Categories
entitled babies evil sex-having women incel ironic nazis irony alert literal nazis men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny reddit twitter

Incels lose it (even more so than usual) after woman jokes about the “aborted girlfriend” meme

whoooooooosh

By David Futrelle 

Incels aren’t really very good at the whole “humor” thing. Last week, I wrote about the “Imaginary Girlfriend” meme in which an earnest stick-figure woman declares that if she hadn’t been aborted she could have grown up to be every incel’s dream girl. “Sorry I couldn’t be there for you,” she says. “But my mom had other plans … would have liked to have a lot of kids with you.”

*Shudder*

To me, the meme looked more like the work of a troll doing a pitch-perfect parody of incel logic than an actual incel meme, but a lot of other people thought it looked real, and it certainly could be. One of these people tweeted this:

https://twitter.com/BobbieA10284800/status/1018114427705585665

Well, long story short, some incel found the tweet and posted it to the Braincels subreddit. And the incels there, not all of whom knew what she was referring to, lost their shit.

fuckbitchesman 36 points 1 day ago Baby killing whore. Burn in hell. permalinkembedunsavereportgive goldreply [–]Zyklon_Bae 23 points 1 day ago Women are soulless Golem. permalinkembedsaveparentreportgive goldreply [–]Bobodzadza 14 points 1 day ago Fact

Detoxified- 19 points 1 day ago Daily reminder that women's rights were a mistake.

vrcodemonkey 27 points 1 day ago All woman's thinking is sick. They are a disgusting degenerate creature. Guarantee she finds another Chad and gets fucked first night and eventually aborts another. Horrible horrible fucking nasty creatures

AyeThatsAGoodNaggercucked beyond recognition 17 points 1 day ago Supporting abortion is the epitome of female illogic, narcissism, emotionalism, sexual incontinence, and unwillingness to accept the consequences of their own actions.

Huh. Not having a baby when you don’t want to have a baby seems pretty logical to me.

One fellow fantasized about beating her up — and her liking it.

futmut 11 points 1 day ago I would love to hear her jokes from her mouth while i punch her face like a sack of shit as she is...who knows, she might even get excited from that😉

This lovely fellow suggested genital mutilation:

HailSatancel 3 points 20 hours ago She should get her pussy sown shut tbh

Still others reminded us that most incels are only a step or two away (if that) from being straight up Nazis.

based_meme 2 points 1 day ago Is this what you want , Western civilization? Is this this the kind of degenerate filth you want perpetuating society?

Inceller 5 points 1 day ago Women are subhuman trash. Lower than insects

Lovely.

Naturally she gained some new fans on Twitter as well, some of whom also appear to be Nazis or near-Nazis.

https://twitter.com/Archeon_/status/1019045553139838977

https://twitter.com/FashKermit/status/1019260806779809792

I’m still not sure why posting a picture of a delicious looking Arby’s roast beef sandwich, intended to suggest that a woman is a “roastie” who has had so much sex that her labia have mysteriously grown larger and more roast-beef-like, as if that’s really a thing, is considered an “own,” even by these idiots. Sex is good; Arby’s roast beef sandwiches are good. The two of them together would be fantastic, with the only real drawback being the slight danger of getting horsey sauce on a tender area.

It remains funny to me, in a sad sort of way, that incels — whose personalities are basically a collection of red flags — have managed to convince themselves and each other that women hate them for their looks.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

277 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Rhuu - apparently an illiterati
Rhuu - apparently an illiterati
2 years ago

Here’s an article about Paraguay, where abortion is limited to ‘only if the mother’s life is in danger.

Some choice quotes:

Paraguay forbids abortion unless a risk to the mother’s health can be proven – an exception that is rarely applied. In 2016, 24 women died from unsafe clandestine abortions, according to official statistics.

And despite the recommendation of local doctors and global health authorities, Mainumby was made to give birth a few months after her 11th birthday.

On a visit to the Rosa María shelter – one of Paraguay’s four homes for young mothers – Oscar Ávila, an elderly manager, praised the “maternal ability” of the younger girls in his care.

“The nine-year old girl we once had here was extraordinary in how she cared for her baby,” he added. “The 10-year-old … and 11-year-old as well.”

(…)

“We feel genuinely comforted that 213 babies saved from abortion have passed through here,” said Rosa.

Alaniel (aka LittleLurker)
Alaniel (aka LittleLurker)
2 years ago

@Katie

You got a lot of good replies already. I’ve been thinking about this all day and I’ve got a few things I’d like to add, as well.

First, you said in one of these posts that you are currently pretty vulnerable and high-strung, yes? I know that feeling only too well and in my case it can make me extremely careful in how I phrase things so I don’t give offense. I tend to over-explain in situations like that, because I’m so desperate that people don’t get me wrong and turn hostile. The problem is sometimes that ends up making things less clear and actually leads – paradoxically – to more misunderstandings. Re-reading your posts I got a bit of the same impression from you in this thread. You explained so much that I ended up somewhat unclear on what your question was and more importantly on what your mother and her group of friends actually do and don’t believe and how they act. This is not meant as a criticism. As I said, I do these things myself and I thought I saw some of that in your posts. If I’m wrong, I apologize.

Two points that have been made already, but are so important that they should be repeated:
1. I once got the following explanation of “pro-choice” on another forum and it really helped me: If you believe that every woman should be legally and practically (in terms of availability, no negative consequences, etc.) able to terminate her pregnancy if she wants it, you are pro-choice. If you yourself wouldn’t have an abortion or wouldn’t have an abortion for some reasons but would for others, or if you think fetuses are maybe “alive” and maybe an abortion ends that “life” but you STILL believe in and advocate for the above, i.e. that every woman should be legally and practically able to terminate her pregnancy for any reason SHE deems sufficient, then you are pro-choice and not pro-life. Because pro-choice is a stance that leaves every woman to make her own choice. It’s for the right to choose freely, truly freely, between the options, it does not – regardless of what the forced-birth propaganda tries to paint us as – predetermine that choice.
Pro choice is not pro-abortion. It’s pro a free choice between abortion and no abortion.

It also isn’t about you or me. It isn’t about what choice you would make or I would make, it is about guaranteeing that there is a choice available to all women at all times. It’s about realizing that just because you would choose a certain way – like your mother wouldn’t have an abortion or I would – other than kupo – probably for personal reasons always find it an agonizing choice to choose an abortion – that other people can make different choices and they are equally valid, equally moral, equally okay. That we can never judge another woman for the choice she makes and that we can never make the choice for others. Never.

Now in between all you wrote about your mother and her friends I think you said something really crucial at one point – provided I understood correctly. You said she would never try to put legal restraints on the right to abortion and you also said that she had no problems with her friends having abortions – which I read as she accepts their choice even if hers would be different. If that’s true, then it doesn’t matter one bit if she would ever have an abortion herself, she is still pro-choice. Even if she might not realize it – perhaps she has heard to much of the pro-choice = abortions-are-my-hobby propaganda – if she fully supports other women’s right to choose about their own body and doesn’t inhibit that choice, she’s pro-choice. Pro-choice does not dictate a personal choice in a specific situation, only the respect for everyone’s right to make truly free choices in the first place. As long as they are truly free choices they are all valid, moral and okay.

