Not who you responded to, but I'll try and analyze GP's original points. It's up to you whether you decide this is sufficient evidence against the idea that certain demographics should be depressed given the present conditions.
> Women have just experienced the most significant blow against their rights and personal freedoms in 50 years, combined with the intense pressure they're under to try to bring persistent sexual abuse into the light.
The rise of near-total abortion bans in some states is regrettable ("near-total", since every state still has exceptions for threats to the mother's physical health), though I believe that there will be a lot of reversion to the mean over the next few years. No state has a majority of the population that supports a total or near-total ban.
The GP may be surprised to learn, however, that on the subject of elective abortions, presumed socially liberal European countries like Denmark (12 weeks) or France (14 weeks) are closer to socially conservative states like Georgia (6 weeks) or South Carolina (20 weeks) than socially liberal states like Massachusetts (24 weeks) or Oregon (no limit). And of course, globally, fewer than half of all countries allow elective abortions at all.
> Young adults are looking down the barrel of decreased job opportunity combined with crippling debt and rising cost of living.
The median real (as in adjusted for inflation) income has been on an upward trend over the past few decades, with a local peak in 2019[0].
Crippling debt? The average undergrad leaves school with $33k in student loan debt[1], which is substantially less than the average new car purchase at $48k as of March 2023, and nobody calls the latter crippling. Do young people really have a greater debt burden? People 18-26 have the least debt out of all generational groups. Gen-Xers aged 43-58, hardly young, carry the most debt.[2] This all makes sense, since people accumulate more debt as they enter the middle of their lives buying homes and whatnot, and lose debt as they pay it off over time.
> Black people have been trying to convince people not to disproportionately kill and oppress them, and are still experiencing significant pushback.
Well, there's a lot to unpack here. Let me see if I can tackle GP's point in a few ways.
First, "disproportionately" is basically a meaningless concept; literally everything is disproportionate, and one of the strangest facets of the modern social justice movement is the idea that every slice of life should reflect the overall composition of society. Over half of all NFL players are black; 0.1% are Asian[3]. Black people are "disproportionately" overemployed in barbershops and "disproportionately" underemployed in nail salons[4]; 85% of cab drivers and 90% of lumberjacks are men. Yet nobody's out there mustering public support for fewer black NFL players or more women cab drivers.
This isn't limited to this country; anywhere in the world you care to look, whatever subset of the population you choose, you're bound to find disproportionate numbers, because different cultural subgroups have different preferences.
Next, on the subject of black people "trying to convince people [...] not to kill and oppress them", I assume by that wording the GP meant police shootings and hate crimes committed by other races. The most comprehensive study on racial bias in police shootings to date was unable to find racial bias in fatal police shootings[6]. And the overwhelming majority of black homicide victims were killed by a black perpetrator[7]. Black people were "disproportionately" more likely to be a victim of race-motivated hate crimes[8] but also "disproportionately" more likely to be a perpetrator of hate crimes[9].
As for oppression, it's difficult to make the claim of systemic oppression of black people here and now in the present, when they are "disproportionately" more represented in the Supreme Court and about "proportionately" represented in the House of Representatives. Were black people systemically oppressed in the past? Absolutely, and even within living memory. Does that carry an effect to this day? Sure. Are there actual racists today? Yes, but likely not as many as GP thinks. Is the best way forward to apply present discrimination to address past discrimination, as is the current identitarian dogma? I certainly don't believe so, and I suppose that's what GP means by "pushback".
TL;DR: Comparing raw week-numbers is only useful within the same legal and cultural framework. Comparing European and US limits on weeks alone feels pretty misleading because of that.
>The GP may be surprised to learn, however, that on the subject of elective abortions, presumed socially liberal European countries like Denmark (12 weeks) or France (14 weeks) are closer to socially conservative states like Georgia (6 weeks) or South Carolina (20 weeks) than socially liberal states like Massachusetts (24 weeks) or Oregon (no limit). And of course, globally, fewer than half of all countries allow elective abortions at all.
Commenting just on this part, as it's something that really has to be pointed out.
This is a common talking point certain political groups use, but only true on the absolute surface-level - if you look deeper, it becomes clear that it's not that simple.
I know the german legislation the best, so that's what I'll talk about.
The first and most important thing is that you have to see those rules within the larger context of the system they are used in. In germany, visiting your gynocologist every 3 months is pretty normal for people in the relevant age group. There is typically no hesitation in regards to healthcare. Birth control is available from a very young age (because teens tend to mess around with each other).
Then, there's excellent mandatory sex-ed. Much less poverty and overall better median education level. If you get a child, you'll get a significant amount of money from the government every single month until it's 18 or 25.
Healthcare isn't an issue even if you're unemployed. Also, there is no major stigma associated with abortion, making it much more effectively accessible and possible to actually be talked about.
As a result, teen pregnancies are much, much more rare. Generally, there is no abstinence-only bullshit being taught, resulting in teens able to properly decide for themselves. And, importantly, sex-ed is done _before_ puberty, which is absolutely crucial. You want them to be informed before their hormones go batshit crazy.
Because of those points, abortions are generally much more rare, as there's much less undesired pregnancies happening in the first place.
Then, to the general rules: The normal limit is 12 weeks/84 days post-conception. In certain cases up to 24 weeks. If there's serious danger for the mother, it's unlimited. Every hospital does abortions, there aren't any stigmatization-inducing special facilities for this.
Much of that doesn't look far away from the rules in the liberal US states.
The one exception: There is a mandatory counceling session (free of course) you have to do before a non-emergency abortion. After that, you need to wait 3 days. Then it can go on. The idea behind this is to make sure the situation is properly understood and to show ideas how the situation could be resolved differently (for example ways of financial support if finances would be the main reason for abortion, etc). All this in a neutral way, you aren't being guided towards a certain outcome.
A significant amount of people consider this to be over-the-top and infantilizing women - and I certainly see the reasoning. Personally, I haven't experienced this myself, so I can't really have much of an opinion on it.
As far as I know, the situation in france and UK are somewhat similar. Maybe somebody else can elaborate on the others.
Overall, this "abortion restrictive in europe" talking point is generally just that - a talking point, created to fool americans into thinking that the terrible healthcare related to abortion they have is actually super advanced.
It's not all about number limits. It's about healthcare and support. Limits in the US have to be much wider because it gets often spotted later and the alternatives are much worse.
> It's not all about number limits. It's about healthcare and support.
Sure, but numbers can be compared objectively.
> there is no major stigma associated with abortion [in Germany]
I agree, there is a lot more stigma in the US, especially in more socially conservative circles.
> If there's serious danger for the mother, it's unlimited.
This is also true in every US state the last time I checked.
> As far as I know, the situation in france and UK are somewhat similar.
France and UK have an abortion rate twice as high (~17 per 1000 women) as Germany (~8/1000)[0]. So at least there is enough of a difference that Germans get only half as many abortions as the French or the Britons.
For comparison, the US is sandwiched between Bulgaria and Sweden, around ~21/1000.
> a talking point, created to fool americans
I'm not trying to fool anyone. I'm just examining the claim that women in the US, even those in conservative states, are hopelessly oppressed with regards to abortion, so much so that they should be depressed about it.
