Roe v Wade discussions in the supreme court.

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
May 13, 2009
7,115
1,865
118
Country
USA
Powerful men will not be facing any sort of repercussions for this in anyway whatsoever and I'm curious why you think they would? Elite debauchery didn't start up or get worse after feminism became a thing
Been around a long time. David ended up having to get Uriah killed in order to steal his wife for himself.
But, I think it was Andrea Dworkin's point was, before Roe, those elite men had to debauch women who she would describe as, "not nice". The sexual revolution changed that in ways those elite men like more.
Republicans really want to lose the midterms here. Democrats are kind of unhappy with the Democrat government right now and usually don't vote in midterms as much as Republicans. If they reverse Roe v Wade the Democrats will go and vote in numbers that will probably rival 2020
Exactly a point I've been making. In its own way, Roe is very radical. With it gone, Republicans who swing too far in the other direction do so at their electoral peril.
We may find ourselves on a path to a more moderate paradigm.
 

meiam

Elite Member
Dec 9, 2010
3,359
1,662
118
Wow, whole other discussion and an important one. Very briefly, I resent elite men that would create a society in which easy sex for themselves without repercussions radically improves while decreasing the likelihood of rank and file men getting a partner, becoming a husband with a faithful wife, having marriage, kids family and a place in our society. Did that happen? You could start a whole thread on that one.
Wait so because you don't like men being able to have sex you want women to be punished by being forced to have kid they don't want? And you think the only way for rank and file men to get a partner is to get a women pregnant and have her in a situation where she's forced to have the kid and, as such, end up forced to marry the men?

That's the recipe for some messed up relationship. That has to be one of the stupidest reason I ever heard to justify banning abortion.
 

Kwak

Elite Member
Sep 11, 2014
2,205
1,710
118
Country
4
Wow, whole other discussion and an important one. Very briefly, I resent elite men that would create a society in which easy sex for themselves without repercussions radically improves while decreasing the likelihood of rank and file men getting a partner, becoming a husband with a faithful wife, having marriage, kids family and a place in our society. Did that happen? You could start a whole thread on that one.
aka, incel white-replacement neo-fascist trad-wife conspiracy theory 101.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thaluikhain

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
5,936
651
118
aka, incel white-replacement neo-fascist trad-wife conspiracy theory 101.
That's really not a nice thing to say about author Aldous Huxley


....an "impersonal generation" of the future....

... The family system will disappear; society, sapped at its very base, will have to find new foundations; and Eros, beautifully and irresponsibly free, will flit like a gay butterfly from flower to flower through a sunlit world.

....
From other sources

Women in Brave New World wear a Malthusian belt as a form of contraception. Instead of pregnancy, human beings are produced through Bokanovsky's process
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,322
6,826
118
Country
United States
Been around a long time. David ended up having to get Uriah killed in order to steal his wife for himself.
But, I think it was Andrea Dworkin's point was, before Roe, those elite men had to debauch women who she would describe as, "not nice". The sexual revolution changed that in ways those elite men like more.
Lmao, she also hates your high school girl ecchi for the same reason
Like, is the main point of contention here the fucking purity level of the women being exploited?
 
  • Like
Reactions: gorfias

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
5,936
651
118
Lmao, she also hates your high school girl ecchi for the same reason
Like, is the main point of contention here the fucking purity level of the women being exploited?

Ok to be clear here I'm pro-choice, pro free loving but also pro clarity on what a relationship is and the being clear about the positions of if it's just sex or if there is more to it.

With dystopian novels like A Brave New World it shows kind of the issue with the breakdown of family structure on society as such and concepts about responsibility without societies present ideas about civil behaviour well lets just says Genghis Khan had a lot of kids and probably a number of issues happening in the world about the idea of lack of male role models due to absentee fathers. Combine that with the likes of the results of the Universe 25 experiments and lets say it paints a grim picture.

Or to put it another way, dudes who can are gonna fuck round a lot more if ever we get to a societal position technologically and socially where abortion is super advanced enough & not seen as a fairly serious thing in society and well there will be little reason for those deemed high up to not spread themselves round and sample more. As is abortion in society is still seen as a somewhat serious decision and due to technological limitations certain types of abortion may cause issues with fertility down the line but only certain kinds.