Kupo actually made a really good point about abortion not only having to be legally possible but also about the dangers of societal pressure inhibiting free choices. Therefore what is important – and what your mother and her friends could improve if they don’t already do that – is that you’re careful with not influencing other women’s choices with being to vocal about what your own choice would be in their situation. What I mean is, especially in the current societal climate which is still more against than for the choice of abortion, you shouldn’t go around telling everyone what your choice on the matter would be without being asked. Because really? Do our personal choices really matter to anyone but ourselves? Should they matter to anyone but ourselves? Not really, not in this issue, I think. If someone were pregnant and asked me “Would you have an abortion if you were me?” then the answer would be: “I am not you. What I would do is completely irrelevant.” and since right now there is still a cultural bias against abortion which means the choice is still not entirely free, I guess you should try to balance that by adding that “It’s completely okay to choose not to have a baby.” Because it is.

2. On the terminology. Give up the term pro-life. Be careful not to fall for the other side’s propaganda. The good things your mother and her friends do, the helping people, wanting everyone to have the best life possible? I want that, too. And I’m very much pro-choice. The two terms are not mutually exclusive. Wanting to care for people, making their lives better, those things have nothing to do with one’s stance on abortion. You say, they use the term pro-life because they do all those things and somehow that makes them use pro-life and not pro-choice as if they couldn’t be all this under the label pro-choice. And that’s weird, because pro-choice is not (despite what the forced- birthers say we are) anti-life. It’s not anti-people. It’s not anti-helping-others. Just the same weirdness happens with the BLM and All Lives Matter. I’m quite certain that people in the BLM movement don’t believe and never wanted to say: Only Black Lives matter and all other lives are worthless and those people can die. As a statement all lives matter is not opposed to the statement black lives matter. One includes the other. Yes, all lives matter but not all lives are treated as worthless right now. Black lives are treated as such, so while all lives matter, there is apparently an appalling need for people to be reminded that black lives matter, while there seems to be no problem valuing white lives.
But while they aren’t logically opposed somehow a lot of people get the impression that they are and in reality they are opposed. How does that happen? It’s like a propaganda trick from the other side that’s insidiously working and gaining control of public discourse.
There are racist assholes who actually do believe that black lives matter less. There are also asshole who actually do believe that women shouldn’t choose when it comes to abortion, that they should be objectified as incubators or “punished” for self-determined sexuality by unwanted pregnancies. But you won’t see those assholes call themselves “Black Lives Don’t Matter” or “Pro-women-as-incubators” or whatever. Oh no. They are much more clever than that. They say: We are All Lives Matter and we are the opposition (and thereby implicitly the opposite) of Black Lives Matter. The other way around: Black Lives Matter is the opposite of our All Lives Matter. And so Black Lives Matter gets painted as “All Other Lives Matter Less”. Which is bullshit. It tricks people into believing they have to make a choice between all lives are equally valuable and only black lives are valuable. Which isn’t the point, at all. The real choice, the obscured one is between: all lives (including black lives) matter equally and society should finally start to mirror that (BLM) and fuck black lives, how dare these people confront us with that problem, just shut them up already (Everyone who “can’t get behind” BLM).
Same with pro-life/pro-choice. They construct a false dichotomy between you can either be pro women’s right to determine what happens to their bodies OR you can be pro-life. Implying that supporting or even taking the label pro-choice would automatically require you to be not pro-life in all the caring for people ways your mother and her friends seem to be. Which is utter bullshit. Again the real choice is between taking control of women’s bodies from them, turning them into things, into objects OR letting everyone make choices about their own body. That is all. It is nothing beyond that. It’s not a choice about caring about other’s or not, helping other’s or not or thinking that life is valuable. You can do all that and still – or rather especially – believe at the same time that you shouldn’t turn half the human population into things and make their lives living hell.

So, my advice, if your mother and her friends really do support women’s rights to choose. Dump the term pro-life. It’s part of a straw man. It’s a part of a false dichotomy created by people who – believe me – are not humanitarian, caring people at all. Make sure they (and you) don’t have a warped understanding of what pro-choice is (no, it’s not anti-humanitarian, egotistical, anti-life!) and that it does in no way contradict the humanitarian efforts and caring that make these people require the term “pro-life” in your eyes. And then, in the next debate about abortion, use the right label. If you’re for every woman’s right to make a free choice, you are pro-choice. Call yourself that. Call them that. Don’t let the other side convince you that this would exclude all the other things and traits. It does not. You and they do not need the term pro-life, they do not need to stay away from the term pro-choice. Because we who are pro-choice are caring people, too, who want to make people’s life better.

Sorry, if this comes off as somewhat jumbled in parts.

kupo
kupo
2 years ago

It’s about realizing that just because you would choose a certain way – like your mother wouldn’t have an abortion or I would – other than kupo – probably for personal reasons always find it an agonizing choice to choose an abortion – that other people can make different choices and they are equally valid, equally moral, equally okay.

What are you saying about me here? I’m confused.

Alaniel (aka LittleLurker)
Alaniel (aka LittleLurker)
2 years ago

ETA: Read Kupo’s post about thinking abortion immoral.

I didn’t really think about the implications of that term. “Moral” or “Immoral” implies a universally applicable value-system? Then it most definitely is an anti-choice opinion since it means imposing my opinion as a universal rule and deviation from my choice as a universal wrong-doing.

So I should rephrase that and say that you can be pro-choice and still be personally in a situation were your having an abortion wouldn’t feel right with you. It hopefully takes away the universal value judgement and reduces it to what it is: an unimportant personal feeling. With that I would still say that a person to whom having an abortion wouldn’t feel right personally is pro-choice as long as they support other’s right to choose and the validity of others’ feelings of right and wrong. But a person who would think abortion is immoral maybe should examine the term’s implications a bit more closely.

Alaniel (aka LittleLurker)
Alaniel (aka LittleLurker)
2 years ago

Oh no, sorry, I didn’t mean to confuse you! I’m bad with word salads tonight!

I seem to remember that you wrote earlier that abortion is merely a medical procedure and shouldn’t have more weighted than that. That it doesn’t have to be a hard choice or a terrible dilemma.
I agree that it doesn’t have to be that.

I was trying to say (badly) that for personal reasons, for me choosing an abortion would be difficult emotionally. More difficult than another medical procedure, anyway. But even so we’re both pro-choice, because we both support women’s making their own free choices and having their own emotional reactions.

Is this better?

AuntieMameRedux
AuntieMameRedux
2 years ago

@Catalpa –

Hi:

I have about 3500 words for you on the history of adoption including why and how it is connected to the eugenics movement, not just historically but now with supporting documentation, book and article recommendations. I’m working on giving it a good edit and cutting the number of words, but where should I put it? Here? Because this thread has now moved on in two parts or somewhere else? Sorry for the length, I started explaining and adding citations and before I knew it I was closing in on four pages. I do realize that this is probably more than you wanted when you asked and if you want me just to pull the citations and the book recommendations out and paste them into a post, I am more than happy to do that. I realize that a lot of what I am saying goes against some very heavy societal programming, but I can support everything I’ve said with the work of other people and once I started explaining and citing….

Anyway, let me know and if you only want the citations and recommendations that is completely fine.

