/insert cultural appropriation joke
I'm eating cheeseburgers with cheap American beer.
The pro-segregation, anti-abortion nexus
- Thread starter cosmickid
- Start date
I'm eating cheeseburgers with cheap American beer.
Hey we've got 75k Hispanics in the metro now. They even have their own league. Families on the sidelines. Grills. Party atmosphere. More and more authentic Mexican joints popping up too
New mothers, not married: Technology shock, the demise of shotgun marriage, and the increase in out-of-wedlock births | Brookings
George Akerlof and Janet Yellen look at the rise in out-of-wedlock birth rates since 1970 and the demise of the shotgun marriage.
www.brookings.edu
"In the late 1960s and very early 1970s (well before Roe v. Wade in January 1973) many major states, including New York and California, liberalized their abortion laws. At about the same time it became easier for unmarried people to get contraceptives. In July 1970 the Massachusetts law prohibiting the distribution of contraceptives to unmarried people was declared unconstitutional. We have found that this sudden increase in the availability of both abortion and contraception we call it a reproductive technology shock–is deeply implicated in the increase in out-of-wedlock births."
I'm sure you're going somewhere with that, but you'll need to connect the dots.New mothers, not married: Technology shock, the demise of shotgun marriage, and the increase in out-of-wedlock births | Brookings
George Akerlof and Janet Yellen look at the rise in out-of-wedlock birth rates since 1970 and the demise of the shotgun marriage.
"In the late 1960s and very early 1970s (well before Roe v. Wade in January 1973) many major states, including New York and California, liberalized their abortion laws. At about the same time it became easier for unmarried people to get contraceptives. In July 1970 the Massachusetts law prohibiting the distribution of contraceptives to unmarried people was declared unconstitutional. We have found that this sudden increase in the availability of both abortion and contraception we call it a reproductive technology shock–is deeply implicated in the increase in out-of-wedlock births."
Abortion itself helped to create the problems that is now claimed it will fix. Yellen made a mistake in her conclusion in the article IMO. She said you can't walk back the sexual technology (I don't think contraception should be banned) or the increased welfare benefits that kicked in in the 1960's in the last few paragraphs after spending the entire article explaining how those things increased single motherhood (and consequently all the negative things that come along with it.)New mothers, not married: Technology shock, the demise of shotgun marriage, and the increase in out-of-wedlock births | Brookings
George Akerlof and Janet Yellen look at the rise in out-of-wedlock birth rates since 1970 and the demise of the shotgun marriage.
"In the late 1960s and very early 1970s (well before Roe v. Wade in January 1973) many major states, including New York and California, liberalized their abortion laws. At about the same time it became easier for unmarried people to get contraceptives. In July 1970 the Massachusetts law prohibiting the distribution of contraceptives to unmarried people was declared unconstitutional. We have found that this sudden increase in the availability of both abortion and contraception we call it a reproductive technology shock–is deeply implicated in the increase in out-of-wedlock births."
So to square the circle, you indicated making abortion illegal would result in more births amongst the poor, minorities, etc., etc. The article makes the argument that abortion and contraception in the white community and a combination of those with increased welfare benefits in the black community actually drove that from 1970 to the mid 90's when the article was written.
I don't know if I buy that, but even if I do, it's not an answer to the concern I raised. "You guys did it, too" doesn't ever solve anything.
On this topic, it seems like you are laser focused on figuring out when and where you can assign blame. I'm not talking about blame. I'm talking about easy to predict problems that will need to be solved.
That isn't a "you guys did it too" it is a questioning of the conventional wisdom that abortion is the "fix" you were suggesting it is. So removing it may result in a short uptick in the things you mentioned, but there is also the possibility of a decline over time given that some of the old time risk analysis would come back into play.
I'm stopping right there to point out that I in no way remotely came close to suggesting such a thing.
I am not trying to put words in your mouth, so let me explain. You said:
For decades, the anti-abortion movement* has been almost entirely invested in making abortion illegal. They haven't put any effort into making abortion less attractive. The end result of this will necessarily be a huge increase in births among, especially, the poor, the rural, the minorities, in red states. Precisely the people who might need some assistance raising those kids.
So logically, here is my interpretation. If we make abortion illegal and remove it from the equation and that causes an increase in births to the poor, rural, minorities, etc., etc. it would go to reason that abortion is depressing births among the same. So it was "curing" the "problem" of those people having children. (The Freakonomics Argument which I find to be a troubling one.)
Obviously, abortion is suppressing those things. You yourself have made this very argument by pointing out to us liberals how abortion disproportionately targets the poor and minorities. So I guess it's you who first suggested abortion was a "fix" for these societal ills, not me.
Fewer abortions will necessarily lead to more births among those demographics. So if we are going to have fewer abortions, it would be nice to have a plan for that.
So if you see someone drowning, don’t save them unless you’re willing to fund their existence. Got it.
Your first paragraph is in no way reflective of my argument. For someone who spends about half his time saying people are twisting your argument, you sure took a massive detour to do that for mine. Nice try though.
As to your second, did you even read the article? The statistics from the article directly refute your POV. The people who saw a reduction in births after contraception was introduced were married and more financially secure. Abortion/contraception lowered the birth rate for people society should be encouraging to have children (married women) and raised it for those who probably should not (single and overwhelmingly poor women). So abortion doesn't "fix" anything. Abortion serves as the final bulwark for "risk free sex". Something that does not exist, but the illusion of it has led to an explosion in men who expect it and women who feel they have to give it or be left behind. And that leads to more births.
