site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 18, 2024

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

7
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

When an 11 year old girl shows up pregnant because she was raped by her uncle, you're going to have to look her in the eyes and tell her that actually if we abort the deformed and most likely non-viable foetus that's going to have a 100% chance of killing her upon delivery

How do you know it's deformed? You can't assume problems down to inbreeding if the parties are not the result of inbreeding themselves, it takes a few generations to reach Spanish Habsburg levels.

Also it isn't 100% likely to kill her, while this story seems very dubious, maybe it's true. If a precocious puberty five year old could survive, so can an eleven year old.

I am now going to sit back and wait for the mods to scold you for using emotive language and being heated and obsessed with this topic. I've gotten rebukes before for my hobbyhorses, so let's share the love.

EDIT: If pro-abortion types would stick to "abortion for incestuously raped 11 year olds", I'd take that bargain. But they don't and they won't. How many of the people having conniptions over "forced birth" in Texas are at risk of being incestuously raped 11 year olds? But those are the cases that get trotted out when it comes to legal abortion, the same way that trans activists use intersex people as "there is no gender binary, bigot" shields.

This survey comes from 2005, I'd really like to see an updated version, but the vast majority of abortions are for financial reasons. Rape/incest are so miniscule, if we only permitted abortions for those reasons, that would be 1% of all abortions carried out. This is why the pro-abortion side are so hysterical; if the bargain was "we pro-lifers will give in on rape/incest/life of the mother, if you pro-abortion say those are the only permitted abortions", then they would lose the majority of the abortions carried out. No more "oops, I got drunk and we fucked without precautions, I'm not ready for a baby" fix-ups.

The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman's education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%). Nearly four in 10 women said they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third were not ready to have a child. Fewer than 1% said their parents' or partners' desire for them to have an abortion was the most important reason. Younger women often reported that they were unprepared for the transition to motherhood, while older women regularly cited their responsibility to dependents.

•Reasons in 2004. Among the structured survey respondents, the two most common reasons were "having a baby would dramatically change my life" and "I can't afford a baby now" (cited by 74% and 73%, respectively—Table 2). A large proportion of women cited relationship problems or a desire to avoid single motherhood (48%). Nearly four in 10 indicated that they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third said they were not ready to have a child. Women also cited possible problems affecting the health of the fetus or concerns about their own health (13% and 12%, respectively).‡ Respondents wrote in a number of specific health reasons, from chronic or debilitating conditions such as cancer and cystic fibrosis to pregnancy-specific concerns such as gestational diabetes and morning sickness.

The most common subreason given was that the woman could not afford a baby now because she was unmarried (42%). Thirty-eight percent indicated that having a baby would interfere with their education, and the same proportion said it would interfere with their employment. In a related vein, 34% said they could not afford a child because they were students or were planning to study.

In the in-depth interviews, the three most frequently stated reasons were the same as in the structured survey: the dramatic impact a baby would have on the women's lives or the lives of their other children (32 of 38 respondents), financial concerns (28), and their current relationship or fear of single motherhood (21). Nine women cited health concerns for themselves, possible problems affecting the health of the fetus or both as a reason for terminating the pregnancy.

And it's why I won't give an inch on any "but surely only a monster could object" appeals, because I've seen it doesn't stop there. "Oh, life of the mother, but what if it's not an immediate physical risk? Okay, what if it's not physical, how about mental? Okay, what about if the mother threatens suicide? Okay, what if the mother threatens suicide because she would have to drop out of college to have the baby?" and every time the new "just this one little concession" is given, then the next "just this one little concession" is immediately on the table for "but surely only a monster could object".

Apologies for the late reply - I've been busy with work recently.

How do you know it's deformed?

Because this is a hypothetical example meant to show the absolute worst case for a "no exceptions" policy. I'm not an expert but I believe we do have tests for this kind of thing - and in this particular case it'd just be something easily visible on an ultrasound.

I am now going to sit back and wait for the mods to scold you for using emotive language and being heated and obsessed with this topic. I've gotten rebukes before for my hobbyhorses, so let's share the love.

I didn't feel particularly heated or emotive - it's just that when you say "no exceptions" you open the door to every single horrifying outcome that can result from a policy like that. I chose my example as one that would be allowed if any of those three exceptions were being used, and less so for emotional reasons. But that said, if you think that victims of incestuous rape should carry their trisomy-18 foetus to term and risk their life delivering it, you should come out and say it - because that's what no exceptions means.

EDIT: If pro-abortion types would stick to "abortion for incestuously raped 11 year olds", I'd take that bargain.

I personally am not hiding or trying to be deceptive about my position - I flat out said that I personally believe that abortion should be legal. It isn't a particularly nice thing to have happen, but there are absolutely times when a couple is better off not having a child (especially if said child ended up with a debilitating and permanent medical condition) or delaying having a kid until they're in a less tenuous position. I'll even agree with the pro-lifers that abortion is effectively an evil - but it is in some cases a lesser evil compared to the alternative.

This is a very touchy topic and one where I do have strong opinions, so I'm so hardened by the fake-sobbing "only a monster could possibly object!" emotional manipulation over the decades, that I go "Very well then, I'll be that monster".

I think it's human life. I think we don't have a right to kill humans (self-defence is a different matter, and there we're talking about the lesser of two evils). I don't think abortion is self-defence. The cases most touted are rape/incest/life of the mother. They are also the rarest, maternal mortality is the largest one here, and we've already had a post on how maternal mortality is calculated where figures might be too great.

There are people willing to go online and shout about how abortion is safer than pregnancy. When did we start treating being pregnant like a deadly disease, you want to avoid it the same way you'd try to avoid cancer or being sliced up in a woodchipper?

Hard cases make bad law, and the hard cases are never going to be the stopping point, they're the shield for "I'm healthy, I could have a baby, I could afford to have a baby, it just doesn't suit my plans right now". And as I've said, the mood has changed so drastically on abortion, due to the work of the pro-abortion advocacy over the decades. It truly did start out as "this is something very extreme that should be rare and only a last-ditch approach", and is now "no different to getting your tonsils out".

It truly did start out as "this is something very extreme that should be rare and only a last-ditch approach", and is now "no different to getting your tonsils out".

I can understand the impetus behind destigmatizing abortion, to some extent, even absent any political or ideological motivation. Stigmatize too much and the hard cases you outlined above have their lives ruined, but stigmatize too little and people treat it as form of delayed contraception. There's probably no practical optimal level of stigmatization.

I mean, the problem for pro-lifers is the vast majority of moderates are OK with "oops, the condom broke or I forgot my birth control" when it's their daughter, sister, et al whose about to go to college, and tells them they missed their period. Which is why in every single vote on the matter, no matter how extreme the pro-choice bill is written, it passes. Even in places like Kentucky, Kansas, and Montana.

Because yes, American's may not like 'up 'til birth' extremists like me (because I trust women and doctors not to be crazy), but if given a choice between me or the median pro-lifer who wants to ban abortion after six weeks, they'll choose no limits every damn time.