#buying abortion pill in france | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

bustedbernie · 4 years ago

Note

what do you have to say to a leftist who has most of the same criticisms of the Democratic Party as other leftists, but who has also voted for them in every election in which she's been eligible? "well you didn't vote dumbass" like, literally can't be the sum of your defense for every Democratic political failure, can it?

To be patient, that patience brings fruit. Large-scale change happens over timescales that exceed a presidency or two and if you’re not invested in the long-haul, you’re going to be disappointed. To hold officials accountable, write letters, show up to council meetings and other easily-accessible things, even go to congressional offices. And be aware that what we say and do can affect others and their perceptions. That a lot of what Bernie Bros said in the primaries were directly copy/pasted by republicans to attack us (and it worked in a lot of places) hah. That getting voter participation way up is one of our largest goals regardless of where you sit on the left and being hyper-critical of democrats, calling them failures or corrupt, just doesn’t help that cause. And on that point, democrats have universally excelled at expanding voter access in every place they’ve been empowered to do so. But then, I also don’t think democratic failures as presented by leftists are often democratic failures at all.

The ACA is pointed to sometimes as a democratic failure by this type, but I just don’t see it as a failure. It was a massive step forward. I think too, on this issue, people see the UK with its NHS, Canada with its various provincial single-payer plans, or France with its Sécurité-Sociale and they want something like that here. But, all of those systems were constructed over time and continue to evolve. And we’re not starting in the aftermath of the war. I think our efforts also need to be framed in the context of our politics. And that’s just not a pill that’s easy for this type to swallow. I mean, how can democrats have failed truly in the last 10 years when Mitch McConnell hasn’t even allowed votes on the most basic of democratic proposals? Are democrats really failing or have we been deprived of the power to make effective change? Despite that, we made some decent progress just with Obama at the helm. When they criticize us for being happy that Trump is gone, are you (or your friend) forgetting that Obama DID somehow get some good things through? It was less stressful? That there was that hope that we could keep making those changes as time passed?

I think it’s also facetious when they spend so much time talking about democratic failures. Regardless of whether or not this particular friend votes, there are many others like them that don’t. Doesn’t this friend bear some of the onus for these “failures” for not getting others like them to vote Democratic? Democrats have routinely been punished for progressive legislation proposals since the 90s. Part of why the ACA was such a massive win was due to the leftover bruises from when Clinton tried to pass his healthcare proposals. What is this friend doing to change the environment to make these proposals less scary? How do you get people that are open-minded to making changes but who currently are comfortable with the system on board? Because Bernie’s “ban private insurance” chased a lot of folks that would perhaps be in favor of wide healthcare reform away. Or “Castro was chill, he taught people to read...” This is a pretty consistent thing leftists do. If we aren’t meeting people where they are and where they are now, how can we win?

I guess I’d tell your friend that democrats already do reflect on their failures and it’s an attribute that is built into the party apparatus. I’d ask them why they fail to reflect on their own failures, the failures of the progressive caucus in the most general sense, and the failure of the left itself to take accountability? At what point is this “democratic failure” just a projection to escape accountability? Because I’ve noticed that when AOC says most people in swing districts that supported M4A got reelected, she blocks people on twitter for pointing out that many of those “swing-districts” she cites are D+20 districts. Xochitl Torres-Small was hurt by AOC and Bernie Sanders in a R+2/5 district. How do leftists think anything we want (yes, we, because even most “moderate” dems want many of the same things as the leftists despite their claims), without those marginal districts? And how do we win the Senate at all if we can’t field candidates that can win state-wide?

I think me and lot of the folks that follow this blog do call themselves leftists, or would call themselves leftists, but don’t want to associate with very vocal people like your friend because though we may be pleased that they are voting well, we are frustrated that this friend is hurting us in other ways. We are frustrated that they call our policy accomplishments half-measures or failures. We are frustrated by how many of our leftist allies are willing to sacrifice the need for social justice for perceived economic gains. There are so many domains and areas where we could really increase our margins that are stymied because we get written off as extreme. Progressives that have won council seats now talk about how getting progressive legislation is almost impossible with progressive language (and i use progressive to reference Bernie Sanders-type followers). Yet, they note that you can start making progress with other language. Parking minimums can be voted away by talking about more liberty for development, options for renters and owners, a healthier market, etc. “Incentive programs” are easier to pass than a new tax. Maybe leftists see these things as failures and an abortion of progressive values. But I think we see it as getting things done in a way that CAN be done, and be done now.

