…there was any kind of social security/welfare/labor rights/pro-union/family leave policy support from the “pro-life” community for working class families and lonely working class bachelors. But there isn’t. Not only are we losing our reproductive rights, everything is getting more expensive and we as a society are running a million miles an hour in the “people just don’t wanna work because they’re lazy, so they should be sanctioned until they’re so destitute and desperate they have to work at that fast food joint that doesn’t pay well” direction.

For example, the Great Resignation in ‘pro-life’ circles is being laid at the feet of hypothetical welfare queens who stored up a fortune from lockdown bailout funds. White American right-leaning populism is a strange thing, because they often notice real social ills but their prescriptions for how to fix them are completely self-defeating and end up making everything harder for everyone, including and especially the white working class they want to have more babies. No working person with any brains in their head thinks that right now is the perfect time to have another kid with stagflation setting in and Uncle Sam flirting with World War 3 overseas.

There were some people for whom COVID lockdown was the only pause in the rat race they ever had, and for the first time they had some money to put away and plan their great escape from that job they hated but theretofore had to do anyway. That happened, and many people who worked through the pandemic with not even hazard pay got a little salty about that.

“You’re essential,” those working people were told. “Have a meaningless few phrases of recognition, now get back to work.”

“Are we getting a raise or something?”

“No.”

Working people had various reactions to that. The white ones (not all, but most) seem to have imagined that all the freeloaders and who got to stay home were all people of color, or sissy liberal millennials, or otherwise the sorts of people these people hate and wish there less of in general (which is a thinker why they want to repeal Roe). So the obvious reaction is for the white proletariat to parrot the the gripes of the white business owners and the white Bourgeoisie who see all workers as wage slaves who exist to make the money printer go “brrr”? It seems the point is to make everyone miserable, which reminds me of a science experiment where the subjects would scuttle an opportunity to have anything just to spite the people who would have gotten more than them.

I can’t afford to have a kid. I don’t know anybody in my age range who can. Out of all my siblings, I got one who has cranked out 5 as though by proxy for the rest of us who think he’s insane. They’re in and out of living with my parents who adore their grand-babies and wonder why there aren’t more being made. They’re never going to own a home. He found out there was money in solar and jumped at the opportunity to sell green energy even after all the grieving I got from him and his that climate change was bs. He wants abortion to be overturned in its entirety, because “people need to learn responsibility,” which from him sounds like misery loves company because he was stupid enough to have 5 kids in this economy and now between making ends meet and meeting the emotional needs of his family, he’s slowly dying inside and half-imagines that things would be better if only everyone was more like him or something. Like it’s not fair that he believed in “God’s plan” but it was actually a stupid idea to gulp it down that hard.

The pro-life position that a sperm and an egg however briefly united is a full legal person has nothing to do with the sanctity of life. It has everything to do with feeling righteous and also sometimes making sure everyone is a miserable as you are. If it had anything to do with the sanctity of life, the social compact that babies are being born into wouldn’t be an absolute mess that starts charging them for services the instant they are born or otherwise abandons them to a catholic priest, a Mormon bishop, a broken foster system, or the streets. This is not a pro-life society. This is a society designed by sado-masochists who simultaneously wanted having to kids to be both financially unappetizing and unavoidable, because it “builds character” or whatever. The pro-life position is a form of general misanthropy posing as righteousness.

Or maybe it’s simpler than that. Maybe a lot of people just don’t question what they’re told ever and get angry at people who simply by existing and exercising the forbidden choice (which is a legal right for now) show them in a profoundly unnerving but completely unintentional subtextual way that “the plan” is so much boot licking and not any kind of serious ethos meant to tackle our society’s real problems. We’re starting to hear that “maybe Jesus should be the law of the lane” after decades of beating around the bush. Or maybe the pro-lifers want to get more sex than they really get, but sex = kids in their minds, so everyone should be forced to live under the pro-life conditions that he or she lives under by choice. Maybe they don’t realize it was a choice — which is the theocracy we were always talking about back in the day. It’s hard to hear that your fear of hell and God’s wrath are delusional. It makes you double down.

