Given where abortion has morphed I doubt the Supreme Court would have ruled the way they did in 1973. Tomorrow the senate is a vote to protect Roe V. Wade in which the abortion can occur while the woman is in labor. Do you think the court would rule as it did if this was before them for consideration.
If women have the right to choose what happens to their bodies, why shouldn't they be able to choose up until the moment of birth, because of your feelings?
Given where abortion has morphed I doubt the Supreme Court would have ruled the way they did in 1973. Tomorrow the senate is a vote to protect Roe V. Wade in which the abortion can occur while the woman is in labor. Do you think the court would rule as it did if this was before them for consideration.
If women have the right to choose what happens to their bodies, why shouldn't they be able to choose up until the moment of birth, because of your feelings?
Just no. At the point it's definitely a viable baby.
So if a fetus should have all the same rights as a born individual. Should pregnant women then go to jail? You are imprisoning an innocent by doing so.
Is this seriously what passes as a valid question?
Well if your posts do then yes.
Asking if pregnant women should go to jail for imprisonment is literally the dumbest comment I have ever read. And you know it was stupid. You know it's entirely in poor faith, and you know the rules against that.
After a baby is born, nobody(not even a parent) can be forced to donate blood, organs, etc. Why is it that we think can force a mother to do it before the baby is born? You don't have to like her decision, but it is hers to
make.
I don't get why people think Religion has to play a part in not liking abortion on an ethical level or supporting restrictions... especially in something like the the third trimester. You can be an full blown atheist and acknowledge a unborn baby is also a human deserving of human rights.
Like I've said several times, the issue must be black and white or else they just don't have the mental bandwidth to process the situation. It has to be everyone who is against it must be religious, and nobody who isn't religious would disapprove. The idea that a huge portion of those against it happen to also be atheist goes right over their heads, intentionally so, so they can continue to have a simpler target they can direct their hatred towards.
I'd go beyond abortion and make ending newborns legal in the first few minutes of life. If my baby was defective, I'd like to be able to put it to death immediately. Potential can't be quantified as anything real. A life is only as valuable as the memories the human has acquired. Newborns and fetuses can barely think. They barely have memories to lose.
Right to choose should have been made federal law. It shouldn't be left to the states, because people who are against abortion lose nothing by having it "enforced" upon them. Only poor people who want abortions and have to live in those states will lose. Which is how the Republicans want it.
such a cold mindset... what counts as "defective" a cleft lip? deaf in one ear? and at that point why... not legalize killing 8 month old babies.... if a life is only as valuable as the memories it has acquired its not like babies can talk or provide for themselves. Babies are legit the most vulnerable people in society. they are babies... Just because they are stupid and not able to take care of themselves doesn't mean we just can kill them off because they are an inconvenience. That's fucking crazy.
Its comments like this that make me actually want to support the super pro life people... and I'm more in the middle on this issue. If you are going to get an abortion, get it as soon as you find out your pregnant. These people that let it grow for 6+ months just to kill it are sick.
A cleft lip isn't necessarily that bad. I mean, Leaf Phoenix still became a superstar. I'm talking severe mental and physical deficiencies. A baby like that doesn't NEED to live. Best to kill as soon as possible so that it doesn't come to appreciate life. Like within the first hours. Babies already learn right at the start. Some evidence suggests they learn even in the womb. But they barely understand what's going on. Not like it matters to these fundamentalist politicians, though. They want to stop it at conception. R v W already left late term abortions up to the state and only a pretty small minority of abortions are late term anyway.
******* A man, if that's your mindset why not just apply that to all people. Why are we only slaughtering the Baby's for being an inconvenience. Especially for deficiencies out of their control?
I just cant with this outlook. If a guy looses his legs lets just kill him. He doesn't need to live...he's an inconvenience...
If i guy has brain damage just kill him...
if a woman develops breast cancer just kill her...
This idea that its ok to do to babies and not adults... because they have a health condition that's an inconvenience because adults DID get the chance to appreciate life.... we wouldn't consider treating them like this... is nonsensical to me.