Catalpa
Catalpa
2 years ago

@AuntieMameRedux

Lay it on me, I’d definitely like to read your interpretation of the data and history. I personally have no issue with you posting the essay here. I’m not sure about how other people feel about it, but WHTM is generally pretty cool with threads diverging from the original topic. So it should be fine. At worst, folks are going to have to scroll a little further than normal.

If you wanna dump it in like a Google doc or something instead, that’d work too, but it’s up to you. I certainly don’t mind the opportunity to absorb some new information.

AuntieMameRedux
AuntieMameRedux
2 years ago

@Who

I am most familiar with healthy white infant adoption as it has been practiced in the US, Canada, England, Ireland and Australia with special attention on the post-WWII period to the present.

I am very familiar with international adoption in all of the countries where it has been practiced from the late nineties to the present. I am far from expert, but I am absolutely more knowledgeable than the average person.

I have studied this subject for almost thirty years. I have spoken to literally hundreds of people, adoptees, mothers, agency workers and brokers and lawyers, lawmakers and adopters over the years. These people cover different eras in adoption history and many, many different countries.

International adoption is now widely believed to be essentially child trafficking in most cases. Even when it is egregious, we don’t punish it. Please see the cases of Madonna and Angelina Jolie. Jolie’s Cambodian adoption is of particular interest, though all are suspect. In this case, the agent was found guilty of adoption fraud, not only in the case of Jolie, lest you make the argument that only movie stars benefit from trafficking and genocide practices. They don’t. In this particular case, Lauryn Galindo pleaded guilty to fraud, forgery of visas and falsification of birth, orphanage and adoption records. It was found that seven of the children she placed (and the standard of proof in these kinds of cases is incredibly high because we’ve all been told adoption is an unalloyed good) were absolutely found to have been taken from their natural parents fraudulently. Do you want to know how many children were properly returned to their natural parents who wanted them? Zero. Yes, zero. So, even in cases where the courts find the fraud and trafficking those children are lost to their parents, their identity, their country and their origins forever. The customers just get to keep them.

It was also widely reported that lies and falsified documents figured in Madonna’s adoption in Malawi. The mother wasn’t dead, she didn’t agree to adoption, her mother acted in her stead without her knowledge and there is extended family that wants the child. A big nope on that one too.

Yes, I understand that Germany and most EU countries have stopped forcing their own women into reproductive slavery. This includes Australia, which now has a good model of what happens in adoption when the profit motive and the fraud and coercion are taken out of the equation. Very few women give their children up to strangers. This is true of most EU countries too, which has forced prospective adopters into the international market which as hard as this is to believe is even more viscious and corrupt than domestic markets have traditionally been and that is saying something. Adopters are routinely lied to about how the children they are adopting were acquired, including false tales of abandonment. In other countries, orphanages are used much as foster care is in this country. It is a temporary way to care for a child while a parent either works far away from home or solves other temporary problems. Many parents have returned to reclaim their children and find that they have been sent out of the country in adoption schemes. False names, falsified records, falsified stories about how children came to be at the orphanage make it extremely unlikely that parents and children will ever find each other again. Read prospective adopter boards. Many, many people will tell you right up front that not only is international their only option, but it is preferable because the child will be able to be stripped of all identity and connection to their past and lies in records and will never be able to find their natural parents. Nor will their parents be able to find them.

For scholarly legal analysis of how the child laundering is done, I recommend:

https://works.bepress.com/david_smolin/

I also recommend The Child Catchers by Kathryn Joyce for a readable popular non-fiction description of some of the issues.

As for sex slavery, your answer proves my point in such a horrible way. You assure me that the children aren’t sex slaves. I am talking about the mothers. Being forced to give a wanted child to people who want to adopt is a form of sex slavery. Pregnancy is part of the sexual continuum. It has been said that adoption is the abortion of the mother and that making the mother disappear is the prime directive. That you can’t even “see” the mother in all of this shows just how effective all of this is. And our racism and colonialism just keeps rolling because your post also implied that we don’t do this to our own citizens anymore – it is difficult – but we go ahead and do it internationally, to primarily brown women. I am not blaming you for being a product of your culture. I am a product of mine too. I have blind spots as well.

It may seem like I have taken over this abortion thread with unrelated stuff. I swear to you I haven’t. Abortion rights, birth control, adoption and foster care all fall under the umbrella of bodily autonomy and reproductive rights and freedom. Paradoxically, the fact that we conflate these issues, especially abortion and adoption keeps the waters muddied and helps keep all reproductive rights under attack. We have to talk about each aspect of reproductive freedom separately.

So, these reasons Who? are why you cannot say that your friends the adopters were clean and free of trafficking in all of this. Lies are told, documentation is falsified and outright fraudulent, misrepresentations of the child’s status, history and circumstances are misrepresented and it is the job of the people the adopters are paying to insulate the customer from the crimes. This is part of the service for which they are paying.

I will stipulate that your friends may be decent people who did a bad thing out of desperation and ignorance. I will also say that over the years several adopters have told me things like “we all know what we did, but we did it anyway” and “you might enter the [adoption] process innocent and ignorant, but you don’t exit the same way. It’s impossible”

And again, because it cannot be stated enough, there are several aspects to true bodily autonomy and reproductive freedom, but the way they are conflated and debated is having the effect of losing ground on all aspects.

epitome of incomprehensibility

@ChimericMind and others – Sorry, I didn’t mean that foster care equals cultural genocide; I was just talking about it being used to break up First Nations communities in Canada.

@AuntieMameRedux – I’m also wary of the feel-good narrative surrounding some adoptions, especially international ones, but it seems you’re taking a hardline stance against adoption in general and I’m not sure why. Perhaps I’m misreading you, so I’d appreciate having a summary of what you wrote in response to Catalpa.

To clarify my position, I don’t agree with adoption = all bad. I don’t agree with adoption = all good, either. I think a parallel can be made with the pro-choice arguments here.

For example, you mention the connection of (modern) adoption to the eugenics movement (noted here – the first thing that came up when I searched “adoption history”). While such history is relevant, it doesn’t mean that all adoptions today are based on eugenics, or that adoption itself is the problem. As a comparison, the fact that sex-selective abortions were and are a problem doesn’t mean that the problem is abortion itself. (Forced abortion could also be used for genocidal means, though I don’t know of that being done on a large scale.) Being able to choose an abortion is necessary, even if some abortions are/were forced or coerced. The issue is choice.

Of course, with foster care and adoption it gets more complicated because of the number of people involved. I do agree that a clear system needs to be in place, with the possibility of open adoptions, and that the welfare of the child and the wishes of the original parent(s) (when not a danger to their child) be considered above the wishes of the adoptive parents. I also would favour local adoptions over international ones to increase transparency and reduce abuse. But I can’t get from there to saying adoption in general is bad. It’s just too big a thing to make a sweeping statement on.

Anyway, sorry for the wordiness and for any potential misreading here. I do appreciate your words in general even if I disagree on this specific thing. Thanks!

epitome of incomprehensibility

I wrote a long comment earlier and it isn’t showing up so that I can edit it. 🙁

@AuntieMameRedux, I hadn’t seen your last comment when I posted. I think I was arguing against a strawman version of what you said, now that you’ve clarified you’re talking about the potential for abuse in inter-country adoption and not saying that adoption is bad in general. Sorry about that!