People should be educated and live their lives in an informed and deliberate way. This is radical to say now apparently. I’m not only a partisan hack if I say people should have access to education, healthcare, and contraceptives paid for by any means that makes sense — I’m the radical left. But look at this pathetic society and tell me we don’t need that stuff thirty years ago. You and each of you right now have the liberty, the right, to terminate an unplanned pregnancy within the scope of its “unviable” stage. You get to choose whether or not you’re ready for parenthood, despite your sexual urges. Religious have no idea how this affects women. They look at abortion gore porn and say “oh the humanity,” and then they deny the youth any access to contraception or even sex ed and send pregnant teenagers who don’t know there are options away to god knows where to hide the shame of her baby bump. The women get the short end of that stick EVERY TIME. Texas by the way is not only the most capitalist state and the most god-fearing, it’s also the highest in repeat unwanted teen pregnancies. God bless Texas with some sex ed, contraceptives, some access to abortion, and all the ruling elites’ heads on pikes — especially the Bush family.

You (I’m speaking to white people) are not being “replaced” by immigrants in an anti-white plot spanning decades. You are being outcompeted in a global job market by people willing to work for less than you and who never imagined not having kids because Catholicism is big where they come from. It’s not fair, no. It’s not even legal for you to be paid so little. You can’t compete, and having large families costs money, but white nationalism ain’t the answer, neither is Christian nationalism. You need more money and for job opportunities to be deliberately created for you. You could use an education too just so you can understand the self-evident things I’m saying. I’m on your side, even if I’m a godless commie. Latinos and other immigrants and even the minorities who have been here since 1619 are NOT your enemies! They, like you, just want a better life — and America still represents that to some people in an economic way. As bad as things are here, it’s still a hell of a lot better than where they came from. Their “shithole” countries are usually that way because of historic white fuckery and modern day American foreign policy and spooky antics and military adventurism. If you could get past their skin color, you would realize they have all the Christian social values you have and would vote with you more often if you weren’t so politically fixated with shooting your own class’s dick off to spite the new faces, which is what your anti-socialist attitudes have become. People who vote based purely on signaling that they have nothing else in common with atheists and socialists are the biggest useful idiots there ever were; and religion is truly the opiate of the masses, the sigh of the oppressed creature.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/17/2022 08:04PM by Cold-Dodger.

False.

The issue isn't whether society provides enough support to facilitate the rearing of children who might otherwise have been aborted. The issue is whether society has the right to tell a woman what to do with her body.

Please quit discussing women's bodies as if women are not in the room. It's offensive as hell.

I'm surprised and disappointed to realize how many exmo males here are revealing they don't actually have a problem with women having no say over their bodies.

I'm discouraged because I don't think there is as much male support in the fight as I hoped.

LW is right zeroing in on the actual issue.

Meanwhile in Idaho, they are trying to pass an abortion law that allows the family of a rapist to sue the abortion provider. The rapist and fetus are more important than the woman, and people seem fine with that. WTF. I wish I lived in a place where Handmaid's Tale wasn't a documentary.

This is what I mean with the comment that got deleted. You didn’t READ the thing I wrote; you’re just offended by the title.

To the contrary, CD, I read the whole thing. If you don't see how you are treating women as objects, you should reread your first paragraph, wherein you say explicitly that losing Row "wouldn't be so bad" if there were social services to help mothers rear children.

That is precisely the problem. You frame it as a social issue, a balancing act, rather than one of individual liberty. The question is whether a woman has the right to her own physical integrity. Period.

The outlawing of abortion would be an atrocity even if social services were adequate.

It tenchically and literally and financially and psychologically wouldn’t “be as bad” if adequate social services existed. You haven’t refuted that logic. My implicit argument is that since they services don’t exist and since there is no political will on the Roght to provide them, think about the crisis we’re about to create and consider leaving Roe in place and the only viable way to abort that hellish future.