I would ask your friend to look to examples where incrementalism has helped cement democratic power and led to real, physical changes. In this country, the slow embracing of public transit by a larger number of people is a good example. Those first light rail lines in Denver, Houston and Phoenix were heated. Pulling teeth. Sometimes even violent rhetoric was used. For a silly little train. But once you get that first little segment of light rail, over a decade or so, people adjust and it’s not so bad. Then they might even want it to serve THEIR neighborhood. Maybe so they could get to an airport without driving, or see a ball game without parking, or get drinks with friends and enjoy the conversation rather than pay attention to the road. They might even want to use it to get to and from work everyday. Or to run errands. And that’s exactly what has happened in each of those cities. Phoenix in particular defeated a Koch-backed ballot measure and voted to fund multi-mile extensions to its system and begin planning even more. Hopefully, in two more decades, those will bear lots of fruit, leading to more sustainable, humane cities, that are more accessible, cleaner, and dense. We also saw Maricopa County vote blue. Small things, over time, add up. Change happens. Attitudes move. We can do that with healthcare. If we can get a public option added to the ACA, it will just naturally expose how wasteful insurance actually is. People will be more likely to buy into it. And it will help build trust with people who “don’t want the government involved with my doctor.” And given how we’ve seen the politics shift just since the ACA was passed, something akin to M4A would likely be right around the corner.

So yeah, hold democrats accountable. But the thing is, we already mostly do that. I’d tell them to remember who the real enemy is, and if they are criticizing Nancy Pelosi or Joe Biden or Kamala Harris or whomever more than they criticize Mitch McConnell and his fascist army, then i have to doubt how progressive your friend is in the first place, regardless of their voting habit.

#Anonymous

18 notes · View notes

gretamclaughlin · 4 years ago

Text

Reform and Restructuring for a Greener Future

Overpopulation and overconsumption are becoming direr environmental problems as time goes on, and steps must be taken immediately to curb these interrelated issues. Chris Jordan’s photography displays the sheer level of human consumption, and the problem is exacerbated by rapidly growing populations. Similar to the impossible hamster, human economies cannot keep growing forever, and at some point in the future, we will destroy ourselves. Earth’s resources are finite and need to be treated as such. Today, the human ecological footprint is expanding as we reach late-stage capitalism. There is widespread environmental degradation and changes in nature, communities, and economies, and people are calling for new systems to evaluate said issues.

Developing nations’ populations are increasing at astounding rates, and one must understand and handle poverty to deal with this issue and improve the environment for people across the world. Studies have shown that even an elementary level of education causes women to reproduce less, and they have greater opportunities to support themselves outside of a husband. Unfortunately, in many developing nations, women cannot obtain an education. Therefore, improving schooling is integral in population control. Furthermore, birth control and family planning resources need to become more accessible, so fewer women and couples are forced to have children and fewer unsafe abortions occur. This would also facilitate improvements in other areas of health like controlling the spread of HIV. If these nations can improve their social safety nets and implement greater public benefits like pensions, birth rates would also decrease because women would not have to rely on children to support them. Certainly, these methods would improve the well-being of people across the world, and it would also benefit the environment and the budgets of nations, as reducing poverty saves money. It is intriguing to view environmental issues in a wider social context, and I appreciate how the textbook mentions how certain issues affect several spheres, such as economics and healthcare.

Some advocate for the implementation of a steady-state economy to reduce overconsumption and exploitation, which would create permanent economic restrictions, like limits on income and wealth. However, this theory has its faults, and regulations may govern fertility rates and more. Between 1979 and 2015, China implemented the one-child policy and distributed benefits, many of which were basic human necessities, to those who followed the policy (BBC, n.d.). Although China’s birth rate fell significantly during this time, many view it as inhumane. Female babies were sometimes killed due to gender, and some women were forced to have abortions or be sterilized. In the U.S., instances of forced hysterectomies of migrants at ICE detention centers are examples of flagrant human rights violations and attempts to institute eugenics (Project South 2020). Past population and economic control attempts resemble Huxleyan societies in which only “the best” are allowed to survive. I view these tactics as violations of human rights, and they take policies that could be beneficial (like family planning) to the extreme. The implications of such approaches are heinous and dystopian.