Robert
Robert
2 years ago

The sons my husband and I adopted were from the same part of California we live in. They’re Black, as is my husband. They’re fully immersed in Black American culture. Our older son is in contact with his birth mother, to the extent that her mental illness and his permit. We haven’t found any information about our younger son’s birth family.

When we decided to adopt, we weren’t looking for a healthy white infant; we were hoping to provide a stable home for Black boys who would otherwise have spent their childhood in foster care. In that, and to that extent, we have been successful.

Oh, and we’re fully supportive of the right of women to terminate their pregnancies. If our society was such that all children were wanted children, and all parents were willing and able to raise their children, I would never have gotten to be a father. I would accept that.

Valentin - Emigrantski Ragamuffin
Valentin - Emigrantski Ragamuffin
2 years ago

Adoption is necessary but it is not what is best. It took me a long time to understand why my girlfriend said she wished she never was adopted. For her it was horrible, not the worst, but still horrible. It is difficult to say if her life will be better or worse if she stay with her biological parents or go to the foster parent. but that is what it is now. I met her foster parents and they are nice and I believe they try to he good. But it doesn’t mean that her experience of adoption was good, even if she is happy and okay now.

ChimericMind
ChimericMind
2 years ago

If AuntieMameRedux didn’t want her argument to be turned into a strawman, she shouldn’t have done it to herself by saying all adoption is cultural genocide, and then when questioned, insisting on the absolutist position. It would be a simple thing to make potential exceptions for documented intra-national foster care-to-adoption, but she’s not doing it, because the heady rush of moral absolutism seems to her to be a better argument than being accurate about complexities.

Valentin - Emigrantski Ragamuffin
Valentin - Emigrantski Ragamuffin
2 years ago

I want to add that when I said “Adoption is not best” I mean that is not best situation for a child to need to be adopted. ideal is to have parent(s) who love you and stable childhood from birth. It is not best for a child to need adoption, but plenty do and in such situations it is *better* than what is there before. My gf suffered from her biological parents and also from another foster parents, until she finally came to the parents she has now. and they are not perfect, but from her stories and memories, they are probably much better. it is not *best* to have parents who are not perfect but better than before – but it is necessary to try to keep the child safe as possible.

ChimericMind
ChimericMind
2 years ago

And yes, I’m sorry I’m taking this so personally. I’m just really infuriated by someone lumping my mother’s decades of work in foster care with child-vendors and forced prostitution. I’m pissed that someone would call it evil to rescue my previously-mentioned big sister from her situation, or the two other sisters and one brother that were abused non-sexually, or my trans brother being nearly killed for his identity, or the gay brother who was kicked out of his house for his identity (and never actually went into foster care, just transferred to our house and legally adopted later). Have other people had bad experiences in the foster care or adoption systems? Absolutely, and I completely believe in those. That doesn’t mean birth families are sacrosanct and should never be divided under any circumstances, and it doesn’t mean that each of my non-blood siblings isn’t super-glad that they had a way out.

If anyone needs me, I’ll be in the Angry Dome.

Valentin - Emigrantski Ragamuffin
Valentin - Emigrantski Ragamuffin
2 years ago

ChimericMind – I agree and you don’t need to apologies that you are angry. I feel like auntie is being absolutist too and also made some statements without evidence. it is a fact adoption saves lives and improves lives and it is necessary.

Robert
Robert
2 years ago

ChimericMind, I’ll drop by the Angry Dome with some cookies.

One of the things we were taught in the ten week course the county required for prospective foster/adoptive parents – every adoption starts with a tragedy. The goal is to ensure as best as possible that it doesn’t end with one.

On the abortion issue – it has been pointed out that violent crime has been declining in the United States for the past thirty years. Some people argue that reducing the number of unwanted children may be a factor in that. Also removing lead from gasoline.

epitome of incomprehensibility

Huh, maybe my original reading was right? I didn’t think someone would say all adoption is bad, because that is a wide, WIDE net to cast.

@ChimericMind –

I’m pissed that someone would call it evil to rescue my previously-mentioned big sister from her situation, or the two other sisters and one brother that were abused non-sexually, or my trans brother being nearly killed for his identity, or the gay brother who was kicked out of his house for his identity (and never actually went into foster care, just transferred to our house and legally adopted later).

Internet hugs if you want them. I’m sorry they had to experience all that and I’m glad they’re living a better life. There are still parents who will react in shitty ways to their kids coming out.

Much more than just being disapproving about it… but I’m thinking of myself now and my relationship with my mother. Which isn’t horrible, but it also gives me a personal reason not to give the mother/child bond an automatically privileged status over other relationships. I don’t hate her, but I’m closer with other people in my family.

Katiekitten420
Katiekitten420
2 years ago

Thank you everyone so much for the responses I’ve gotten I appreciate them so much and I have actually realized that I was just confused about a number of things first and foremost being the I guess socially accepted definitions of pro-life and pro-choice. All the information I have now read has informed me that technically by all reasonable metrics the people I am talking about are pro-choice. They call themselves pro-life, but it’s so different a concept to them than what the term pro-life means normally in society that it would honestly make sense for them just not to associate with it because it’s very misleading. Kupo, yes abortion is a medical procedure but like one or two other people have said I don’t think you can say it’s exactly the same and no different at all from for example putting a cast on a broken leg because take away any moral judgment you still are killing something.

That is a thing that is happening you are not murdering anything, you are not killing a person, you’re not killing a human, you are not killing a baby, you are killing something by technical definition. I think but I’m not positive you are generally killing a zygote at least I read that most pregnancies are terminated when the bundle of cells is called a zygote or something else I can’t recall it is not even technically a fetus yet it is just potential but you’re still killing it. I think that makes it slightly different from a medical procedure where you’re not killing anything just by strict technical definition.

Whether it is immoral I think is completely ambiguous up to you and your morality and if you do find it immoral that’s irrelevant to anyone but you. Example, I’m on the fence about it. I honestly am not sure whether I think it’s even a bit immoral. I’m also on the fence about the mice when they’re in your house chewing holes in your stuff, is killing them immoral? I mean I honestly am not sure they’re living creatures, they are happy in they’re little rodent lives I assume and when they come in our space a lot of people literally and in this case I am using the right word straight up murder them sometimes they torture them first. If you don’t believe a glue trap is a form of torture I don’t know what to tell you you’re just wrong. So I I think if it is immoral it’s about on par with killing mice. That actually might make my mom lose her mind LOL.

Okay I have to get back to work but thank you very much everyone who took the time to explain kindly. I also don’t think it’s fair to compare me to that person Idli because many people here know I’ve been here for years and whether I’m mistaken or ignorant or misguided everyone knows I am arguing in good faith. It never got this escalated before but especially when I first started posting I said some dumb ignorant crap LOL but I would always listen and in the end change my mind. The person you are referring to came in from the beginning saying all sorts of crazy problematic crap. I don’t think the comparison is fair at all, I honestly find it just a tiny bit insulting

Catalpa
Catalpa
2 years ago

Kupo, yes abortion is a medical procedure but like one or two other people have said I don’t think you can say it’s exactly the same and no different at all from for example putting a cast on a broken leg because take away any moral judgment you still are killing something.

I think that makes it slightly different from a medical procedure where you’re not killing anything just by strict technical definition.