Also you lot here are to blame if I start getting adverts for baby clothes after having to search all up information of pregnancy and abortion to double check certain stuff.
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
5,936
651
118
Failing to see the connection to 'the ELITES take all the primo pussy, the proles get sloppy seconds if they're lucky, so we must prevent easy access to abortion'.
I believe on a democratic level for Gorfias this is an issue of big vs small government. States rights to decide etc etc

On a sociological level it's more falls into the idea of the collapse of the family structure which may happen as abortion for lack of a better term is normalised rather than things like family planning and contraceptives
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,322
6,826
118
Country
United States
You understand that the phrase "so what?" is typically intended to mean "you are correct, but it isn't important", right? Are you actually conceding the point that that these advocacy groups have all embraced a particular statistical analysis that is useful to their purposes more than it is accurate, but then questioning why that matters? It matters because if you actually want a real answer to "what happens when you restrict abortion", you cannot even guess from the information being presented knowing that it's being presented in a deliberate way to support reaching one conclusion.

Edit: to repeat what I said earlier: people lie about abortion because you cannot get people to support it without lying.
Yes, I am absolutely certain that zero people would support abortion if only they weren't ignorant and did their research properly.
 

meiam

Elite Member
Dec 9, 2010
3,359
1,662
118
I believe on a democratic level for Gorfias this is an issue of big vs small government. States rights to decide etc etc
That's a bullshit reason they give to justify their position. If they really believe that then they'd be okay with cities making it legal even if the state wouldn't. Unsurprisingly they don't.

Federal telling state = undemocratic overreach
State telling city = perfectly resonable
That position is pure hypocrisy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dwarvenhobble

Dirty Hipsters

This is how we praise the sun!
Legacy
Feb 7, 2011
7,921
2,283
118
Country
'Merica
Gender
3 children in a trench coat
You are not completely wrong. That's actually been said of anti-feminists in general. That capitalism has made advances for women possible. If you're against those advances, your against capitalism. I'm pretty much focusing, in this case, on 9 elite men hallucinating into law that a new paradigm that allows them easier sex with nice girls without repercussions.

And I need to swing it back around to the author of this view, a Feminist. Her beef was that this easy sex with nice girls without repercussions made it, in her esteem, easier for powerful men to exploit and use women.

Yes, women like sex. But many are realizing how much we've gotten wrong over the decades. Today, no strings sex is making a lot of women feel used and exploited. Without the fear of repercussions, you have a lot of men expecting sex asking, what would a woman's objection to it be? Some, even if they take no for an answer, leave very hard feelings behind. See the Aziz Ansari incident as an example.
Every time you write the phrase "sex with nice girls" it makes you sound like a creepy old pervert.
 

Dirty Hipsters

This is how we praise the sun!
Legacy
Feb 7, 2011
7,921
2,283
118
Country
'Merica
Gender
3 children in a trench coat
On a sociological level it's more falls into the idea of the collapse of the family structure which may happen as abortion for lack of a better term is normalised rather than things like family planning and contraceptives
Ok, but Republicans don't want family planning or contraceptives either. That's why they push abstinence education in schools.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dwarvenhobble

Kwak

Elite Member
Sep 11, 2014
2,205
1,710
118
Country
4
Every time you write the phrase "sex with nice girls" it makes you sound like a creepy old pervert.
Standard Molyneux discourse really, though he would probably say ' breeding' or 'insemination'.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,963
118
The sexual revolution changed that in ways those elite men like more.
Elite men have always been able to get sex when they wanted it. Mistresses, for instance, were hardly rare. They could also pressurise the house servants - not necessarily a bad deal for the servant, as many elites would ensure bastard children and the mother were decently looked after (discreetly, of course). Then of course where they had slaves available, it's a handy source of women to screw. Failing all that, courtesans.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gorfias

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,110
5,832
118
Country
United Kingdom
Do you think the desire for abortions is a constant across cultures, independent of circumstance? When comparing the rates of abortion where it is legal to where it is banned, you are comparing wealthy nations to poor nations. Do you really expect the abortion rate to be roughly identical between a nation with prevalent contraception and negative birth rates when compared to a place with ~60% teen pregnancy rate? Does comparing those things feel like meaningful data to you? When you compare the death rates between legal and illegal abortions, you are comparing Western Europe to nations with 30% lower life expectancy. Does that seem like a comparison that generates meaningful data without even attempting to correct for mitigating factors? Nevermind that a lot of the data for illegal abortions is guesswork at best, you should be suspicious of those statistics taken at face value.
No, I do not believe the demand (I refuse to use the term "desire", since that term is an unsubtle attempt on your part to make people seem frivolous and uncaring) is constant across cultures.