Some favor degrowth to reduce overconsumption. The theory advocates for shifting societies’ values to ones that are no longer based on material wealth. In such degrowth societies, sustainable agriculture is emphasized, and having necessities is deemed as more important than amassing great wealth. In a plenitude economy, like the video shows, people view the earth in a less extractive manner and do not strive for endless growth; there are less wealth inequalities and environmental issues as a result. “The Good Life” parable depicts a man who earns enough money to support his family and is quite happy with his decisions, despite not being wealthy. In a previous post, I spoke about Aude, France and how there has been a revitalization of rural communities; these small villages are generally sustainable. People lead full lives, and they are not suffocated by many of the trials of modern life. I have always thought about living like this, and residing in New York City’s metropolitan area for my entire life has definitely affected me negatively. I am harmed by the constant pressure and competition, and I spend most of my days inside studying, so I can have a good career, so I can make money. This does not seem like a well-lived life, but there are few other options. I have always dreamed of moving to a sustainable commune because, in my mind, humans are not meant to live the way that they do now. We need to take down capitalist systems as a whole if we want to return to a more community-driven lifestyle.

Worldwide, urbanization is expanding, and people are leaving rural areas for cities and suburbs. Unfortunately, these regions are largely unsustainable, and widespread pollution and environmental degradation occur both within and outside the city to support it. Cities need to become more sustainable for both environmental and health reasons. Governments should implement mixed-use neighborhoods to reduce reliance on cars and foster community. In New Jersey, the Transit Village Initiative aims to develop areas around public transportation (State of New Jersey 2019). There are 33 transit villages today, and it has caused more people to use public transit and revitalized downtowns. Unfortunately, my town did not opt into the initiative, and local businesses are suffering, and few people use public transportation. In Singapore, the Land Transport Master Plan 2040 has created numerous 20-minute neighborhoods (Government of Singapore 2020). People can shop, eat, and visit the doctor within minutes, and cycling paths and high-speed transportation connect the city for longer commutes. In New York City, PlaNYC set out goals to improve mass transit. Transition Towns also provide an alternative to environmentally degrading living on a local level, and if the network is expanded more, the towns can have a significant impact. New communities need to avoid urban sprawl, and cluster developments keep natural features and improve human health.

At the Guggenheim Museum, a recent exhibition highlighted human communities, urbanization, and the revitalization of rural areas (Office for Metropolitan Architecture 2020). Spearheaded by Rem Koolhas, one section of the exhibit featured modern Chinese villages. People live in apartment complexes in rural areas, and they have quick access to food, schools, and more. Residents work on small, personal farms with relatively short workdays, and they enjoy a sense of community. Outside of cities, these people connect more with nature, satisfying biophilia.

Action needs to be taken immediately, but many governments are lackadaisical when it comes to pursuing green initiatives, especially when they would alter economic systems. The “American Dream” still captures many people, even ones being hurt the most by the capitalist system. Therefore, even though a top-down approach may work better, a bottom-up approach is more feasible, especially in countries like the U.S. Grassroots organizations and community groups should begin with local initiatives to both educate and alter people’s perceptions and shift the way communities are set up.

Within cities, smaller, more sustainable communities can be created. Eco-villages require residents to live in an ecologically friendly fashion, and they give people the tools to be greener in a system that makes it difficult. Although this is a small step, these eco-villages can have enormous impacts on those surrounding the communities as well, and they can inspire others to compost, reuse, and more. Establishing farmer’s markets within neighborhoods further promotes green living, and if people source more food locally, they do not pollute the earth through transportation. If organizations and the government can work with vendors to take food stamps at markets, more people will have access to healthier food, and less damage will be done to the environment. Programs to share goods, rather than buying them, are also important in creating sustainable communities. Book-sharing, toy-sharing, and tool-sharing are all examples of how goods can be lent to others, instead of people buying new ones for use for a short period of time. Certainly, community-based actions enable people to live in a greener manner, and they promote a sense of community that many are lacking in the modern world. If these groups can pressure local governments to revisit zoning laws to create more mixed-use neighborhoods, more widespread change can occur. People will rely less on cars and environmentally degrading transportation in general, thus living more sustainably.

Grassroots initiatives can offer greater access to birth control and provide sex education to fill in the government’s gaps. Providing contraceptive pills, condoms, and more and informing people on how to use them can have extensive effects. Offering these services in underserved communities will cause more people to make informed decisions about their sex lives and reproduction, reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies. In turn, this will decrease population growth and poverty and allow for women to gain greater autonomy in their lives. Certainly, a significant number of social issues are connected, and by addressing one of them, we can positively affect so many others. Of course, government intervention to help these organizations in their efforts would be ideal. Government funding to groups such as Planned Parenthood allows more people to gain access to vital resources. It also helps the government later on by reducing the number of people living in poverty who would require even more federal funding. However, the government has not shown to be the most effective when it comes to reproductive health, and often the burden falls on the people themselves. Perhaps presenting the issue through the lens of overall cost reduction would change how the government views the problem.