When you take antibiotics you’re killing something too. Millions or even billions of somethings, actually. Sure, things like injuries are generally treated without killing organisms, but a large number of disease treatments are intended to, you know, kill the disease.

Katiekitten420
Katiekitten420
2 years ago

Are things like viruses technically alive I thought that was ambiguous? Biology is not my strong suit at all so maybe they are but I thought scientists had no true consensus and a good number says they are not technically alive. If you kill a zygote like I said previously, to me I think it’s kind of like killing a mouse. I would also not compare killing a mouse to killing a virus, it just seems different. Not better or worse I’m not talking about moral value at all, like I’m not assigning any morality in this context, it just seems like two different things.

Can you please explain to me why it’s not different? I’d really appreciate it. Cuz I truly don’t see it, I’m not just trying to play Devil’s Advocate like some people seem to think. Also your comment before this one the really long one was incredibly helpful for me thanks for that.

Valentin - Emigrantski Ragamuffin
Valentin - Emigrantski Ragamuffin
2 years ago

Are things like viruses technically alive I thought that was ambiguous?

Catalpa said “anti biotics” which are for fighting bacteria, not virus, and bacteria are alive. there is nothing like antibiotics for virus, the only way to fight virus is to treat symptoms or stop it before it comes with vaccine. what grows in the womb is just living cells, exaclty like bacteria which are living cells. in both case, abortion and use antibiotics, unwanted living cells die.

Katiekitten420
Katiekitten420
2 years ago

Extra thanks for Alaniel Rhuu Catalpa WWTH Kupo, Sheila, and one or two others I think I’m forgetting and I apologize. You guys gave some very helpful comments to me and help me understand why people were hostile in the first place and why I was starting from incorrect premises. I’m taking care of one last job and then I’m heading home. I hope everyone is happy and content and has a lovely weekend.

I have one last thing to say, Megan I honestly don’t recall you I don’t know if it’s because you’re just not the type to stand out like with any particularly interesting comments or if it’s cuz your new or if you don’t comment often. But seriously? No of course it’s not you or anyone else job to educate me, trust and believe as a black woman I know that. But I was asking a community I have been a part of on and off for years that I am reasonably friendly with to please do me a kindness. If they had chosen not to it obviously would not make me dislike them or make them mean people or anything like that.

Some people chose to try to help me understand which was very kind of them and I truly appreciate it. What I don’t get is why you saw it was worth leaving a comment solely to say that. Like it just seems kind of petty and childish and almost spiteful. I hope you achieved whatever you were trying to accomplish by posting it. Have a lovely weekend

Kylie
Kylie
2 years ago

I probably should’ve posted this earlier, but then I keep feeling I need to write and rewrite to make it less wordy (and self-centric). Also meat space stuff got in the way.

Let me say this first, @lunarqueen and @ChimericMind, I will take your(plural) words that Auntiemameredux was criticizing adoption in a harmful, adoption-negative way. Both of you are in the right to express anger at that being part of the adoption experience.

However, comments like this:

The culture that held her of such little value that she was abandoned and declared by the government as a foundling? The culture that abandoned a healthy baby because she was a girl? She gained the culture of a family- worth it so far.

Set off a lot of red flags for me as a non-Western, non-white feminist lady who has experience racism on herself and witness it on others in online spaces. I legit got very emotional (angry, to be specific) when I read that sentence.

@Lunarqueen, you’re inadvertently propping up your experience using white/western saviour rhetoric. I get it, you’re trying to tell us to be aware of the issue from the adoptee’s perspective. And yes, I’m definitely for uplifting underrepresented voices like that of adoptees. But the way you’re doing it… just those 3 short sentences I quoted above, it causes unintended harm because you are repeating and enforcing the language and reasoning of existing racial/cultural stereotypes. I’m basing this on my own experience as part of the group who will bear the brunt of such racism and western-elitism. Such enforcing of racial/cultural stereotypes can also circle back to whichever Western country you belong to and affect not only your daughter but also immigrants and diaspora who happen to share the same birth culture as her.

Case in point.

@ChimericMind

Just, this whole comment:

I’m rather offended by the assertion that all foster-care is genocide, as well. I mean, I suppose that the culture my big sister was taken from, where she was raped by her older brother while her parents knew and let it happen is an important cultural touchstone, and it’s racist to say otherwise. The state had no business profaning her heritage by removing her from their custody and putting her in a soulless orphanage run by horrible cultural imperialists like my mother. Auntiemame is wise to support the ultra-conservatives that gained control of the Kansas legislature and decided that the foster care industry needed to be privatized within an inch of its life, and would have kicked undesired teenagers like my big sister back to their birth families regardless of the reason that they were removed in the first place. Of course, my mother had to fuck it all up by imposing her cultural biases against sibling rape and insisted on adopting her to stop that. Thank you for opening my eyes at how unenlightened my parents were, Auntiemame.

Ok I get what you’re trying to do, you’re trying to play the ‘an eye for an eye’ card on Auntiemameredux. You’re trying to get her to understand how her comments read to you and what it ends up implying about your experience. I get you’re angry. But can we… do the base minimum and not use valid, existing issues and experience (heritage erasure, imperialism) that still affect POC and people like me till this day as an ironic ‘hyperbolic’ tool to own someone on the internet???

Look, originally I had this whole long-ass paragraph within this comment about my views on adoption. I deleted the whole thing deciding that me being neither adoptive nor adoptee means I lack the required perspective and knowledge to effectively talk about it. I give due respect to both lunarqueen’s and ChimericMind’s statements of how they are involved in the adoptive experience. I’m not trying to lecture anyone on a moral high horse. I’m sharing my honest opinion about things that set off warning alarms in my head due to my experiences. Uh… I guess what I’m saying is, please practice a degree of intersectional awareness before you post? (said with sincerity)

Ok… awkward… err thanks for reading?

Katiekitten420
Katiekitten420
2 years ago

Thank you very much Valentine for that information like I said biology is probably my worst subject I’m awful at it. The only stuff I know is mostly about the brain and psychology related. Okay then its totally possible that I am being irrational but I still just feel there’s an innate difference between a potential human and for example not even just bacteria, there are definitely other kinds of cells and masses of cells that get taken out with medical procedures.

For example, why not take something bigger like say a tumor, and just for the sake of hypothetical argument let’s say the tumor has as many cells as a zygote like they’re the same size. Since the tumor has no potential for anything and it’s just malicious and bad and makes cancer isn’t it just somewhat different thing in of itself than something that could be a baby eventually if you wanted it to? Like I don’t know yeah they’re both bunches of cells that are alive, but the pet hamster I loved so dearly when I was young and a New York City subway rat are both rodents but they’re obviously different in substantial ways

Again I’m not speaking about morality I’m just saying aren’t those two different things or concepts? They just don’t seem the same in my head, if that’s just because of preconceptions I have given my upbringing or culture or societal reinforcement please tell me but something with the potential to be a living human just doesn’t seem the same as a bunch of malicious cells.

Bacteria and tumors and stuff like that are they are trying to harm you and make you sick. The other just will turn into a baby sometime if it is wanted and not miscarried. It just seems to me if you put like zygote bacterias and tumors is like one of these things is not like the others. Again not taking any moral stance.

