. If their objections were that we're putting a million+ babies to death each year *and* they followed up with legislation (and funding) that would (1) provide food (2) healthcare and (3) community level support to pregnant women, infants and children then maybe I could take them seriously.

But instead they seem to conveniently forget about anything and everything associated with carrying a baby to term and then raising it.

And that doesn't even get into the body autonomy stuff, but it could at least provide a reasonable compromise.

I'm not talking about the entire Republican platform, just individuals.

When it comes right down to it, all I'm doing is preaching against our own hatred and intolerance.

[Smoove_B]

I'm not talking about the entire Republican platform, just individuals.

When it comes right down to it, all I'm doing is preaching against our own hatred and intolerance.

I think it's still the same. If you're an individual against abortion, then you should be supporting policies/programs/legislation/candidates that help to take care of pregnant women, infants and children. It's all connected. But as it turns out (in my experience) taking away abortion options and then cutting off funding for Planned Parenthood, universal Pre-K, WIC or other community health programs seems to go hand in hand.

[Blackhawk]

I've never had a problem understanding why they believe what they believe. I voted with them for 25 years of my life. I just disagree vehemently with it.

Understanding why they believe what they believe does not bring me any closer to resolving my differences, particularly when they are making zero effort to understand why I believe what I believe.

Compromise is a two-way street, and I'm not sure how we get there when one side believes in magic vs reality.

Compromise schmompronise. I'm not talking about resolutions. I'm talking about the way we treat the people that we disagree with. The way we treat people we disagree with has pushed both sides into intolerance and extremism. We point at McConnell, we point at Trump. We never point at the way we act toward the guy holding the wrong sign. We never point to the way we talk to people who have a different view of the world.

I honestly wish this hadn't gotten moved over here - it was about attitudes, not abortion. Abortion was a single example of a society-wide issue.

[YellowKing]

I do want to say I totally get where you're coming from Blackhawk, and I agree with it. I also think it's going to be a really hard sell in an election year where democracy is literally on the line. People are staring down a future where their kids are going to be living according to the rules of a Christo-fascist minority and that doesn't exactly inspire goodwill.

[Smoove_B]

Compromise schmompronise. I'm not talking about resolutions. I'm talking about the way we treat the people that we disagree with. The way we treat people we disagree with has pushed both sides into intolerance and extremism.

It goes back to what SP posted elsewhere. I am not going to "agree to disagree" with someone that is trying to erase trans people or tell a woman what she can or can't do with her body. If your position is staked in the violation of basic human rights, I'm not going to treat you like someone that is arguing with me over food temperatures or how close their well can be to their septic system.

When politicians (and the people the elected them) cheer about issues that are genuinely cruel, I'm not going to smile and remain polite.

If raging against these folks makes me an intolerant asshole then so be it.

[Blackhawk]

I do want to say I totally get where you're coming from Blackhawk, and I agree with it. I also think it's going to be a really hard sell in an election year where democracy is literally on the line.

Maybe, and it's probably futile, but I'm really realizing how uncivil we've all become lately. Hell, here on OO the religious intolerance is starting to get thick (we can't address any religion based issue without straight up contempt and mockery of the entire religion.) We (collectively, all of us) are to blame for water we're all being boiled in. Any route forward is either going to involve changing how we (both sides) are acting, or one side pounding the other into submission.

Guess who seems more likely to get pounded right now?

And if I'm going to get pounded into paste, I'd at least like to know that I did my best - even if it was futile.

[raydude]

I've never had a problem understanding why they believe what they believe. I voted with them for 25 years of my life. I just disagree vehemently with it.

Understanding why they believe what they believe does not bring me any closer to resolving my differences, particularly when they are making zero effort to understand why I believe what I believe.

Compromise is a two-way street, and I'm not sure how we get there when one side believes in magic vs reality.

Compromise schmompronise. I'm not talking about resolutions. I'm talking about the way we treat the people that we disagree with. The way we treat people we disagree with has pushed both sides into intolerance and extremism. We point at McConnell, we point at Trump. We never point at the way we act toward the guy holding the wrong sign. We never point to the way we talk to people who have a different view of the world.

I honestly wish this hadn't gotten moved over here - it was about attitudes, not abortion. Abortion was a single example of a society-wide issue.

I mean, I tried talking to a co-worker who has a different view of the world. My particular trigger issue is that when Trump publicalyl floated the idea of revoking citizenship for first-gen immigrants and their descendants the majority of Republicans said "meh" or nothing at all. And the fact that my co-worker passed it off as a joke is infuriating to me. Particularly because his worldview will be unaffected if that ever came to pass - because he's white. Meanwhile, "oh it's too bad Ray and his family had to go.". How do you get someone to see that policies that are being by one party affect you in particular if they get enacted when they think it's a joke or wasn't serious?

[Blackhawk]

It goes back to what SP posted elsewhere. I am not going to "agree to disagree" with someone that is trying to erase trans people

That type of thing, in any context, is nothing I have ever argued in favor of. If that's what people are taking away from this, then I'm failing to communicate effectively.

I said to consider and try to understand the other side's perspective. I never said to accept hateful views (something I've been accused of twice.) I never said to tolerate hateful views. I said to give some thought as to which views are hateful, and which are coming from some seed of benevolence.