Additionally, we should pressure the government into implementing widespread policies on urban planning and infrastructure. This is likely the only way for the entire country to become more sustainable both now and in the future. For example, the government can allocate more funds to public transportation nationwide and in cities and states through mandates. Mandates would require areas to increase services and improve failing infrastructure, such as the constantly delayed New York City subway system. Amtrak, a current federal transportation service, is seen as a failure by many people, and the majority of the country remains disconnected. During the pandemic, service has been interrupted even more. If the government improves Amtrak and perhaps adds a nationwide high-speed rail service, fewer people will rely on cars and planes to travel domestically. Pollution will reduce, and the country will become more connected, which has significant benefits from an economic and community standpoint. Current Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg supports creating a high-speed rail system; however, it is an initiative that is often overlooked by many others in government for its price. Again, the burden might fall on grassroots groups to display to the government how upfront costs will pay off due to reduced environmental costs.

In an ideal world, we would dismantle capitalism and replace it with a system that is kinder to more people and the environment in general. It would effectively reduce wealth disparities and increase the standard of living of those currently living in poverty. For many reasons, I believe that a complete restructuring of many economic systems, including the U.S.’s, is the only way to reduce the threat of environmental degradation. We need to shift away from the greed and exploitation of capitalism and create opportunities for everyone. In a previous blog post, I spoke highly of sustainable business models. Although these are important first steps to take and can reduce environmental degradation by industries, they are not viable long-term. Sustainable businesses still seek to exploit in many ways, and many greenwash their initiatives. It is time we make an institutional change. Pressuring and lobbying the government and electing promising officials is one way to go about gradual shifts in the economic system, and these officials can implement policies that heavily regulate businesses and redistribute wealth. Widespread protest may be an important factor given that major corporations bankroll so many politicians. In this restructuring, we should not lean on steady-state eugenics initiatives to “improve” society, and we must focus on creating a fairer world for everyone.

The environment is degrading rapidly, and steps must be taken to address urbanization and extreme population growth. We are consuming the earth’s resources at a completely unsustainable rate, and we are residing in communities that do not support an environmentally friendly way of life. Institutional issues need to be rectified to save us from the impending doom that is climate change. In the meantime, we should all recognize our impacts on the environment and attempt to curb any damage that we do. It is up to everyone to create a healthier world.

Word Count: 2088

Question: How have mixed-use communities affected economic growth?

Diagrams:

Singapore’s plan provides numerous benefits to people’s well-being.

Key elements of mixed-use neighborhoods

Proposed agro-housing in Wuhan, China combines agriculture and urban amenities in a mixed-use development.

Works Cited:

BBC. n.d. “Managing population change.” Accessed March 28, 2021. https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/z3grsg8/revision/1.

Project South. 2020. “ Lack of Medical Care, Unsafe Work Practices, and Absence of Adequate Protection Against COVID-19 for Detained Immigrants and Employees Alike at the Irwin County Detention Center .” https://projectsouth.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/OIG-ICDC-Complaint-1.pdf.

State of New Jersey. 2019. “Transit Village Initiative Frequently Asked Questions.” https://www.state.nj.us/transportation/community/village/faq.shtm.

Government of Singapore. 2020. “Land Transport Master Plan 2040.” https://www.lta.gov.sg/content/ltagov/en/who_we_are/our_work/land_transport_master_plan_2040.html.

Office for Metropolitan Architecture. 2020. “Countryside: The Future.” https://oma.eu/projects/countryside-the-future.

#environment #environmentalism #urban planning #singapore #capitalism #population control

0 notes

pilferingapples · 7 years ago

Note

I have another question about mistresses. How did they prevent pregnancy? We see Fantine is unsuccessful, but her friends seem to prevent it (iirc).

GOOD QUESTION.

Discussion under the cut for people who want to avoid birth control talk!

Also, before I get into this: all of this is presented for historical value/knowledge only. Do not try this at home, or at anyone else’s home. This is from the 19th Century, fer crying out loud.The Best Medical Advice has changed a bit in the last 200 years.

First and most obviously, there are and always have been a lot of sexual acts which don’t tend to cause pregnancy. I am not going to enumerate them, because then this answer would be five screens long. But those methods were definitely in use at the time.