Who?
Who?
2 years ago

@Auntie:
Sorry for the late reply:
Yes I didn’t think of the mothers, because well bias in thinking about national adoption towards international.
Here we have 3 cases:
1. children are Orphans.
2. Parents give the children away to be adopted.
3. Saftyreasons demand it.

Mothers as sexslaves is not really in the thoughts.

I thought most cases if not orphans are given away with the consent of the mothers, if I am wrong my fault.

I know that most adoptions(here) are done with international organisations like in the case of a german politican Terre des hommes. I think the couple I talked of used the same organisation or somethink similar.

Do I 100 know, that everthink was koscher. Nope. I know enough about the situation that the parents thaught everythink was okay. (From my opinion of them and what the told me about it) To make it more difficult the case is older than the time you spent on the research.

I know I am vague in some points, but that happened, when I was a small child, and we talked only rarely about it.

I am not trying to disregard what you are saying. I just don’t believe that its true for every international adoption and exspecially don’t believe that all the potential parents know anythink about it or can know anythink.

Catalpa
Catalpa
2 years ago

the pet hamster I loved so dearly when I was young and a New York City subway rat are both rodents but they’re obviously different in substantial ways

Again I’m not speaking about morality I’m just saying aren’t those two different things or concepts?

The only difference between a pet rodent and a pest rodent is the emotional/moral value that humans arbitrarily assign to one or the other. There is no objective, inherent difference between them. You like one of those rodents and find the other one to be a nuisance, therefore you’re fine with one of them being killed.

Bacteria and tumors and stuff like that are they are trying to harm you and make you sick. The other just will turn into a baby sometimes.

Uhhh, no, potentially being born is not “just” what a fetus can do. Human pregnancy is extremely taxing on the human body, almost to the point of being parasitical. Fetuses will force the pregnant person’s body to give up tons of nutrients, which can cause deficiencies in the host, as well as things like diabetes. And that’s before childbirth, which has a whole host of pain and harms inflicted on the body, even up to the point of death. Sure, the fetus isn’t “trying” to make the pregnant person hurt and sick, it’s just trying to survive. But so are the bacteria.

Some women may willingly take on these risks and injuries. That’s their choice. But to say that a fetus is a harmless thing is blatantly not true.

Catalpa
Catalpa
2 years ago

Sorry, I keep using the term “women” instead of “people with uteruses”. Damn reflexive biases.

Moon_custafer
Moon_custafer
2 years ago

@ Katiekitten420:

First off, I’d suggest that with regards to placing a mouse, a tumour and a fetus on a “morality” scale: the mouse is the only one of those things that possesses consciousness and the capacity to feel pain, so I’d say it outranks, even if the other two contain human DNA.

@ Catalpa:

Human pregnancy is extremely taxing on the human body

I’ve recently begun seeing more scientific articles on how pregnancy works – relevant detail: the thick lining of the uterus is actually to make it *difficult* for the embryo to implant – basically to weed out the weaker ones, because pregnancy is really rough on the parental body, and had better be worth the effort (plenty of things can still go wrong after implantation, of course, but presumably there’d be even more miscarriages if that quality-control weren’t implemented at the beginning).

kupo
kupo
2 years ago

@KatieKitten420
If you view it as immoral for a woman to have an abortion you’re taking an inherently anti-feminist and misogynistic stance. Are you equally appalled at masturbation that causes sperm to be released and the potential lives to be destroyed?

Rhuu - apparently an illiterati
Rhuu - apparently an illiterati
2 years ago

KatieKitten420: A very important thing to remember: NOT ALL BUGS NEED DRUGS. This might seem to be totally off from the discussion, but this is for you (and lurkers). Many people go to the doctor with a virus, and demand antibiotics. The doctors will give it to them, so that they feel like the doctor has done something while they get better on their own as their own immune system handles the virus.

Antibiotics are for bacteria only, and will not do anything at all to a virus. All it will do is contribute to antibiotic resistance.

A commercial for the ‘Not all Bugs Need Drugs’ campaign:

You’ve said a few times that you aren’t sure about biology. Here is a resource for learning more about it, khan academy.

(this links to the bacteria video, because that was the link I had handy.)

I would also like to once more point out how thanking people who were nice is not a very nice thing to do. You’re tone policing.

People have very intense reactions to the things you are saying, because people have been fighting for the right to have an abortion for a very long time. Many American commenters are extremely worried that their right is going to be even more under threat, with the new supreme court judge.

You’re welcome, and I’m glad you read and thought about the things I said. Just because I could say them nicely doesn’t mean you should discount people who couldn’t. This isn’t some thought experiment, it is peoples lives, bodies, and futures.

As to the consequences of giving birth, others have covered the biological tolls, how about the effect of not getting an abortion when wanted?

Here’s an article on a study about that.

“If you ask women why they want an abortion, the most common reasons have to do with finances. They feel they can’t afford to have a child, and it’s in the economic outcomes that we see the biggest difference between a woman who has received and a woman who was denied an abortion,” Foster told Rewire.

Foster’s report indicates that many women were already struggling financially when they sought abortion care—half had incomes below the federal poverty level and three-quarters reported not having enough money to cover basic living expenses.

Six months after being denied an abortion, women were three times more likely to be unemployed than women who were able to access abortion care. They were also more likely to be enrolled in welfare programs.

The study’s findings match what women seeking abortions say they fear, Foster said—that the denial of abortion care leads to further economic insecurity.

I know you are saying that you aren’t sure if it’s ‘moral’ or not to have an abortion. Here’s a question: Is it ‘moral’ to condemn people with uterus’ to poverty? To condemn their existing children to a more difficult existence?

Because that is what happens when people think that something is ‘immoral’, even if they don’t want to legislate it.

Social shaming works. It obviously works. What do you think the pressures are on a person to not have an abortion, when the result will be ostracization from their community because of the immorality of the act?

I would be interested to see what your mother and this group felt about changing their self-chosen title to ‘pro-choice’. I’m going to bet that it won’t go over well.

ETA: Dr. Jen Gunter has also gone over this ‘only when the mother’s life is in danger’ BS. It’s a good article, but warning for some harsh realities described.

A. Noyd
A. Noyd
2 years ago

Katiekitten420

Bacteria and tumors and stuff like that are they are trying to harm you and make you sick. The other just will turn into a baby sometime if it is wanted and not miscarried. It just seems to me if you put like zygote bacterias and tumors is like one of these things is not like the others. Again not taking any moral stance.

You are taking a moral stance, though, which is what leads you to frame bacteria and tumors as intentionally malicious while you ignore the negative consequences of pregnancy.

Bacteria and tumors aren’t trying to do anything. The negative effects they have on their hosts is a mere consequence of how they live and grow. Fetuses also aren’t trying to do anything, either, but they wreak similar havoc on the bodies they inhabit. There’s no “just” becoming a baby.

No “innate difference” separates zygotes/fetuses from bacteria and tumors as forms of life—at least, other than how nature biases us to see zygotes/fetuses as special for the sake of perpetuating our species.

That said, there’s nothing necessarily wrong with making moral judgments over which kind of life is better than another. Our continued existence requires it. I, myself, stomped a cockroach to death within the last hour. But you can’t give into your bias so much that you end up pretending your gut feelings are able to objectively measure of the value of different lives.

kupo
kupo
2 years ago

Further, if it’s so immoral to deny access to your organs to a potential life, then surely it’s even *more* immoral to deny access to your organs to a fully alive person. So please go give a kidney or liver or bone marrow donation to a person in need before you talk to me about the immorality of denying the use of my uterus.