Anti-LGBTQ+ policies, mandatory Bible study in public schools, gerrymandering, strategically disenfranchising minority voters, militia-level 2Aers, Nazis on parade - all of that, and so many other issues are 100% bullshit, even after you look deeper into them. They're based on hatred, fear, and greed. They don't deserve to be met halfway.

But not every issue is that way.

And yet we've decided to treat every single Republican platform issue as Nazis on parade.

[Skinypupy]

Anti-LGBTQ+ policies, mandatory Bible study in public schools, gerrymandering, strategically disenfranchising minority voters, militia-level 2Aers, Nazis on parade - all of that, and so many other issues are 100% bullshit, even after you look deeper into them. They're based on hatred, fear, and greed. They don't deserve to be met halfway.

Problem is, you just listed about 85-90% of the MAGA platform.

[ImLawBoy]

When you sleep with the dogs, you wake up with fleas.

In other words, if a party's policies are in so many cases rooted in hatred and fear, that's going to have an impact on how the rest of their policies are viewed.

That said, I totally get BH's point. A big part of my job is negotiating deals, and to get to a signed contract I have to look at what's motivating the other side of the table. I never start out thinking that the other side's position is unreasonable, because when you look at it from their perspective, you can see the reason behind it. Doesn't mean I agree with it, but at least I know where it's coming from and try to figure out a way around the issue.

Of course, sometimes they're just unreasonable. Sometimes it's covered in a veneer of reasonableness, but it's inconsistent with other positions they're taking. (The example Smoove gives regarding anti-abortion folks frequently dropping the pretense of caring about (poor/minority/disabled) people after they've come out of the womb works there.)

In my job, we can usually come to an agreement because things are ultimately based on money and both sides have an interest in reaching a deal (otherwise negotiations would never have started). Because of that, I have to remain respectful (although some strategic snark can also be quite effective ). It's hard to maintain that same level of respect in political conversations when one side is taking, for example, a hateful position on gender politics. I mean, I can look at their motivations - strong belief that the Bible is telling them this is sin; they're trying to protect children (and they genuinely believe this!). But it's still hateful at its core.

I try really hard to maintain respect in political conversations both here and elsewhere. Generally, I'm not too bad at it (I think), although I'm not immune to lapses. That respect is limited to the people who show me similar respect, however, and not necessarily to their ideas - even when I understand the motivation behind their ideas.

[Blackhawk]

Ok. I surrender. We can keep going the way we have been.

[ImLawBoy]

Ok. I surrender. We can keep going the way we have been.

What are you expecting to come out of this? We'll all see the light and say BH knows better than us? I think you're getting a lot of feedback here about why some people think what you're talking about doesn't necessarily work in practice. They're acknowledging a lot of what you're saying, but their final analysis doesn't agree with yours. People aren't just making snarky responses - they're disagreeing with you. Respectfully, I'll note.

[Blackhawk]

My only real issue is that the majority of disagreement that I got came from people taking my points to mean something completely different.

I was suggesting civility, that's all. And mostly because bilateral anger and hatred has dug us so deep that we're likely never coming back from it.

[Smoove_B]

I said to consider and try to understand the other side's perspective. I never said to accept hateful views (something I've been accused of twice.) I never said to tolerate hateful views. I said to give some thought as to which views are hateful, and which are coming from some seed of benevolence.

I don't think you're suggesting we try to accept/tolerate hateful views (and I don't think anyone has accused you of that).

If someone's religious views (for example) are telling them to not eat meat on Friday, terrific - you do you. If their religious views are telling them to make sure no one can eat meat on Friday, they can get bent. I don't have to understand why someone's religious views make them dress a certain way or require a specific type of practice. I should respect it; I feel I do respect it. However, when their views push up against human rights -or- require them to tell me (or others) how to exist, then we have problems.

[Blackhawk]

I said to consider and try to understand the other side's perspective. I never said to accept hateful views (something I've been accused of twice.) I never said to tolerate hateful views. I said to give some thought as to which views are hateful, and which are coming from some seed of benevolence.

I don't think you're suggesting we try to accept/tolerate hateful views (and I don't think anyone has accused you of that).

If someone's religious views (for example) are telling them to not eat meat on Friday, terrific - you do you. If their religious views are telling them to make sure no one can eat meat on Friday, they can get bent. I don't have to understand why someone's religious views make them dress a certain way or require a specific type of practice. I should respect it; I feel I do respect it. However, when their views push up against human rights -or- require them to tell me (or others) how to exist, then we have problems.

Those weren't the kinds of views I was discussing. There's a big difference between them not letting anyone eat meat, and them accepting killing human babies (from their perspective.)

In any case, like I said, I surrender. My views have never been particularly practical on the large scale, but I had to say something. I've had about all I can handle of the hatred and anger. It's spilled over into every other facet of life. People can't seem to disagree on anything without it turning personal these days. People can't discuss their favorite show without someone showing up to insult it. The anger is everywhere, from the grocery store to gaming threads on OO, to bouncing around in my own heart.

I have had all of it that I can handle. I can barely stand to be around people anymore because of it - even people whose views I agree with can't discuss the issues with the like-minded without insults and bile being added just because it feels good to attack. It's pervasive, and everyone (not just here) seems to prefer it that way.

I've reached my personal limit, and it's wiping me out.