I also know that these are the closest thing to meaningful statistics that we have, because it tends to be (on average) wealthier countries that do not restrict abortion, and it tends to be poorer countries that do. We do not have an alternative dataset where all else is equal.

So yes, I suppose the point about the rate of abortion is (to a degree) presumptive. This also means that your contention on that point is also predicated on "guesswork" too, of course. But some of these factors are not "guesswork" at all, and are quite inarguable: abortion is one of the safest procedures. Unsafe abortion is the third leading cause of maternal death. So if you want to bring that rate down, the only realistic avenue open is legalisation and regulation, bringing it closer to the former.
 

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
May 13, 2009
7,115
1,865
118
Country
USA
I have 5 quotes: snipping and hoping to avoid errors in answering. May have to double post.

Stats show over time, women have been making increasingly bad choices regarding who they sleep with, get pregnant with, and then passing on some of the worst ramifications of those choices off to others. Stats also show they’ve never been more un-happy. Sorry you think having an open mind trying to figure out why this all is happening and want to fix things is “stupid”.

And from you Aka a blue pill response?

Like, is the main point of contention here the fucking purity level of the women being exploited?
I think that was part of her point. The “nice” girls those elite men want to debauch might, unlike a pro or someone just looking for a sugar daddy, have been the sort of woman that might have married a guy, been faithful to him, had his kids and enfranchised him in society.

Every time you write the phrase "sex with nice girls" it makes you sound like a creepy old pervert.
I’m quoting a radical political lesbian feminist. She was trying to make a point.

Elite men have always been able to get sex when they wanted it. Mistresses, for instance, were hardly rare…
True, but basically the revolution increased and arguably improved the pool from which they could poach.

Restating my position on this thread:

  • I think Roe was radical. I think radical moves in the opposite direction will be punished at the polls. Rather than get judge made law imposed upon the people from on high, my hope is that we get a more moderate law passed regarding this issue by the people’s representatives.
  • A side note we somehow got on: do you think with Roe reversed, women could be motivated to make better choices as to whom they sleep with, which could result in them over all being happier?
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,322
6,826
118
Country
United States
I think that was part of her point. The “nice” girls those elite men want to debauch might, unlike a pro or someone just looking for a sugar daddy, have been the sort of woman that might have married a guy, been faithful to him, had his kids and enfranchised him in society.
I think whomever sourced those Dworkin quotes and showed them to you had a severe agenda. Like, Dworkin was 110% anti-"traditional" marriage

"The accounts of rape, wife beating, forced childbearing, medical butchering, sex-motivated murder, forced prostitution, physical mutilation, sadistic psychological abuse, and other commonplaces of female experience that are excavated from the past or given by contemporary survivors should leave the heart seared, the mind in anguish, the conscience in upheaval. But they do not. No matter how often these stories are told, with whatever clarity or eloquence, bitterness or sorrow, they might as well have been whispered in wind or written in sand: they disappear, as if they were nothing. The tellers and the stories are ignored or ridiculed, threatened back into silence or destroyed, and the experience of female suffering is buried in cultural invisibility and contempt… the very reality of abuse sustained by women, despite its overwhelming pervasiveness and constancy, is negated. It is negated in the transactions of everyday life, and it is negated in the history books, left out, and it is negated by those who claim to care about suffering but are blind to this suffering.