No woman needs to refute your assertion. You will never personally face the issue so I don’t care about your argument. My body, my choice. Same argument antivaxcers have been asserting.

The title seems as if this is a pro Roe overturn rant. I didn't get the impression from reading it that that was the point of the post. Did I miss something?

The word hysteria comes to mind. They aren’t reacting to anything but the title, which is only an attention grabber.

No, we are reacting to your first full paragraph. Even your second and a couple of other paragraphs are informed by the notion that this is about social policy.

Nowhere to be seen is any recognition that women have a right to their own bodily autonomy.

Roe affects men too. No kid exists but vote a man’s seed, and very very often a man is robbed of his paychecks because he didn’t wrap it in latex and she decided to hold the kid over him. If you get to kill it, how come I don’t have the right to abandon it? But I digress.

The point of the post is to make a novel argument for the pro-choice position that points out the hypocrisy of those who believe in blue eyes white capitalist Jesus.

We are speaking of Roe, I believe. Roe has nothing to do with men-- or their rights. In Roe, the Supreme Court ruled the Constitution of the United States protects a pregnant woman's LIBERTY TO CHOOSE to have an abortion without excessive government restriction.

Right. Women are hysterical. That's because YOUR body isn't at risk, right?

Look, I read your post. Providing for kids is fine and all, but the PRIMARY issue before any of that stuff you talked about is a women having control of her own body.

Even the word "hysteria" is misogynistic and hence a revelatory comment in a post arguing that the OP isn't overlooking women's rights.

I won't call CD misogynistic, because I don't think he is, but he clearly shares the all-too-male view that women's preferences are but one of myriad factors to be balanced.

Yeah, using the word hysteria was very revealing and disappointing.

I’m misogynistic in particular cases when I’m arguing for their rights but they don’t like my tone.

It's not your tone that's offensive. It's your substance.

You have yet to recognize that a woman's rights are every bit as sacrosanct as a man's. The other day Henry said it's a false comparison to bring up the possibility of mandatory vasectomies for men. He believes that a many's physical integrity may not be questioned but a woman's is up for discussion.

Prohibiting abortion is nonetheless a violation even if society offers Scandinavian levels of social support.

The way this is going to hurt poor families is the best argument you can make right now. The quality of American life, even among white men, is declining right now for the time in our national history. You have no power or political will to actually stop the high court, and you have no arguments that land with the other side either. The way you argue is lazy. You seem to think you’re entitled to hearing things phrased a certain way: if that worked, Roe wouldn’t have its neck on the chopping block right now. I want you to keep your bodily autonomy, and I’d also like to talk about the way that child support laws work too, but that’s for another time. I’m not your enemy, LW, but you’re framing it that way, which is hysterical. Stop being a feminist stereotype and think. A gear needs shifted in the movement somewhere, because you’re losing everything as we speak.

Cold-Dodger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The way this is going to hurt poor families is the
> best argument you can make right now.

You are way out of your depth. You have no idea what the "best argument is."


---------------
> You have no power or political will to
> actually stop the high court, and you have no
> arguments that land with the other side either.

There you go, insisting that we accept the framework the other side imposes on the question. But that concedes the main point--individual liberty--something it would be foolish to do. And you are deluded if you think adopting that framework would persuade the troglodytes to allow women the right to an abortion.

They don't want to compromise and your belief that they would is credulous to the point of idiocy.


--------------
> The way you argue is lazy.

Haha. Sure.

You are a political lightweight. I sincerely think you are a good person trying to stumble his way towards the right conclusions. But your inability to understand what is happening does not make me lazy: it makes you as insensate as you are condescending.


----------------
> You seem to think
> you’re entitled to hearing things phrased a
> certain way:

And you seem to think you have the right to tell women how to think, feel, and speak. If you read through this thread you'll quickly discover that women pretty consistently disagree with you. Does that not give you pause? Can you not conceive of the possibility that you don't have sufficient insight in this matter to conjure up a reasonable argument?


