Blog

04-14-24 • Abortion for President

Betty:The Arizona Supreme Court just upheld a law from 1864 which totally outlaws abortion in the state...from before they became a state. WTF?

Pam: Time for women to remember we don’t need doctors to acquire abortifacients.

Betty: I think we need to make laws to protect women's right to reproductive health, not expect women to just google pennyroyal and give themselves a safe abortion.

Pam: Women have been getting by without doctors for 5000 years. And I don't think that every culture except ours are idiots. I say this not from googling, but from serving as a midwife apprentice for two years and studying the cultural anthropology of birth methods around the world, including how to induce abortion.

Are you saying that you have administered or assisted when someone administered an herbal abortion?

Pam: I have observed.

Well. I don't exactly disagree with you. I do think that there are times when we have to act for our own self-determination, despite the strictures of the state. I respect your need to be free of group strictures and identities and act entirely on your own, to create your own destiny. It's important to have some people in any group with that kind of fierce independence.

At the same time, I don't agree that having "observed" an herbal abortion, or studied the anthropology of midwifery, really qualifies you to recommend it as a *safe* alternative to modern medical abortion. There is no need overgeneralize; acknowledging the miracles of modern Western scientific medicine is not the same as believing all others are "idiots."

But, there really ARE advantages to the medicalized model: best practices have been established with large-scale clinical trials rather than anecdotes...there are protocols for determining when dangerous interactions could occur...in an emergency, standardized information about the patient can be shared between providers...plant products vary in strength, while pharmaceuticals have consistent dosage...physicians are required to maintain competencies and receive continuing education in the latest discoveries...they make full use of technical diagnostic imaging and lab tests, which can reveal hidden complications...etc. There really are good reasons to consider a modern medical abortion to be a safer, better choice.

So while I agree that people should not be afraid to think independently and outside the box, especially in the face of government overreach, I don't think a self-administered herbal abortion is a safe or practical solution for women who need to end a pregnancy.

Pam: I didn’t say anything about self administered… I said traditional healers exist and have knowledge about how to end a pregnancy.

It would be just as illegal for a "traditional healer" to end a pregnancy as it would be for a medical doctor, if abortion is illegal where they practice.

Pam:Fuck the laws. If any laws are created that take away a woman’s autonomy over her own body, every woman in the entire country should stand up against them.

I’ll help anyone that wants an abortion get one. If they want to meet with a traditional healer, I’ll drive them. If they want the Abortion pill, I’ll help them get it. I’ll drive them anywhere in the country or Canada, or Mexico to get it…I’ll help them move to a different state if the feel too scared to go home.

Sure, but as long as we are fucking the laws, people can just illegally go to a real doctor. As long as they are traveling to get an abortion, they can travel to a real doctor. Unless someone really just wants an herbal abortion, I don't see how it's an alternative to a standard medical abortion - it's a crime or a travel either way.

Pam:I can’t personally take every woman that wants an abortion to get one, and most women can’t afford it and won’t be able to get there.

So the knowledge is needed.

Again, I don't disagree that some women will be forced to try an herbal abortion on their own, but I don't agree that it's safe to do so. There will be a lot of failed attempts and a lot of complications and more maternal deaths. I think we can agree that it should not have come to this.

Pam: I will do whatever it takes.

You'll do absolutely anything to help a woman, except the one thing that would really help - voting to keep the Republicans who want this out of office.

Please reconsider enabling a Trump win, and then I'll believe you think every woman in the entire country should stand up against them.

But that's not going to help women if Biden loses, is it? At least if he wins, you know the team in charge is pro-choice, pro-equality. If Trump wins, what will happen to women then?

Imagine the backwaters of repression and misery that will occur for women if we let the people who want this legislation get back in charge. Imagine the botched back-alley abortions, the herbal poisonings, the struggling families of eight or nine kids with each one less wanted than the last. Imagine the enforced poverty and vacuity of women who do not have self-determination.

IMO, it's not enough to stand alone and just vow to help women you know break the laws. If you stand with others, you could help so many more women, by stopping these laws from becoming laws, so millions of women won't have to suffer under them at all. THAT would be "every woman in the entire country standing up against them."