Hey, that's how Nazis thought. Mental disabilities? Gay? Jewish? No need to live. It's right up their with Margaret Sanger who thought babies with problems should be aborted, and that children should be a privilege reserved for people with money (which is why they mostly promote, and provide funding to abortion clinics in poor neighborhoods).
It's not a coincidence black children are aborted at rates far, far higher than white ones, with little choice due to the economic disaster the far leftists running their cities have turned their neighborhoods into. It's intentional. Blacks are targeted by the eugenicists that promote abortions out of racism of the highest order.
Look, I usually stay out of the abortion threads because they get real shitty real quick, but I feel like someone needs to say this. Every side of this has a valid point. I'm decidedly pro-choice, but if you consider a fetus a life, or should be protected due to it's potential to become a life, I can repect that. It makes sense. I ultimately don't agree, but I understand why one would see it that way.
I think part of the reason this debate is so vitriolic, is that both sides of it have a solid point, and we don't like that. We want us to be the good guys, and them to be the bad guys. So we burry our misgivings and shout "mysoginist" or "baby killer" at the other guys. Black and white is more comfortable than shades of grey.
I don't know, there's my two cents. Y'all can get back to the dogpile.
There might be solid points on both sides... were abortion the only option to child birth. With dozens of other options, all of which are cheaper and safer, the hyper sensitive focus on abortion itself is looking for a non issue to be divisive over.
That's not really the case. Look, I don't think anyone would argue that abortion should be the first or only option, just that it should be on the table, and the the decision which way to go should be made by the parents and their doctor.
For a specific example, my wife and I decided to abort a pregnancy years ago. She's bipolar, and was on some psychotropics that had the potential to mess up fetal development. Now, this wasn't a sure thing, nothing really is in medicine, but the risk was high enough that we ultimately terminated the pregnancy. It still wasn't an easy decision, and yes, an abortion is traumatic. But it was our call to make, and while I do have my regrets, I think it was the right one.
For another, when my wife was pregnant with our second daughter, her blood pressure spiked at 34 weeks and she had to have an emergency c-section. During the operation she had 16 minor strokes. We were incredibly lucky in that there does not seem to have been any long term brain damage from it, but that was still fucking terrifying. So needless to say, we are done having kids. We are being very careful to make sure she doesn't get pregnant again (in fact I will be getting snipped in the next few months) but nothing is 100% in medicine. If by some chance it does somehow happen, we will abort it. No one is going to tell me otherwise.
My point is, while I do think most states would allow people in our situation to terminate a pregnancy, there are some that probably wouldn't. How much risk to the mother is enough to justify it? That answer will vary from person to person, group to group, state to state. Do they have a risk assessor break it down to a percentage? Do the parents go before a tribunal who makes decisions on a case by case basis? Do they have some political committee compile a list of acceptable situations? Do they just say, let nature run it's course and we'll see what happens?
Having been through it myself, I say the choice is between the parents and their doctor.
You know as well as I do that it's not serious risks to the health of the mother, rape, or incest that people protesting the repeal of Roe v Wade care about. It's convenience. It has always been about convenience, and that's what this topic will always be about no matter how much the dishonest supporters of it want to mislead from that fact. And people doing it for convenience, because they couldn't be bothered to take preventative measures, are disgusting people, completely.
It's not a coincidence black children are aborted at rates far, far higher than white ones,
This is due to poverty being higher in that demographic.
Also pretending you care about them is quite ironic. Your position would make them worse off than they currently are going by all the science on this, a thing many black hate groups (which are primarily right wing/conservative) are probably giddy over. As we know, abortion bans don't really work and primarily result in negative health and economic outcomes.
@eoten said:
with little choice due to the economic disaster the far leftists running their cities have turned their neighborhoods into.
Red areas have higher poverty, far lower gdp, higher maternal mortality, and lower QOL and HDI on average. It's not just a left right thing. Your conspiracy theory isn't adding up.
@eoten said:
It's intentional. Blacks are targeted by the eugenicists that promote abortions out of racism of the highest order.