--------------------
> if that worked, Roe wouldn’t have
> its neck on the chopping block right now.

Really? Perhaps you've been asleep for the last fifty years, but your arguments are old as the hills. The impending rejection of Roe implicates your panglossian approach as much as anyone else's. You just don't have enough background to realize how hackneyed it is.


--------------------
> I want
> you to keep your bodily autonomy,

Why thank you. That's magnanimous in an azsteve or El Gato sort of way.


-------------------
> I’m not
> your enemy, LW, but you’re framing it that way,
> which is hysterical.

There's that word again. Along with Dagney, wings, Susan, and other women, I suggest that you stop showing what an archetypically boorish adolescent you are by calling women "hysterical." You want us to accept a framework that is misogynistic so we sound reasonable TO YOU. That's the same approach used on black people during the Civil Rights movement, when supposed allies insisted that African Americans should settle down and seek compromise with those who were beating them in the streets and hanging them from trees.

Fuck that.


-------------------
> Stop being a feminist stereotype and think.

Stop being a stereotypical man who thinks he knows how women should behave. You're frankly not a strategic thinker. You're intelligent, well-meaning, and prolix to the point of distraction, but your reflexes are right-wing, your ability to understand how others feel is profoundly underdeveloped, and your political judgment is juvenile.


---------------------
> A gear needs shifted in the
> movement somewhere, because you’re losing
> everything as we speak.

Hahaha. Is it your view that if we adopted your approach we would protect a woman's right to choose? You think the anti-abortionists are worried about child welfare?

You're beyond naive.

"Feminist stereotype"? Why is wanting bodily autonomy reduced to a stereotype in your mind? Did it never occur to you that women are people, too? That maybe we are long since tired of a patriarchal society trying to put us in our place? ...of conservative Christians having the only say in our reproductive and contraceptive decisions?

Cold-Dodger, when I was your age, my female boss was up for a promotion. She was the best qualified candidate for the job, since she was in effect already doing it. She was told to her face that she would not be getting the job because she was the wrong sex. They didn't even try to sugarcoat it. These are the kinds of battles women have been fighting, since long before you were born. And you have the gall to call the women who have fought those battles, and who support those who have fought those battles, "feminist stereotypes"?

Yes, of course there should be subsidized childcare. Other countries think that we are crazy paying minor fortunes for our children to be looked after, so that we can work. It's a good issue, but it is not the same issue as bodily autonomy.

That last paragraph would have sufficed.

I don’t think you appreciate just how much progress has been made where now in some instances the pendulum has swung perhaps too far, which is why feminism lost enough popular sympathy that the pro-lifers won the day.

What I mean by a feminist stereotype is that feminists nowadays, at least the latest iteration, are seen as selfish, bratty, entitled, obnoxious buffoons who do their movement no service. A lot of people these days who get dismissed as misogynistic are actually feminist in that they believe in all the rights you want them to believe in. It doesn’t save them from being scalped, by which I mean misrepresented and misjudged.

I support your right to bodily autonomy. I made an economic plea in this instance. That is all that happened. If you don’t feel how this backlash is emblematic of a cultural attitude that is turning people away from your values, then I don’t know what to say. Saying I don’t believe in the female struggle is a straw-man. That’s not what I believe. I just get annoyed by the self-defeating tactics. This was winnable, but the “I’m with her” people turned their brains off and now here we are.

Feminists are everyday women who have been fighting for their rights for years and years. My mother, who worked as a machinist during WWII, was a feminist without knowing it. The women who started punching through glass ceilings in the workplace in the 1970s and '80s (some of whom I count as friends,) are feminists. The women who advocated for the right to contraception, the right to have credit and property and inheritances under their own names are all feminists. You are the one who seems to have the stereotypes. To the rest of us, it's just basic human rights -- rights that you take for granted.

Yes, right now, the political minority is terrorizing the majority. That will change in time. The extreme right may have won the battle, but they will not win the war. And I guarantee they won't like what will be coming at them.