The problem, simply stated, is that one must believe in the existence of the person in order to recognize the authenticity of her suffering. Neither men nor women believe in the existence of women as significant beings. It is impossible to remember as real the suffering of someone who by definition has no legitimate claim to dignity or freedom, someone who is in fact viewed as some thing, an object or an absence. And if a woman, an individual woman multiplied by billions, does not believe in her own discrete existence and therefore cannot credit the authenticity of her own suffering, she is erased, canceled out, and the meaning of her life, whatever it is, whatever it might have been, is lost. This loss cannot be calculated or comprehended. It is vast and awful, and nothing will ever make up for it.”
― Andrea Dworkin, Right-Wing Women
An estimated two thirds of the women who got criminal abortions were married. This means that up to two thirds of the botched abortions were done on married women; up to two thirds of the dead were married women; perhaps two thirds of the survivors are married women. This means that most of the women who risked death or maiming so as not to bear a child were married—perhaps one million married women each year. They were not shameless sluts, unless all women by definition are. They were not immoral in traditional terms—though, even then, they were thought of as promiscuous and single. Nevertheless, they were not women from the streets, but women from homes; they were not daughters in the homes of fathers, but wives in the homes of husbands. They were, quite simply, the good and respectable women of Amerika. The absolute equation of abortion with sexual promiscuity is a bizarre distortion of the real history of women and abortion—too distorted to be acceptable even in the United States, where historical memory reaches back one decade. Abortion has been legalized just under one decade. The facts should not be obliterated yet. Millions of respectable, God-fearing, married women have had illegal abortions. They thank their God that they survived; and they keep quiet.”
― Andrea Dworkin, Right-Wing Women
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: gorfias

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,487
929
118
Country
USA
No, I do not believe the demand (I refuse to use the term "desire", since that term is an unsubtle attempt on your part to make people seem frivolous and uncaring) is constant across cultures.
What's funny, I actually started with the term "demand" and changed it to "desire" because I felt it made it sound too much like a commodity rather than a personal event. Oh well.
I also know that these are the closest thing to meaningful statistics that we have, because it tends to be (on average) wealthier countries that do not restrict abortion, and it tends to be poorer countries that do. We do not have an alternative dataset where all else is equal.
Ok, but why then why are they reporting it this way? Why not abortion ratio, which is abortions/live births, which would show much lower ratios in nations with abortion bans? Why not, in the discussion of the US, look at the rate of abortions before Roe, after Roe, and then ever since? It rose dramatically after Roe, and has been on the decline ever since as more restrictions are put in place.

Understand, a ton of the available data on abortion around the world links back to the Guttmacher Institute, a direct spin-off of Planned Parenthood designed to conduct studies in support of pro-choice legislation. Your link to Amnesty stated statistically equivalent abortion rates in countries with different laws, but they say so citing the Guttmacher Institute. It's basically saying "the research wing of Planned Parenthood assured us that if you ban them from giving abortion, everyone will just get illegal abortions, so you may as well let them do it". There may be a conflict of interest there.
So yes, I suppose the point about the rate of abortion is (to a degree) presumptive. This also means that your contention on that point is also predicated on "guesswork" too, of course. But some of these factors are not "guesswork" at all, and are quite inarguable: abortion is one of the safest procedures. Unsafe abortion is the third leading cause of maternal death. So if you want to bring that rate down, the only realistic avenue open is legalisation and regulation, bringing it closer to the former.
You're still behaving as if all things are equal, but you can't regulate away maternal death is parts of the world that have crap for healthcare. This is actually much easier to compare, because the data is significantly more available. It's hard to talk about illegal abortion statistics because there are no hard statistics on illegal abortions. There's no records kept or reporting done. Maternal mortality however is much easier to compare.
Let's look at some data points: Poland is famously restrictive of abortion, but also has some of the lowest maternal mortality on the planet. South Africa and Mozambique allow first trimester abortions, and have similar maternal mortality to bordering Botswana and Zimbabwe. Same situation with Suriname and Guyana right next to each other with different laws. Chile has stricter laws than Argentina with a third the mortality rate, though I would still say their comparable given the global range. I don't see any particular trend there of permitting abortion and lowering maternal mortality.

Additionally, there's a possibility that the involvement of illegal abortions in maternal mortality is often nominal. If you are having pregnancy complications in a nation that has poor healthcare available, you are both more likely to die and more likely to attempt an abortion. If abortion is banned in your country, that abortion will be illegal. That points a logical correlation between illegal abortions and maternal death where the former is not the cause of the latter, and would make sense of the situation where illegal abortions are involved in many maternal deaths, but also similar places with legality aren't fairing better.