This is a lunatic conspiracy theory. Even if we forgot for a second that most black hating groups are conservative, that's some Pizza Gate Lizard People nonsense right there.
Given where abortion has morphed I doubt the Supreme Court would have ruled the way they did in 1973. Tomorrow the senate is a vote to protect Roe V. Wade in which the abortion can occur while the woman is in labor. Do you think the court would rule as it did if this was before them for consideration.
If women have the right to choose what happens to their bodies, why shouldn't they be able to choose up until the moment of birth, because of your feelings?
His feelings are greater than most major medical organizations and any study anyone can find on this. Didn't you know!?
You know as well as I do that it's not serious risks to the health of the mother, rape, or incest that people protesting the repeal of Roe v Wade care about. It's convenience. It has always been about convenience, and that's what this topic will always be about no matter how much the dishonest supporters of it want to mislead from that fact. And people doing it for convenience, because they couldn't be bothered to take preventative measures, are disgusting people, completely.
If you want to talk about dishonesty let's bring up your inability to acknowledge that your position, and that of the other conservatives on this board, is that rape, incest, viability, and a women's health, is in no way taken into account when outlawing abortion.
You refuse to carve out exceptions and instead are directing the conversation as a result of your cowardness.
Given where abortion has morphed I doubt the Supreme Court would have ruled the way they did in 1973. Tomorrow the senate is a vote to protect Roe V. Wade in which the abortion can occur while the woman is in labor. Do you think the court would rule as it did if this was before them for consideration.
If women have the right to choose what happens to their bodies, why shouldn't they be able to choose up until the moment of birth, because of your feelings?
Just no. At the point it's definitely a viable baby.
So because feelings then. There are plenty of born and viable people we allow to die every single day. Why is an unwanted fetus more important? Feelings aside, shouldn't the woman get to decide? What if she were a rape victim and pregnant in a coma, having woken up at 9 mos pregnant? Should the state force her to birth her rapists baby because of everyone's feelings? It's a life that shouldn't exist in the first place.
Just no. At the point it's definitely a viable baby.
So because feelings then. There are plenty of born and viable people we allow to die every single day. Why is an unwanted fetus more important? Feelings aside, shouldn't the woman get to decide? What if she were a rape victim and pregnant in a coma, having woken up at 9 mos pregnant? Should the state force her to birth her rapists baby because of everyone's feelings? It's a life that shouldn't exist in the first place.
At birth it's a baby, not a fetus. Also where do you pull feelings out of my post? She had time enough to decide. You don't wait until birth and decide. It's a life at that point though. And you don't get to take away someone's life.
I didn't say that. But you do you. I don't think you can get subtlety. But don't worry you aren't the only here who comes up with 5 when asked what 2 + 2 is.
It's not a coincidence black children are aborted at rates far, far higher than white ones,
This is due to poverty being higher in that demographic.
Also pretending you care about them is quite ironic. Your position would make them worse off than they currently are going by all the science on this, a thing many black hate groups (which are primarily right wing/conservative) are probably giddy over. As we know, abortion bans don't really work and primarily result in negative health and economic outcomes.
@eoten said:
with little choice due to the economic disaster the far leftists running their cities have turned their neighborhoods into.
Red areas have higher poverty, far lower gdp, higher maternal mortality, and lower QOL and HDI on average. It's not just a left right thing. Your conspiracy theory isn't adding up.
@eoten said:
It's intentional. Blacks are targeted by the eugenicists that promote abortions out of racism of the highest order.
This is a lunatic conspiracy theory. Even if we forgot for a second that most black hating groups are conservative, that's some Pizza Gate Lizard People nonsense right there.
Yeah, and why is poverty higher in that demographic? It's been hardcore liberal types running those cities for decades. So on top of turning black neighborhoods into impoverished ghettos, putting black women into poor financial situations, their solution is to have them kill their kids. This is EXACTLY the kind of eugenics preached by Margaret Sanger. It's racist, and it's disgusting
You know as well as I do that it's not serious risks to the health of the mother, rape, or incest that people protesting the repeal of Roe v Wade care about. It's convenience. It has always been about convenience, and that's what this topic will always be about no matter how much the dishonest supporters of it want to mislead from that fact. And people doing it for convenience, because they couldn't be bothered to take preventative measures, are disgusting people, completely.