Let’s riot already then. What are we waiting for? If you don’t put on the maximum pressure right now, it will be years and years before you get those rights back.

Cold-Dodger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That last paragraph would have sufficed.

Hahaha.

You think that is an appropriate way to talk to others, you pompous, condescending donkey?

You're talking to people who are older, more experienced, and better educated than you. You could learn something if you had a sense of proportion.

I keep forgetting you’re all generations out of touch with the anxiety that actually-fertile people are feeling right now.

Do you realize you just proved her point?

What do you know about what "fertile" people are feeling right now?

Did you get a date?

Oh boy. For you oldtimers here that remember wings--- fair warning---I am on "team "Lots Wife" and team "Dagney". Carry on, this is going to get quite interesting.

I know you Wings :) CD doesn't have a CLUE what he is talking about. Even after having it laboriously pointed out to him he fails to grasp the simplistic core issue. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SOCIAL SERVICES.

This is what IS hysterical - as in funny/ironic.

"Roe affects men too. No kid exists but vote a man’s seed, and very very often a man is robbed of his paychecks because he didn’t wrap it in latex and she decided to hold the kid over him. If you get to kill it, how come I don’t have the right to abandon it?"

Dude, no, Roe does NOT affect men too. Robbed of his paycheck? You mean having to take care of HIS RESPONSIBILITIES? Hold the kid over him? HAHHAHAHAHAHA. Abandon it? Right back to not wanting to take care of YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES.

Here is what YOU DO have the right to do with YOUR BODY if you don't want to deal with those RESPONSIBILITIES. GO GET A VASECTOMY. DrSnip.com It wouldn't even be much of a drive for you. Outpatient and you can schedule on line. THAT is what you can do with YOUR body.

And yes, I read the whole self indulgent screed. You need to move out of the Moridore and learn what the real world is like. Your world view is shockingly narrow. Sadly, I don't see that changing because you are quite comfortable with your current state of ignorance.

The way the real world works is that you’re about to lose your right to abortion if you live in a red state.

So all of your sanctimonious bullshit is for nothing. Also, your double standards are showing: “responsibility” is exactly why they’re doing this to your rights. That’s their reasoning, and they’re more committed to that logic completely than you are.

“responsibility” is exactly why they’re doing this to your rights

This alone proves you have zero understanding of the issue.

The legal issue and the political fight are two very separate creatures, and the political fight is going to rule the day.

Really?

Why don't you explain how the political debate is going to trump a supreme court decision and majorities in over half the states?

You haven't a clue.

Hey Susan I/S !! ---I see we are still rockin' and rollin' in exmolandia :)

Nice to see ya back 'round Wings. Things change but remain the same as you can see lol.

I think you have a lot of thoughts here about the complex situation we find ourselves in now. No matter how much people would like to go back to a simpler time, there never was such a thing. People equate simpler times to when they themselves were children and therefore not required to live in the adult world of adult humans. It never was what it was.

Baby boomers exist in such numbers (hence the name) because the good Christian folk of the Greatest Generation took the postwar economic boom of the 50s, which mostly benefited the working and middle classes of the time because of the New Deal policies which hadn’t been hollowed out yet, to buy houses and have lots of kids. But when the Boomers came of age, they realized that the boundless opportunities of the fifties were a one-off and decided to have a socio-sexual revolution instead which in a roundabout way culminated in Roe V Wade in the high court. Kids were a financial burden, and it should be the woman’s choice anyway since it’s her body.

My parents didn’t have nearly as many kids as their parents had, and I still watched them struggle to support my siblings and me. There’s a direct line between the loss of the New Deal consensus and the general decline in people’s eagerness to have children across the political spectrum. We do not live in the 50s anymore. It was, as I said, a one-off where we just had a world war and America was the only industrial game left standing besides the Soviet Union. We’ve since hollowed out our manufacturing base and we threaten minimum wage service industry jobs with automation if they unionize for higher wages.