Edit to add: The article maybe mistakenly makes the point (a conservative point) that you get what you subsidize, particularly if their is no stigma against the behavior to begin with. Subsidize "risk free" sex and you get it. You also get males who expect it and don't feel responsible for anything resulting from it. Subsidize single motherhood and don't stigmatize it and you end up with a whole bunch of single mothers.
The U.S. in general, but liberals in particular, are loathe to criticize people's choices. "Who am I to judge...?" Which basically leaves their one and only solution as throwing money at a problem and for these types of problems, that just makes the government an enabler.
Last edited:
The idea that increased availability of legal abortion lowers preventive responsibility and increases unwanted pregnancies makes sense, especially coupled with the lax attitudes or promiscuity of premarital sex.
The consequent increase in childbirth in the poor seems more likely to indicate that legally available abortion doesn’t equate to free, available abortion. On top of the poor not affording themselves contraception.
Your conclusion that legal abortion leads to an increase in childbirth seems unfounded as a direct consequence.
A
anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Guest
I hear Mark Emmert will soon be available to come up with a plan.
Maybe can do something similar to his NIL rollout Throw money at it.
There is no evidence or argument that anyone can provide that a liberal or liberal leaning person will accept that does not end with "throw money at it."
All I did was the exact same thing to your argument you tried to do to mine. Obviously, you are still blind to it. You and I can say the same thing, but somehow only I mean something terrible about it.
Sounds like your prioritization is not life, liberty, and property rather property, liberty, and life. Am I wrong?
While the states have plenary power to legislate, the power isn’t unlimited. Most limitations are couched in some version of the public purpose doctrine. How would you argue public purpose when defending criminalizing of contraception? How would you balance that with liberty/privacy rights?
Much better answers with fetal life.
Are you fighting for dads to start paying child support at conception? How about life insurance policies for the unborn?
The earliest one generally argues human life begins is conception. Contraception as in preventing conception occurs before human life begins. Thus the only defensible criminalization is so-called contraception in the form of agents that terminate a fertilized egg.
The Catholic Church considers both the pill and IUDs abortifacients. So both are "prohibited" and could be pushed in states to be made illegal.
Right. I’m arguing that would be indefensible criminalization. The one exception would be if the IUD is actually capable of preventing a fertilized egg from implantation. But even then my argument was based on the extreme definition of life starting at conception. Currently that’s not legally recognized as I understand it.
It might be easier and cheaper just to annex Mexico and make it a state and be done with all of this
My understanding is the the state of Louisiana has laws ready to go that explicitly define life as beginning at conception and establishing that abortion, or even assisting an abortion, would then be subject to a judgement of homocide or manslaughter (or a judgement of being accessories to the same), with existing mandatory sentencing upon conviction. Abort a baby? Spend decades to life in jail. That might be some alarmism, I don't know, since I saw it on MSNBC, which can be "out there". Rachel M is good at citing sources. She was off this week, though, and the Velshi guy is a HACK.
You can't have a reasonable conversation with pro-life people if you don't understand what this is about for them. For them it's about protecting the lives of unborn children. It's not at all about a female's vagina. It's about the living being that is being carried in a female's womb. Those of us in the middle, like me, better understand the motivations of both sides because we're not yelling at one side or the other.
You can't have a reasonable conversation with radical pro-lifers period because they ignore the other half of the argument: the right to privacy. It is a sad day when reason and compromise are hijacked by an unreasonable, uncompromising, and radical minority.
A
anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Guest
They can have that belief and refuse to have an abortion themselves. They can't enforce their beliefs on other people.
I’m not up on the details but I think there are more than a dozen states with such pro-life trigger laws in place waiting for Roe v Wade to get aborted.
So, by reading your post it would seem that in your mind at least that murdering someone is fine as long as it is done in private?
No, there are two competing rights regarding abortion: the right to privacy and the right to life. I think they are both important rights. I'm not sure what else to do other than make a compromise. Abortion is a tough, difficult topic.
no one disagrees. kids deserve life but mothers & families also deserve medical choices. both can be true.
with as low as abortion rates are (+plus falling teen pregnancy rates), clearly non-abistenence based sex ed has been working. when I was a kid we were still teaching abstinence and shaming the use of birth control. can you believe it? those were also considered moral positions. freaky sh*t.
I get no one is changing any minds here. I respect the players, hate hate hate the game. I've spent the last couple of days really trying to dig into how the US got here. I absolutely took it for granted that we'd sailed past this point along with other western democracies. even countries like Mexico and Colombia, who are much more religious than us, have figured out some kind balance on abortion. women are still only 25% of US congress. I got a feeling that's going to change a lot over the next couple of generations. again, I'm sure you are a good dude despite our disagreements but this is gonna break back hard in time. culturally, I'd say this is a dead cat bounce kind of moment for evangelical-inspired social conservatives. also can't stop the gene editing tech to come. I'd also guess we'll be considering issues and laws in 50 years that make abortion controversy look pretty tame. culture wars on sex identification? culture wars on what it means to be human are prob just around the corner.
You’re right. The guy harassing him is insane. Absolutely. He put on a performance for him.
Fanatical religious psychos that stalk and harass total strangers are people that I tend to avoid.
If you equate the right to privacy with the right to life, then you’re not really giving life much importance.
Someone who is pro life would certainly think so.
You mean equate, like the pro-second amendment people saying "You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead fingers"?
Exactly son! These colors don't run mother f*ucker. You trying to tread on me?