Gaebolga
Gaebolga
2 years ago

KatieKitten420 wrote:

Are things like viruses technically alive I thought that was ambiguous?

It is indeed ambiguous, so most biologists default to the position that they fall in the grey area between life and chemistry. My dad — who’s retired but was a professor of Biochemistry and Genetics at a Tier I university — personally believes they should be considered a form of life because they evolve, but he fully understands why others disagree.

Hell, even the scientific definition of what constitutes life isn’t exactly settled, so…ambiguous is the right term.

Who?
Who?
2 years ago

Since Kupo mentioned it, yes the catholics curch, sees mastrubation and condoms as evil. Less people are following that than the abortionstand.

I think that the lifequestion is a bit unfair, since to talk about protecting all life (to absurd extremes) is somethink else than protecting what is in a mothers womb.

We are talking about a potential (allready growing) intelligent life here. I have zero problems with a woman saying she has moral problems here (for her personal case) but hasn’t got any problem in using modern medicine to battle cancer or an ilness. There is no inconsequence here.
(The ped rodent and the rat is more of a logic problem, exspecially since some people have rats as pets)

That is just me thinking okay the argument is in danger of getting a bit lost here.

kupo
kupo
2 years ago

That is just me thinking okay the argument is in danger of getting a bit lost here.

Yeah, wouldn’t want a person’s bodily autonomy to get in the way with potential intelligent life. This is why we must call Male masturbation what it is: murder. We must picket bedrooms and bathrooms of bepenised individuals and show them graphic images of dead creatures and throw blood on them to stop them squelching potential future lives. We must call them sluts and whores and shame them for not keeping their hands off their goods. These are potential people they’re murdering!

Scildfreja Unnyðnes
Scildfreja Unnyðnes
2 years ago

On Abortion,

@KatieKitten, let me try to cut through the fog for you. There’s a lot of emotional fog that billows up around this question. I think I can clear the air a bit, if you’ll let me.

We don’t care about bacteria or tumours; we care about how they affect people. We care about mice, but generally not as much as we care about cats or dogs. We care about people most of all. Because we care about minds.

If we have a loved one who suffers grievous neurological damage and is in a coma, we hold on to hope until their mind is gone, at which point we grieve for that loss – even if their body is alive, that doesn’t matter. If someone we love leaves for awhile and comes back thinking and behaving in a way that we find loathesome, we shun them, and grieve for the loss of the person we loved (and perhaps fight to get their old way of thinking back). Because we love minds.

Mice have minds. They’re itty-bitty things, but they have pretty much the same brain structures we do, albeit in different proportions and arrangements. We don’t have a good reason to think they don’t. Bacteria and viruses don’t behave like they have minds, and don’t have any structures or things-about-them that we believe could ever support a mind.

We are concerned with the capacity to love, the capacity to suffer, the capacity to feel. Zygotes have none of these. Comparing a zygote to a mouse in this way deeply undervalues the mouse. The little squeaker may not have a very clear memory of the past, and may not be able to project the future, but she can recognize your scent and scurry over and nuzzle you with affection; she can round up her little squeaky children and hold them close when it’s cold out. A fetus can do nothing more than draw nutrients and maybe do a little wiggle. I’d compare it to a sea cucumber, but sea cucumbers have a bit more neurological activity so it’s a grey area.

That sounds harsher than I’d like it to! What’s catching you up here, I think, is the potential for love and feeling that a foetus has. They could turn into a mind capable of love and life. Which is true! But it sells away the rights of the loving, feeling person carrying it for the potential mind of the potential person that might be in the future.

That’s a decision every pregnant person in the world has to go through, because that’s a value judgement – Do I sacrifice my desires for this possibility? That’s up to the individual to decide, and it’s the heart of what pro-choice is, in my opinion. And it’s got nothing to do with killing a person, because there’s no person there. No mind. There’s possibly, maybe, could-be-a-person-at-some-point there. Same as for every sperm or egg in every gonad. The only difference between an egg in an ovary and a foetus is a shift in probabilities, and not nearly as big a shift as many would have you believe.

Does this clarify things or make them worse? Anti-abortion advocates muddy this issue a lot, and make it way more complicated than it needs to be. That way they can tangle as much emotion and grief in there as possible to guilt women to get into their patriarchal roles. Catches up a lot of good people in that tangled mess.

Who?
Who?
2 years ago

Kupo: What I meaned with lost is only the baby vs tumorpart.
I was not clear on that, perhaps.

Point taken that it is a doublestandard, made easier by the fact that it is earlier in the process (and men would be the target).

Point exspecially taken that we should stopp treating women that have an abortion so badly.

My point that was lost a bit, was that this is a damm hard decision for any women in that situation and I understand those, who have a moral problem with the question what they should do if they are in that situation.
What is a good think to have potential help for the women, who are pregnant, because children are expensive. (On of the oficial reasons for the privilage of mariage is that the state want to give people help because the system needs children for the staate to stay stabil)

kupo
kupo
2 years ago

Kupo: What I meaned with lost is only the baby vs tumorpart.

There is no baby involved. That myth needs to stop.

Catalpa
Catalpa
2 years ago

My point that was lost a bit, was that this is a damm hard decision for any women in that situation

No, it really isn’t. It has the POTENTIAL to be a hard decision, for certain people. For other people (for example, me), the decision to have an abortion would be no more difficult than the decision to have a tapeworm removed. It’s an unwanted organism in my body, there without my consent, and it will be unceremoniously ejected at the soonest opportunity. There is no objective reason why abortion SHOULD be a hard choice to make. (That doesn’t mean that it SHOULD be easy, either, just that it has the potential to be either, depending on the individual whose organs are being used.)

weirwoodtreehugger: chief manatee

It’s a myth that abortion is a difficult decision too. Most people who want one decide quickly and are sure about it.

According to a study of women seeking abortion at a U.S. clinic in 2008, 99% of abortion patients reported being “sure” or “kind of sure” of their decision to have an abortion, and 98% reported that “abortion is a better choice for me at this time than having a baby.”7

https://www.guttmacher.org/evidence-you-can-use/waiting-periods-abortion

That’s an important myth to dispel because as the link explains, it leads to mandatory waiting periods which are detrimental both financially and health-wise.

It’s almost like women and other people with uteri have thought about whether or not they want and are ready for a baby long before an unplanned pregnancy actually happens.

Juniper
Juniper
2 years ago

Hello, I’m a biology professor.

When I was getting my degree, I took Developmental Biology, and it actually made me more OK with abortion than I already was before. I had an abortion a couple of years previous to that, and it was very reassuring finding out how undeveloped that embryo was at that stage (I got it done before it counted as a fetus – which isn’t until 8 weeks). It didn’t even have a brain yet, and certainly no ability to feel pain or be aware of its own existence.

Now when I teach my own students about human development, I am sure to go into detail about this stuff. I don’t bring up abortion directly, but I am sure that many of my students have also been misled about what a human embryo or fetus is like at the stages when many abortions occur. Maybe some of them have also had abortions themselves, so I hope that I can reassure them like I was reassured when I was a student that they are not actually killing a tiny baby.