Besides that,most of the barrier methods in use today were available! They just weren’t as well made and so weren’t as effective.

People figured condoms out early in human history and the knowledge was still around. In France at the time , they were usually made out of animal intestine, and often tied on with a ribbon.

Condoms were also known to be a disease preventative at the time! Hurray! But condoms were super expensive (they wouldn’t start being really affordable until 1839, with advances in the production of rubber) and so were often washed out and reused! Much less hurray! Still it’s likely a sexually active man who could afford it would have several condoms of his own– there’s a very good chance the sexually active Amis are using them.

There were also various forms of insertions used by women– basically early attempts at diaphragms and cervical caps. The most successful tended to use some form of mild acid as well– a cut lemon half was very popular and had some real success. Inserts of wool with vinegar etc were along the same idea. Like the condoms, these didn’t work as well as modern versions, weren’t as hygenic etc, but they did work some!

There was also douching! It was beginning to be really pushed as a pregnancy preventative at the time (this is the real “feminine hygiene” it was supposed to ensure–stay fresh and pregnancy free!–but of course Nice Girls don’t discuss that, hence the euphemisms). Unlike the barrier methods,this did not work at all, except in the awful sense that it could sometimes cause medical complications that made a woman infertile. Douches now are medically terrible and don’t help with anything; in the days of drinking mercury, it was even worse.

The withdrawal method was also very popular, being easily available and free. It worked better than using nothing.

A woman who already had babies might extend the time she spent nursing, which was known to lessen the likelihood of pregnancy– one of the more effective “folk” preventatives. Then there were the nigh-endless lists of dubious medicines and preventatives– drink water with certain additives! put a coin in the vagina! Make a Pregnancy Prevention Jar and bury it under your bed while singing! Some of these worked a little for reasons no one totally understood, some didn’t, no one had good double-blind studies going:P

There was also abortion! A lot of abortion. Women both took abortifacient drugs/ treatments and had surgical abortions in very large numbers. Not getting into the moral and legal issues surrounding it in canon era here, because it’s quite a lot to discuss– [[this post goes into more detail]] (warning for discussion of medical issues, infanticide, abuse, etc). Briefly:

In the early part of the nineteenth century, abortion did not elicit much controversy. Generally abortions were considered acceptable if they occurred before the “quickening” (the first sign of foetal movement, which until 1869 was considered the moment of ensoulment by the Catholic church). Before the quickening, pregnancy was regarded as a loss (of menstruation) that could be recovered (with pills and supplements, which were often marketed with phrases like “for the return of the menses”).

This was��variably effective, depending on the type of abortion a woman tried to have– many of the “medicines” given were snake oil, or might cause abortion only by killing the woman, etc. Anyway, more info there at the linked post.

Most of these methods were much more easily available to people with money (especially condoms, which were seriously pricey–a single condom might cost several months of a typical prostitutes’ pay.) This meant it was fairly possible for a rich man with a lot of poor mistresses/ using prostitutes to avoid having a kid–he just had to keep himself supplied with condoms– but a lot harder for a prostitute or a poor woman with a lot of (male) lovers (who had to depend on the man buying the prophylactics). Of course, sometimes even couples being very careful had all their precautions fail! But there were precautions worth taking, all the same.

Regarding LM, all this is most likely how characters like Gillenormand or (on the other side of the social scale) Favourite avoided having unplanned pregnancies all the time. Sex didn’t have to mean babies!

Regarding Fantine, though, she probably wasn’t taking any of those precautions. We’re told that she gave herself to Tholomyes “as to a husband”. That’s significant, because it doesn’t just mean they were having sex– it’s pretty much guaranteed Favourite, Zephine, and Dahlia were having sex with their students too– but those couples had sex as lovers, meaning they were trying to avoid a Cosette situation. “She had given herself to this Tholomyes as to a husband” means **without** trying to avoid pregnancy. “As a husband” means with the expectation of it being permanent, and even maybe the intention of starting a family. Because Tholomyes was a lying liar who lies.

Hope some of that helps! If you want to do more reading on your own, here’s just a fewSources!

Condoms:WikiThe AtlanticA Brief History of CondomsCondoms:A Timeline

Douching: A Terrible Idea

A General History of Early Birth Control

The Catholic Church, abortion,and “Quickening”Wiki Religious Tolerance.org

#Hey Nonny Nonny #Les Miserables #Les Misereference #Canon era birth control #abortion mention #medical stuff #long post #Not Intended as Medical Advice #I Am Not A Medical Professional

189 notes · View notes