Biden and his team ARE doing the job right now, and I don't agree that thumbing your nose at senile Ol' Uncle Joe is worth risking the lives and health and freedom and autonomy of every woman in this country including you and me, your daughters and mine. Please consider the misery and suffering for women the Republicans WILL create if they win. Isn't that worth fighting?

Just something to think about. That's my piece, thanks for reading.

M&M:This is the wedding night advice offered to brides by Josh Howerton, a senior pastor at Lakepointe Church. Claiming that the bride has "been planning this day her whole life," and so the groom should indulge her, he advised: "Stand where she tells you to stand, wear what she tells you to wear, and do what she tells you to do. You'll make her the happiest woman in the world."

Then, he says: In exchange, the bride should take a submissive role in what he pointedly calls "his wedding night," to "make him the happiest man in the world."

"Stand where he tells you to stand, wear what he tells you to wear, and do what he tells you to do."

R&R: So they live out marriage the way they see fit, what's it to you?

Cera:It’s almost like Biden is trying to lose at this point.

When given the choice between a slain NYPD officer’s funeral and a fundraiser with a musician who is under fire right now for making her backup dancers go to sex shows where bananas were shoved up the performer’s vaginas and the audience members take bites out of the banana as it’s “in place”… and those backup dancers are now suing because of it.

Dude seriously need to fire whoever sets his schedule.

The optics are intense.

Finnie: At my daughter's school they are having an educational, empowerment event, just for girls...and non-binaries? Since when?

Halo: Many non-binary people have female reproductive systems and might need to know the information too.

Dee: On other words, feminists are kicking boys out of the cool club.

Dee: This happened -

Planet Fitness revokes a woman's membership after she takes photos in the women's locker room of a transgender shaving

Carole: Um, transgender is an adjective, not a noun, it's kind of slur-ish when you use it like that. And it's not like anyone was naked.

Dee: In THIS particular story no one was naked… Naked people are in locker rooms though.

12 year olds are in locker rooms…

We’ve now gotten so “inclusive” that if a 12 year old girl is sitting on the benches in a locker room and a naked grown man walks by with his dick at face height of that child, we tell the child to shut the f**k up and deal with it because the adults in your life are ok with that now…

Carole: Why would that happen? Trans people have just as much human decency as the rest of us.

Dee:Because that is what’s NORMAL in locker rooms.
Naked people walking around.
There’s nothing “indecent” about being in a locker room naked.

So no… walking around naked is not against any policies. It’s no one’s fault that a woman in a man’s body who also has a penis has their dick at face height of those who are sitting down… that’s just down to a person’s height…

So yeah, if a 12 year old is sitting on a bench and a penis is at face height to her, we tell her to deal with it because we’re inclusive now.

Well, I don't really agree with your generalizations. I think that some girls do and some don't, some boys do and some don't, some adults do and some don't, and they can certainly be as uncomfortable around naked women as men. All of those feelings are certainly valid; I think it's up to people to decide what they and their kids can handle.

But, even supposing a parent misjudged and a kid felt uncomfortable, you would have to show that some kind of actual harm could occur as a result of this exposure in order to justify a ban. Feeling uncomfortable for a moment is a part of growing up that is caused by millions of things every day and it's nothing to be afraid of. In the absence of harm, it's not a reason to discriminate against trans people.

ETA: I also don't agree that it's just evolved human behavior - many human groups have much less stricture about nudity throughout the lifetime and it's perfectly healthy.

I appreciate that we can discuss it at all, thanks.

A transgender person is no more danger to your daughters than any other person. The difference in their body is just another difference along a huge spectrum of human variation. (There are some women with more obvious genitalia than some men, who cares?) Singling out trans women, constantly equating them with cis men, and acting like they have some power to harm girls which no other sight could have makes no sense.

I think that in the near future there will be much more private and individual restrooms and changing areas which will not be segregated at all by gender, much like the Family restrooms at the mall today. People like more privacy and it's better use of the space to have facilities open to all. In other words, I think this issue is because of old-fashioned, binary institutional design. With new designs it will disappear, and people will marvel that we ever had trouble integrating open transgender people into society at all.