If you want to talk about dishonesty let's bring up your inability to acknowledge that your position, and that of the other conservatives on this board, is that rape, incest, viability, and a women's health, is in no way taken into account when outlawing abortion.
You refuse to carve out exceptions and instead are directing the conversation as a result of your cowardness.
How many people can you point to who has claimed to hold that position? You're just assuming they do? Why? Because they have opinions and beliefs against it that means they must adhere entirely to your myopic, black and white world view on the entire situation? So instead of challenging the arguments they do make, you completely make up your own set of arguments they never made to challenge them on?
Now that is what I call dishonesty.
The only arguments you can come up with are against things nobody has actually said. How pathetic.
@LJS9502_basic: so it’s not a life before it’s born, it’s dead?
According to the fucking bible, life begins at first breath, you know (and even then, a month old baby is not considered human), the shitty fantasy book that you pro birthers base your whole life on, but don't even know what it says?
Look, I usually stay out of the abortion threads because they get real shitty real quick, but I feel like someone needs to say this. Every side of this has a valid point. I'm decidedly pro-choice, but if you consider a fetus a life, or should be protected due to it's potential to become a life, I can repect that. It makes sense. I ultimately don't agree, but I understand why one would see it that way.
I think part of the reason this debate is so vitriolic, is that both sides of it have a solid point, and we don't like that. We want us to be the good guys, and them to be the bad guys. So we burry our misgivings and shout "mysoginist" or "baby killer" at the other guys. Black and white is more comfortable than shades of grey.
I don't know, there's my two cents. Y'all can get back to the dogpile.
There might be solid points on both sides... were abortion the only option to child birth. With dozens of other options, all of which are cheaper and safer, the hyper sensitive focus on abortion itself is looking for a non issue to be divisive over.
That's not really the case. Look, I don't think anyone would argue that abortion should be the first or only option, just that it should be on the table, and the the decision which way to go should be made by the parents and their doctor.
For a specific example, my wife and I decided to abort a pregnancy years ago. She's bipolar, and was on some psychotropics that had the potential to mess up fetal development. Now, this wasn't a sure thing, nothing really is in medicine, but the risk was high enough that we ultimately terminated the pregnancy. It still wasn't an easy decision, and yes, an abortion is traumatic. But it was our call to make, and while I do have my regrets, I think it was the right one.
For another, when my wife was pregnant with our second daughter, her blood pressure spiked at 34 weeks and she had to have an emergency c-section. During the operation she had 16 minor strokes. We were incredibly lucky in that there does not seem to have been any long term brain damage from it, but that was still fucking terrifying. So needless to say, we are done having kids. We are being very careful to make sure she doesn't get pregnant again (in fact I will be getting snipped in the next few months) but nothing is 100% in medicine. If by some chance it does somehow happen, we will abort it. No one is going to tell me otherwise.
My point is, while I do think most states would allow people in our situation to terminate a pregnancy, there are some that probably wouldn't. How much risk to the mother is enough to justify it? That answer will vary from person to person, group to group, state to state. Do they have a risk assessor break it down to a percentage? Do the parents go before a tribunal who makes decisions on a case by case basis? Do they have some political committee compile a list of acceptable situations? Do they just say, let nature run it's course and we'll see what happens?
Having been through it myself, I say the choice is between the parents and their doctor.
You know as well as I do that it's not serious risks to the health of the mother, rape, or incest that people protesting the repeal of Roe v Wade care about. It's convenience. It has always been about convenience, and that's what this topic will always be about no matter how much the dishonest supporters of it want to mislead from that fact. And people doing it for convenience, because they couldn't be bothered to take preventative measures, are disgusting people, completely.
Hey, this comment circles right back to my first point about our need to vilify the other side. Nice.