1946-1954-Boomers were born

1960-The pill was approved for use as a contraceptive

1965 - Planned Parenthood of
Connecticut won the U.S. Supreme Court
victory, Griswold v. Connecticut (Griswold),
that finally and completely rolled back the state
and local laws that had outlawed the use of
contraception by------" married couples ".

1973- The Supreme Court issued a decision in favor of "Jane Roe" holding that women in the United States had "a fundamental right to choose whether to have abortions without "excessive government restriction" and striking down Texas's abortion ban as unconstitutional.

1946-1954-Boomers were born

1960-The pill was approved for use as a contraceptive

1965 -Supreme Court victory, Griswold v. Connecticut
finally and completely rolled back the state
and local laws that had outlawed the use of
contraception by------" married couples ".

1973- The Supreme Court issued a decision in favor of "Jane Roe" holding that women in the United States had "a fundamental right to choose whether to have abortions without excessive government restriction" striking down Texas's abortion ban as unconstitutional.

Don't forget also the decisions abolishing the laws against sodomy and against miscegenation, which occurred in the late 1960s and number among the Griswold progeny.

Also Casey in 1991, which affirmed the entire privacy branch of decisions.

Cold-Dodger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> the 50s. . . the New Deal

Hahaha! Yet another kid who slept through sixth grade history.

If the Red States want these unwanted kids so bad, they should provide for them, 100%.
The State should take the kids and put them in good schools and give them good educations in the thing they need, trained for jobs of the future, robotics, AI, hook them up to Neural Link/Star Link and send them to a beautiful colony on Mars run by The Twitter guy, who just tweeter a poop emoji in scuttling a $44billion deal to buy Twitter. This in the same week 21st C Hitler put out a hit on him for giving Ukraine free internet access to Skynet.

I love you 2022!

Can’t wait to see what the future holds!

God, that’s depressing, but that is accurate more or less.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/17/2022 08:43PM by Cold-Dodger.

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If the Red States want these unwanted kids so bad,
> they should provide for them, 100%.
> The State should take the kids and put them in
> good schools and give them good educations in the
> thing they need, trained for jobs of the future,
> robotics,

There it is again. Treatment of abortion rights as a welfare issue rather than one of a woman's human rights,

You guys just don't get it.

I’m in favor of winning the argument and keeping you your rights, but the bodily autonomy angle doesn’t sell at my family dinner table. At all. Just saying. If you want me to use your arguments and lose and fail to even make the opposition think, then I guess that’s what I’ll do, because I exist to service you.

Nice to meet you Cold-Dodger. It is really, quite simple.
A woman's right to abortion is based on the Constitution's clear-cut guarantee of equal protection. And though unstated, a right of privacy.

As Judge Ginsburg stated during her confirmation hearing for the Supreme Court-

"It is essential to a woman's equality with man that she be the decision-maker, that her choice be controlling. If you impose restraints, you are disadvantaging her because of her sex. The state controlling a woman would mean denying her full autonomy and full equality."

The remainder of your epistle, although an interesting 2022 societal read, is irrelevent to a woman's right to abortion.

Cool, but none of that reasoning matters because in effect the constitution is whatever the current regime of little Caesars in black robes say it is, and you lost that fight. The court already got stacked with maniacs. It’s done, and we saw what they’re planning to do. So, what do we do now? I can tell you that from what I see there is absolutely no sympathy in Trump country for the arguments you’re making. You should make them, because that is the main legal logic behind it, but I speculated a new reason to be pro-choice. You are free to take it or leave it.

You are correct. Roe may be overturned. I will not argue that point. It is up to the Court. And then it will be up to the women. Again.

I’m sorry this happening. I never meant convey seriously that I’m pro-this. I’m just angry my point is being misrepresented and I don’t think I’m helping my image. The title of my post was nothing more than click bait, and it worked very well apparently.

The title isn't the problem. It's the substance.

But keep deflecting. It's a good look.