The main regret I have about my abortion is that I shouldn’t have gotten pregnant in the first place. I was a teenager, got my first boyfriend, and nobody taught me that “pulling out” wasn’t a reliable contraceptive method. The abortion was painful and expensive. Would have been much better to not have gotten pregnant in the first place, but the abortion was much LESS painful and LESS expensive than actually having a baby would have been!

But really, talking about human developmental stages and the reasoning behind having an abortion and stuff like that is a distraction, because the real issue is bodily autonomy. Even if you think an embryo or fetus should have legal personhood, nobody forces people to donate blood or tissue or organs against their will, even if the person will die without the donation.

Giving an embryo or fetus “personhood” status effectively gives them MORE rights than anyone else. Certainly more than the pregnant woman, but what about all those people on organ donor waiting lists? They don’t get to just take other people’s organs without permission. A lot of them die before getting an organ. Should we start FORCING people to give them organs?

Who?
Who?
2 years ago

Interesting, I didn’t know that mandatory waiting periods were even in the discusion.
I could google but what times are we talking about?
Correct me if I am wrong but isn’t abortian a less dangerous and less dificult operation early in pregnancy?

About the decision being hard or not, it is at last one which huge consequences so it is natural that women think about it before they are in the situation.
Force towards either decision, shaming etc sucks.

Rhuu - apparently an illiterati
Rhuu - apparently an illiterati
2 years ago

Another Dr. Jen Gunter link, because she is awesome:

the entire abortion tag.

Who? The mandatory wait isn’t usually very long, which doesn’t sound so terrible. Until you remember that someone likely had to drive a significant distance from their home to get the first appointment, and now has to stick around this other place for an extra day or two.

That’s an extra day off of work, so money lost there. Also a day where you’ll need to pay for food and lodgings, and perhaps make sure someone is taking care of children you already have.

You’ll also have to go past the forced-birth protesters again, which can be really difficult to do.

Here’s a quote from people who study this:

However, many states require women to wait for some period of time—from 18 hours to three days or more—between preabortion counseling and the abortion itself. Some states require in-person counseling (rather than counseling via phone, internet or mail) before the waiting period can begin. These types of provisions mean that women must make two trips to a health care provider in order to obtain an abortion. Making two trips can pose a burden for women who need to arrange for time off from work or caretaking duties, and for those who live far from an abortion provider. The need to gather funds or make travel arrangements may lead women to have later abortions, which are more expensive and can pose a higher risk.

From here.

This isn’t just in the discussion, it’s a law in many states.

Hambeast
Hambeast
2 years ago

Rhuu – What about prophylactic antibiotics? I understand that they probably improve outcomes for surgeries in aggregate, but are they always necessary?

MILbeast is terribly allergic to almost* all forms of antibiotics and is blind due to cataracts because there are no docs that take Medicare who will remove them for her without a course of antibiotics.

*She got a course of antibiotics in the hospital a couple of months ago without too much** trouble, but they still had to cut it short and put her on oxygen for a day when her airway started swelling up.

**Compared to the time she nearly died, anyway.

Catalpa
Catalpa
2 years ago

I could google but what times are we talking about?
Correct me if I am wrong but isn’t abortian a less dangerous and less dificult operation early in pregnancy?

Don’t be silly, waiting times aren’t about the health of the pregnant person! They’re meant to be a barrier to obtaining an abortion, because poor women who may not be able to afford to take multiple days off to go to a clinic multiple times, (especially if the only abortion clinic is 100+ miles away because every other one in the state got shit down and she doesn’t have a car) will be turned away and told to think about their decision for a few days and come back later. People who can’t afford a hotel in a far away city for those few days and can’t get transport to the clinic, well, they’ll just have to have that baby and face the consequences of their slutty actions.

It also gives extra time for the pregnant person to be guilt-tripped into keeping it.

Juniper
Juniper
2 years ago

Yes there really are waiting periods and more.

I’m lucky that I had my abortion a long time ago before Texas passed these awful laws we have now. I just had to make an appointment over the phone, then come in once and got it all done within a couple of hours (filling out forms, counseling, the procedure itself, and recovery from the nitrous oxide).

But now you have to go in to get an ultrasound, the doctor forces you to look at the ultrasound, they read you some state mandated script designed to guilt trip you about it, and then you have to go leave and come back in three days for the actual procedure.

And a while ago they passed a law that mandated that abortion clinics become ambulatory surgery centers, which shut down most abortion clinics in the state. It ended up being overturned by the Supreme Court, but most of them weren’t able to reopen. It’s OK if you live near one of the major cities, because they managed to keep at least one clinic open each, but if you live out in the boonies somewhere, you could end up having to drive over 100 miles to get to a clinic.

We also have a 20 week abortion ban. I think I already mentioned my friend who aborted a wanted fetus at 19 weeks because she went into premature labor and didn’t want to have to just wait around for the fetus to die. Oh, and it turns out they still do the ultrasound and the state mandated anti-abortion spiel even when something like that is happening. Like, there’s no way your fetus can survive, but we’re going to guilt trip you about aborting it anyway.

It’s all to make it harder for women to get a safe abortion at a clinic and has nothing to do with health or safety. Dangerous do-it-yourself abortions have gone way up since these laws have passed.

It’s much easier to buy a gun than to get an abortion.

Rhuu - apparently an illiterati
Rhuu - apparently an illiterati
2 years ago

Hambeast – Had to look that one up! Found this page, where it says

Antibiotic prophylaxis is the use of antibiotics before surgery or a dental procedure to prevent a bacterial infection. This practice isn’t as widespread as it was even 10 years ago. This is due to:

the increase in the resistance of bacteria to antibiotics
the change in bacteria that cause infections
improvements in technology that can detect infections

However, antibiotic prophylaxis is still used in people who have certain risk factors for bacterial infection. Professional guidelines recommend using antibiotics before procedures that have a high risk of bacterial infection.

Here’s one about using them before dental surgery in patients. It looks like they are also recommending it less.

My post was more about people going to the doctor for the cold and demanding antibiotics, but it is interesting to learn that they seem to be changing the procedure for other uses of antibiotics as well!

(opinion formed based on a quick reading of two articles, definitely ready for an expert to drop some education if necessary)

Wiki also points to this article, where the American Heart Association is recommending it less as well.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
2 years ago

@ rhuu

using them before dental surgery in patients. It looks like they are also recommending it less.

When I had that abscess they offered me the choice of antibiotics; but said the preferred approach was just to drill and drain it. There were also posters to that effect in the waiting area. So that seems to be the vogue here now.

A. Noyd
A. Noyd
2 years ago

Who?

this is a damm hard decision for any women in that situation

Count me as another voice saying this is total BS. Thanks.

About the decision being hard or not, it is at [least] one [with] huge consequences

Still BS. If an individual goes through any kind of emotional struggle, it’s because of who they are as a person and/or their particular circumstances, not because abortion itself is specially fraught with consequences.

Right now, I’m trying to get some of my teeth replaced with dental implants, and that requires a lot of weighing of the consequences, such as, how will I schedule the steps of this long, drawn-out process so I don’t risk becoming unable to eat while having to work, and do I want to spend so much time and money on something that could wear out within a few years, etc. But I’ve known since I was very young that I don’t want to have children, so the only time “huge consequences” would come into play over abortion is if I were somehow denied one.