Look, I usually stay out of the abortion threads because they get real shitty real quick, but I feel like someone needs to say this. Every side of this has a valid point. I'm decidedly pro-choice, but if you consider a fetus a life, or should be protected due to it's potential to become a life, I can repect that. It makes sense. I ultimately don't agree, but I understand why one would see it that way.
I think part of the reason this debate is so vitriolic, is that both sides of it have a solid point, and we don't like that. We want us to be the good guys, and them to be the bad guys. So we burry our misgivings and shout "mysoginist" or "baby killer" at the other guys. Black and white is more comfortable than shades of grey.
I don't know, there's my two cents. Y'all can get back to the dogpile.
There might be solid points on both sides... were abortion the only option to child birth. With dozens of other options, all of which are cheaper and safer, the hyper sensitive focus on abortion itself is looking for a non issue to be divisive over.
That's not really the case. Look, I don't think anyone would argue that abortion should be the first or only option, just that it should be on the table, and the the decision which way to go should be made by the parents and their doctor.
For a specific example, my wife and I decided to abort a pregnancy years ago. She's bipolar, and was on some psychotropics that had the potential to mess up fetal development. Now, this wasn't a sure thing, nothing really is in medicine, but the risk was high enough that we ultimately terminated the pregnancy. It still wasn't an easy decision, and yes, an abortion is traumatic. But it was our call to make, and while I do have my regrets, I think it was the right one.
For another, when my wife was pregnant with our second daughter, her blood pressure spiked at 34 weeks and she had to have an emergency c-section. During the operation she had 16 minor strokes. We were incredibly lucky in that there does not seem to have been any long term brain damage from it, but that was still fucking terrifying. So needless to say, we are done having kids. We are being very careful to make sure she doesn't get pregnant again (in fact I will be getting snipped in the next few months) but nothing is 100% in medicine. If by some chance it does somehow happen, we will abort it. No one is going to tell me otherwise.
My point is, while I do think most states would allow people in our situation to terminate a pregnancy, there are some that probably wouldn't. How much risk to the mother is enough to justify it? That answer will vary from person to person, group to group, state to state. Do they have a risk assessor break it down to a percentage? Do the parents go before a tribunal who makes decisions on a case by case basis? Do they have some political committee compile a list of acceptable situations? Do they just say, let nature run it's course and we'll see what happens?
Having been through it myself, I say the choice is between the parents and their doctor.
You know as well as I do that it's not serious risks to the health of the mother, rape, or incest that people protesting the repeal of Roe v Wade care about. It's convenience. It has always been about convenience, and that's what this topic will always be about no matter how much the dishonest supporters of it want to mislead from that fact. And people doing it for convenience, because they couldn't be bothered to take preventative measures, are disgusting people, completely.
Hey, this comment circles right back to my first point about our need to vilify the other side. Nice.
Except it's not vilifying to point out how one side is acting completely in bad faith. Claiming it's not about convenience, that it's not being done as a form of birth control, then when they get bolder about it, brag about doing it as birth control. Or as we've seen quite recently, pretend the other side is completely against certain conditions or circumstances to erect a strawman that is easier for them to argue against. It done for convenience though, more times than not, and that's the biggest issue people against it have with it.
You would think a no-brainer stance of being against it for the sake of convenience with countless other options available, or forcing other people to pay for your decisions and responsibilities isn't an extreme position.
It's not a coincidence black children are aborted at rates far, far higher than white ones,
This is due to poverty being higher in that demographic.
Also pretending you care about them is quite ironic. Your position would make them worse off than they currently are going by all the science on this, a thing many black hate groups (which are primarily right wing/conservative) are probably giddy over. As we know, abortion bans don't really work and primarily result in negative health and economic outcomes.
@eoten said:
with little choice due to the economic disaster the far leftists running their cities have turned their neighborhoods into.
Red areas have higher poverty, far lower gdp, higher maternal mortality, and lower QOL and HDI on average. It's not just a left right thing. Your conspiracy theory isn't adding up.
@eoten said:
It's intentional. Blacks are targeted by the eugenicists that promote abortions out of racism of the highest order.