That is not what I am saying. The short-sightedness was on the part of architects and builders who did not realize that the conventional two choices were not sufficient to accommodate every circumstance without discomfort. Future designers will be smarter and make areas that are more private, so no one ever has to feel uncomfortable.

We can beat this problem with better institutional design. In the meantime, we should understand that everyone in a public locker room is uncomfortable and try to be extra considerate of each other and we'll get through it without harm.

_______________________________________

I did a really fascinating study of the organization and institutional assumptions of public bathrooms. Society enforces many of its unspoken strictures through the construction of its public spaces.

In this case, two university student organizations, one for students with disabilities, and another for transgender students, recognized their common interest and teamed up to send patrols to all the many bathrooms on campus to make sure that the spaces conformed to requirements for physical accommodations and that there were no barriers to use of restrooms by identified gender. Along the way they ran into another student group called Aunt Flo and the Plug Patrol, who were checking all the bathrooms on campus to make sure they had sanitary supplies. The student groups had to confront some stigma about exploring such taboo issues, but in the end there were improvements to access for all three groups, and everyone, so their project was a success.

I don't disagree with the premise that people can feel uncomfortable and they just do. I think sometimes people have the right to do things that make others uncomfortable, but discomfort does matter and we can fix it. I do think we should be able to discuss it like adults. Thanks.

Frankly, I think this is a real problem.

You know perfectly well that what you are saying is not true. You know that is not what people think or want. This kind of gross exaggeration is destroying our civic discourse.

You may not support Trump, but you are doing Trumpism, right there - demonizing perfectly reasonable political positions (like, people have a right to determine their own gender) by claiming that it means the sickest thing possible and the daughters are next. Yes, that IS the "coming for your daughters!" argument, just as Carole said, and it's used to vilify the opposition and widen the divide.

This is why Trumpers hate, and I mean HATE the libtards, and think that being a liberal is a mental illness - because on every single issue, all day long, this is the kind of demonizing exaggerations they hear. Liberals want penis in your daughters face, right at eye level! Liberals want you to be robbed and murdered by an immigrant! Perfectly reasonable efforts to help people, to save lives, to honor human rights, to make life better, are treated like a sickness. It's not right.

I really appreciate having you in the discussion, but I weary of these games. Could you stop implying that we are perverts for no reason, please? Thanks.

If everyone who is uncomfortable gets their own private dressing room, then what does it matter if one person is trans?

And to my point about the discourse...

You can easily use calm and leveling language, suggest that this is nothing new, make exceptions for the uncomfortable, etc. when it's young boys in the locker room with grown men. At the same time, you use hysterical all-caps accusations of not giving a shit about girls. Even though the problem is, you suggest, that men are dangerous, and not to be trusted. Boys are just as likely to be abused by men as girls. Boys are going to be in locker rooms with men millions of times more often than girls being in a locker room with a trans woman. Nothing, really?

I could easily claim that you just don't give a shit about all the boys who are being abused in the locker room, which is actually a thing, especially when you consider hazing. That's a problem a thousand times worse than a trans woman shaving at PF. But, I'm not trying to make it out like you want boys to just grow up, get used to it, who cares. I think you do care, and would work with me to put a stop to it when you think about the actual harm. I can give you the benefit of the doubt.

I actually give more shits about both boys and girls than you can believe. I just don't agree that trans women are such a risk to girls that they need to be discriminated against by laws governing their bathroom use, especially in light of the real locker room risks, to boys. That does not make me a "severely destructive force." Please think about the real risks and I hope you'll agree.

Mare: Get this - Elon Musk Predicts A 'Universal High Income' As Jobs Are Phased Out And Employment Becomes Obsolete. What do you think of this?

Way back in the golden days of Ancient Greece, Socrates was asked to describe the best possible city, where people could live the best, most fulfilling lives. Socrates described a bustling city of leisure and industry where people could become experts in their crafts and enjoy the relishes of trade. Most notably, he said the citizens would form a democratic league of Guardians to rule and protect the city, and in this league women would be equal to men, and all property and wealth would be held in common, for the good of each and all.