And if you look at the rhetoric you cite, you see the interesting tidbit that they don't speak of illegal or legal abortion, they speak of "unsafe abortions", which may be legal or illegal. Two places can have opposite legality and identical procedures, and they can be either safe or unsafe. Saying that safe abortions are among the safest procedures is a bit like saying proper gun ownership leads to exceptionally few deaths. It's a "no true scotsman" term.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,110
5,832
118
Country
United Kingdom
Ok, but why then why are they reporting it this way? Why not abortion ratio, which is abortions/live births, which would show much lower ratios in nations with abortion bans?
Because that would be skewed greatly by rates of stillbirth or pregnancies that fail to reach term for other reasons, which would be much higher in poorer countries.

Why not, in the discussion of the US, look at the rate of abortions before Roe, after Roe, and then ever since? It rose dramatically after Roe, and has been on the decline ever since as more restrictions are put in place.
That'd be the rate of recorded abortions too; what you called "guesswork".

And estimates vary dramatically. According to Guttmacher, they range from 200,000 to ~1.2 million per year in the 50s and 60s. (Guttmacher's data for 2016 & 2017 puts it in the 800,000s).

Understand, a ton of the available data on abortion around the world links back to the Guttmacher Institute, a direct spin-off of Planned Parenthood designed to conduct studies in support of pro-choice legislation. Your link to Amnesty stated statistically equivalent abortion rates in countries with different laws, but they say so citing the Guttmacher Institute. It's basically saying "the research wing of Planned Parenthood assured us that if you ban them from giving abortion, everyone will just get illegal abortions, so you may as well let them do it". There may be a conflict of interest there.
So a pro-choice organisation is the only one willing to put the effort into research on the dangers for women.

Maybe if pro-life organisations gave enough of a shit to investigate women's health issues, there'd be some alternative sources.

You're still behaving as if all things are equal, but you can't regulate away maternal death is parts of the world that have crap for healthcare. This is actually much easier to compare, because the data is significantly more available. It's hard to talk about illegal abortion statistics because there are no hard statistics on illegal abortions. There's no records kept or reporting done. Maternal mortality however is much easier to compare.
Let's look at some data points: Poland is famously restrictive of abortion, but also has some of the lowest maternal mortality on the planet. South Africa and Mozambique allow first trimester abortions, and have similar maternal mortality to bordering Botswana and Zimbabwe. Same situation with Suriname and Guyana right next to each other with different laws. Chile has stricter laws than Argentina with a third the mortality rate, though I would still say their comparable given the global range. I don't see any particular trend there of permitting abortion and lowering maternal mortality.
With regards to maternal mortality: in 1930, over 2,000 women died from illegal procedures of this kind in the US. In the 60s, over 1000 per year were hospitalised. If you want to restrict your comparisons to the US, then do so here, as well.

The rest of these comparisons are purely of maternal mortality, not specifically down to the actual topic of conversation. These will obviously be affected by poor healthcare provision even for legal abortions. But with legal abortions, you can improve the healthcare system, and demonstrably make the procedure one of the safest in the profession. For illegal abortions, you can't. It's stuck in that dangerous level.

And if you look at the rhetoric you cite, you see the interesting tidbit that they don't speak of illegal or legal abortion, they speak of "unsafe abortions", which may be legal or illegal. Two places can have opposite legality and identical procedures, and they can be either safe or unsafe. Saying that safe abortions are among the safest procedures is a bit like saying proper gun ownership leads to exceptionally few deaths. It's a "no true scotsman" term.
And how does one improve the safety of illegal abortions, from a policy perspective? With legal abortions, you can legislate and regulate. Improve standards. With illegal abortions, you prevent yourself from being able to improve those standards.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheMysteriousGX

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,487
929
118
Country
USA
So a pro-choice organisation is the only one willing to put the effort into research on the dangers for women.

Maybe if pro-life organisations gave enough of a shit to investigate women's health issues, there'd be some alternative sources.
You want pro-life organizations to post skewed data to rationalize their position? You want that? I wouldn't dare link such a source in an argument, it would be beyond worthless.

And how does one improve the safety of illegal abortions, from a policy perspective?
Prosperity.