This is a lunatic conspiracy theory. Even if we forgot for a second that most black hating groups are conservative, that's some Pizza Gate Lizard People nonsense right there.
You should do some research into Margret Sanger the founder od planned Parenthood and her eugenicists positions and the reason for starting Planned Parenthood.
Given where abortion has morphed I doubt the Supreme Court would have ruled the way they did in 1973. Tomorrow the senate is a vote to protect Roe V. Wade in which the abortion can occur while the woman is in labor. Do you think the court would rule as it did if this was before them for consideration.
If women have the right to choose what happens to their bodies, why shouldn't they be able to choose up until the moment of birth, because of your feelings?
Just no. At the point it's definitely a viable baby.
So because feelings then. There are plenty of born and viable people we allow to die every single day. Why is an unwanted fetus more important? Feelings aside, shouldn't the woman get to decide? What if she were a rape victim and pregnant in a coma, having woken up at 9 mos pregnant? Should the state force her to birth her rapists baby because of everyone's feelings? It's a life that shouldn't exist in the first place.
State laws already take that in to account so your point is mute.
I didn't say that. But you do you. I don't think you can get subtlety. But don't worry you aren't the only here who comes up with 5 when asked what 2 + 2 is.
You said I wasn't pro-life because you expanded the definition to mean what you want. I linked what it means from the dictionary to say you're incorrect.
That isn't 2+2=5. That's asking you to back up your claims. Like I stated before. Whenever you get confroned you dodge and try to get out of it because what you say is baseless.
@LJS9502_basic: so it’s not a life before it’s born, it’s dead?
According to the fucking bible, life begins at first breath, you know (and even then, a month old baby is not considered human), the shitty fantasy book that you pro birthers base your whole life on, but don't even know what it says?
Don't care about the bible. Science shows that the fetus is alive in the womb. No way around it.
Taking away abortion would make things worse off for this demographic though. Going by all known facts on it.
@eoten said:
Yeah, and why is poverty higher in that demographic? It's been hardcore liberal types running those cities for decades. So on top of turning black neighborhoods into impoverished ghettos, putting black women into poor financial situations
They are even worse off in Red areas, which are on average worse off than Blue areas. Your theory isn't panning out.
@eoten said:
This is EXACTLY the kind of eugenics preached by Margaret Sanger. It's racist, and it's disgusting
But 2/3rds of the population support Roe. Currently. It's not all about 1 person that died 80 years ago.
It's more so about the medical data showing it's objectively a positive.
@LJS9502_basic: so it’s not a life before it’s born, it’s dead?
According to the fucking bible, life begins at first breath, you know (and even then, a month old baby is not considered human), the shitty fantasy book that you pro birthers base your whole life on, but don't even know what it says?
Don't care about the bible. Science shows that the fetus is alive in the womb. No way around it.
But science also shows abortion bans and restrictions barely work or don't work at all, and only result in negative health and economy outcomes. Most major medical groups support abortion as a important healthcare procedure.
Why do you get to pick and choose the science you believe in?
@LJS9502_basic: so it’s not a life before it’s born, it’s dead?
According to the fucking bible, life begins at first breath, you know (and even then, a month old baby is not considered human), the shitty fantasy book that you pro birthers base your whole life on, but don't even know what it says?
Don't care about the bible. Science shows that the fetus is alive in the womb. No way around it.
But science also shows abortion ban's don't really work and only result in negative health and economy outcomes. Most medical groups support abortion as a important healthcare procedure.
Why do you get to pick and choose the science you believe in?
Since we've never had an abortion ban in the US, it's hard to gauge science based on it. You're using 3rd world countries and opinion pieces that have been debunked in the thread.
Why are you lying? Of the 10 or so links I have used. Only one was an opinion pieces, I stopped using it several pages ago and several days ago. And even then that ONE link was not debunked. None of my links were debunked. To even say that is a joke.
Why do you get to pick and choose science?
@sheevpalpamemes said:
Since we've never had an abortion ban in the US, it's hard to gauge science based on it.