Later, his student Plato decided to codify a civic system in his work Laws. Plato's Laws is so influential, it's pretty much the blueprint for what would become western civilization and democracy today. However, by this time Plato decided that humans were not capable of living in the best city, holding property in common, or having women as equals. So, in Laws he describes the "second-best city," where only men with sufficient property would be voting citizens and everyone else was essentially their servants. And that is the city we have been living in ever since. Only in the last hundred years did we even think to extend full citizenship to women.

The point is, we have known since ancient times that humans should live in fundamental equality. But, it wasn't possible. When asked, "But Socrates, in the best city, who will till the fields?" the old man answered, "The slaves, of course." We had to have a servile class as long as there was hand-agriculture.

But now, and I mean very soon, we truly will have no need of any servile class. All toil will be better done by our marvelous machines. So, at last, we can live in the best city, where all can be equals and all share in the prosperity of the whole, for the good of each and all. Truly, property and material wealth should mean less than nothing in this world, where anyone can have anything with the touch of a button. Every person will be completely free to pursue interests, become good at what they enjoy, create and nurture fulfilling relationships, and live in a beautiful environment, with no concern of material want.

We just have to decide...was Plato right? Are humans capable of living in the best city, of sharing wealth and power? Or are we stuck in the second-best city forever?

I hope we can choose better, because if we don't, we will destroy the machines and each other before we can ever see what's possible. And we may not get another chance.

Dua: I STILL question how that fucking moron ended up our president and what the fuck is fundamentally wrong with the people that voted for him. Like, are they all on drugs, were they dropped on their heads as children, was it lead paint? Or did mommy and daddy simply not love them enough and now they want everyone else to know what it feels like to be fucked over on a daily basis.

There is only one way that people can stand to be exploited by capitalism, and that is if there is an even lower group which is being exploited even worse. LBJ said, "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."

The Civil Rights movement, and the hyper-predatory capitalism of Milton Friedman, have taken the working class from successful and dominant to unsuccessful and non-dominant. People want that success and that dominance back. Trump's retrograde attitudes toward women and non-whites hearken back to that "happier" time. He's a lawless asshole who gets away with everything; people who have been socially displaced want him to be a lawless asshole and get away with everything FOR THEM, to restore their previous glory, to Make America Great Again. They care a lot more about restoring their past dominance than maintaining democracy.

It's right out the fascist playbook.

The only answer is to change the economy so everybody can have healthcare, a job that gives them their fair share, and some choices in life. That is what makes people trust and love democracy. If we don't, there's no reason to stay in the nice game...people turn to strongmen and start using force. That's where we are now.

Layers: I saw this quote: "Racism was not simple hatred or prejudice based on skin color. Racism occurred when power was added to prejudice — the power to affect someone’s life physically, economically, educationally, politically or otherwise." They are explaining why only whites can be racist.

Is this really what liberals today believe? That black people are so powerless physically, economically and politically that they have no power to affect someone's life? They can't be racist?

Rita: What do you think of this poem? Do you think there is any validity to it?

"Breeder" is already a slur, so I don't think it will become normalized, but I haven't heard anybody trying to normalize it anyway. The new terms I have heard suggested are "pregnant person" and "lactating person" and I think those could be appropriate for describing groups which might include trans men. I don't think it "redefines woman" any more than same-sex marriage "redefined marriage" to any detriment. I think people will get used to it.

When I was a kid there was a riddle that made the rounds. A boy and his father are in a terrible car crash, and the father is killed. The boy is rushed to the hospital, wheeled in for emergency surgery, but upon seeing the patient, the surgeon says, "I cannot operate on this boy; he is my son." How can that be?

Today it's hard to believe this was a stumper, but you should have heard the guesses back then. "It was the boy's step-father! It was his godfather! The man who died wasn't his real dad! The surgeon was his uncle, who thought he was his cousin!" Many people just did not think of the obvious solution because it was so far out of public consciousness to imagine. Yet, look at how far we have come. Such a riddle makes no sense at all today.

This poem strikes me kind of the same - in the future people will puzzle that it was ever a stumper to figure this out.