In terms of what is necessary for a consistent veganism, I think one could get away with a threadbare comparison of disability to animal intelligence, especially the positive movement towards neurodivergence, and the point still carries. Because the neurodivergence debate mirrors the anti-chauvinism debate in theory of mind very well.

I think that any essay against oppression probably makes people relive their oppression, but that doesn't stop people from writing them. What is troublesome here is that the comparison between animal and human oppression can make them relive it in a nasty way, because being compared to an animal can feel like an insult to the validity of their experience. The western notion of exclusive human rights doesn't help because human rights do generally have an ableist foundation. The philoso-shits of old built the concept of human rights in opposition to animal rights, as the thing we have in common above nature, as a consequence of our shared communication and rationalism.

I might have an opportunity to write for a larger audience in my community soon, so I'm writing a few preliminary essays to cut through the muck of anarchists who aren't really anarchists. I don't expect to convince many of them. Really I want to see who it clicks with and see how my current group responds. It's also for myself. It feels good to have ideas written down, so that the next time someone tells me I'm an ableist I can just show them the paper.

I don't hang out with carnist ideologues in real life so they aren't my audience.

I have thousands of flashcards for learning German vocab sitting on my desk. Otherwise I take notes in a separate notebook whenever I'm reading a hard philosophical text. For Kant I read ten pages and then go back over it later to organize everything into subsections.

The police, the state, and so forth are only an 'enemy' in the sense that they impede goals I want to achieve. An insurrectionary mindset says I should choose whatever tool is best for the situation at hand. So if calling the cops is the best means, and the consequences of doing so are acceptable, then I would. But I recognize that the cops aren't a cure-all and that most things are better left unreported, and in general achieving my goals requires hindering police efforts.

Getting to the summit of a mountain after hours of hiking through jungle and up boulders. On the final stretch I was sprinting up the stone blocks carved into the mountain. It was dark from because the surrounding trees, wet because it had begun to rain. Then the trees pulled back, and I saw that I was just above the cloudline.

My brain is

this small.

This is my favorite.

I just want to add that it's not so much that other predators can keep predators in check, but that the prey and predator populations are tied together, and the prey evolved alongside the predators so that they can respond better.

Well since you asked...

I still don't have a fucking clue what spirituality is. If you have a spiritual experience, surely you've just had an experience, period, that was somewhat out of the ordinary. But that doesn't make it any less material, no?

I think I see the issue now. I believe not just that the impregnator should assist with the abortion, but that they should provide the equivalent resources even if the pregnant person decides to have the child. That way the impregnator is not biasing their decision. Then, only society and the struggles of parenthood influence the pregnant person's decision. (Not saying that's good btw. It's just the minimum obligation.)

The impregnator is obligated to provide the resources in either case (birth or abortion) because they still have to reconcile their accidental responsibility. You might argue that the impregnator is also 'restricting resources' by failing to be a parent. However, given that they used adequate birth control, did not intend to be a parent, and had consensual sex on this understanding, no such responsibility to be a parent ever existed.

At most the impregnator should be required to cover the costs afforded by their accidental responsibility, such as the price of abortion, time off work, self-care, and so on.

You're correct. By the above quote I meant to imply that the costs of an abortion are negotiable. I.e. if a sexual partner chooses to get an abortion and wants therapy afterwards, wants assistance getting there and back, protection from assholes, etc. that should all be factored into the bounds of one's accidental responsibility. I just think that in most cases an abortion is less 'costly' than giving birth and raising a child, so it's the lower limit.

I agree.

The agent of that coercion is not the father.

Inb4 I get banned for dying on this fucking hill just wanna say thank you Raddle for the memes.

Where in this scenario is the pregnant person being forced to have an abortion? They have a choice: have the child or don't. The only coercion is the fact that having a kid is expensive and difficult. Isn't the whole point of pro-choice to make parenthood intentional, to free women from the forced poverty of having children they don't want or cannot afford?

I'm open to change my mind on the following. Personally, I'm getting sterilized so that I never have to experience this situation. I also apologize for the coarse language--I didn't know how else to organize my thoughts.

If someone with male organs has sex for reasons other than procreation and uses proper birth control, they're only causally responsible for pregnancy. But we recognize that genuine responsibility requires either intent or at least that they should have recognized an eventuality that would, within a degree of probability, result from their actions. Consensual sex using adequate birth control, without the intent to impregnate/get pregnant, doesn't imply responsibility for either of the parents. It does not imply responsibility for the child, or else abortion would be impermissible. It also does not imply responsibility on the behalf of one partner for the other. Certainly, the pregnant person has no responsibility to the impregnator. For on the one hand, we recognize that bodily autonomy trumps any existing obligation to the impregnator. But it'd also be wrong to say that any level of responsibility exists to be trumped. The (hypothetical) pregnancy is accidental; so is the donation of genetic material. In fact, the partners took steps to assure they would not be responsible in the form of birth control. Given that any responsibility of the pregnant person to the impregnator is purely accidental, I see no reason why the opposite should not also hold.

Where abortion is illegal or generally inaccessible, child support makes ethical sense. Both parents have a purely causal, non-intentional, accidental responsibility to the child, but as u/bloodrose says, the welfare of the child, since it will be born, is important (especially since foster care is abysmal). But where abortion is accessible, legal, safe, etc. choosing to have the child transforms the pregnant person's accidental responsibility into intentional responsibility. At most the impregnator should be required to cover the costs afforded by their accidental responsibility, such as the price of abortion, time off work, self-care, and so on.

My approach relies on the assumption that one has no ethical responsibility to a fetus.

Kropotkin's not all bad. I regret reading the Conquest of Bread because it's so horrifically outdated, and nowadays I lean towards market anarchism or anti-civ.

When I wrote this 8 months ago for some reason I gave a shit, which I no longer do.

Probably a poor idea considering the recent allegations of sexual assault.

What if, forwards backwards? Up down?

I recommend reading the whole series as if it's one book. Then it's like an 800 page novel, but still somehow light reading.

Same.