We have had restrictions, which those studies also look at.
@sheevpalpamemes said:
You're using 3rd world countries
Why are you lying? Four of the studies look at USA. All of the medical groups are in USA.
Stop picking and choosing the science you to believe in.
Why are you lying? Of the 10 or so links I have used. Only one was an opinion pieces, I stopped using it several pages ago and several days ago. And even then that ONE link was not debunked. None of my links were debunked.
Why do you get to pick and choose science?
@sheevpalpamemes said:
Since we've never had an abortion ban in the US, it's hard to gauge science based on it.
We have had restrictions, which those studies also look at.
@sheevpalpamemes said:
You're using 3rd world countries
Why are you lying? Three of the studies look at USA. All of the medical groups are in USA.
Stop picking and choosing the science you to believe in.
Which US abortion ban country wide did they base the studies on?
Which US abortion ban country wide did they base the studies on?
The studies also look at the effects of restrictions, which are also negative.
Are you suggesting bans (which are just heavier restrictions) would be less negative than restrictions? 😆
Science shows that the abortion restrictions and bans are a negative. No way around it. You're not going to post counter-citation are you?
Which US abortion ban country wide did these studies come from? If you can't provide that (because it never happened), these are just guesses.
What do you mean, one study looked at restrictions that US states have enacted over the last decade and found only negative results. The 55 page study also uses USA data, they conclude less access to abortions has negative results just like the US only study does. After the near abortion ban in Texas last year, most of those people just sought abortions out of state.
Science shows that the abortion restrictions and bans have negative results, and don't really work. No way around it. You're not going to post counter-citation are you, Mr.Anti-Science?
P.S. Are you suggesting all major US medical groups are wrong? Very anti-science.
TBH I'm only on the side of medical science and organizations. If all the data available on this said abortions had net positives, trust me I'd be anti-abortion.
Taking away abortion would make things worse off for this demographic though. Going by all known facts on it.
@eoten said:
Yeah, and why is poverty higher in that demographic? It's been hardcore liberal types running those cities for decades. So on top of turning black neighborhoods into impoverished ghettos, putting black women into poor financial situations
They are even worse off in Red areas, which are on average worse off than Blue areas. Your theory isn't panning out.
@eoten said:
This is EXACTLY the kind of eugenics preached by Margaret Sanger. It's racist, and it's disgusting
But 2/3rds of the population support Roe. Currently. It's not all about 1 person that died 80 years ago.
It's more so about the medical data showing it's objectively a positive.
No, 2/3 of the population do not support Roe. ROFLMAO.
Taking away abortion would make things worse off for this demographic though. Going by all known facts on it.
@eoten said:
Yeah, and why is poverty higher in that demographic? It's been hardcore liberal types running those cities for decades. So on top of turning black neighborhoods into impoverished ghettos, putting black women into poor financial situations
They are even worse off in Red areas, which are on average worse off than Blue areas. Your theory isn't panning out.
@eoten said:
This is EXACTLY the kind of eugenics preached by Margaret Sanger. It's racist, and it's disgusting
But 2/3rds of the population support Roe. Currently. It's not all about 1 person that died 80 years ago.
It's more so about the medical data showing it's objectively a positive.
No, 2/3 of the population do not support Roe. ROFLMAO.
If you want to talk about dishonesty let's bring up your inability to acknowledge that your position, and that of the other conservatives on this board, is that rape, incest, viability, and a women's health, is in no way taken into account when outlawing abortion.
You refuse to carve out exceptions and instead are directing the conversation as a result of your cowardness.
How many people can you point to who has claimed to hold that position? You're just assuming they do? Why? Because they have opinions and beliefs against it that means they must adhere entirely to your myopic, black and white world view on the entire situation? So instead of challenging the arguments they do make, you completely make up your own set of arguments they never made to challenge them on?
Now that is what I call dishonesty.
The only arguments you can come up with are against things nobody has actually said. How pathetic.
Answer the question on rape, incest, viability, and impact to a woman's health, you coward. Too afraid to admit you'd make a woman carry a non-viable rape baby, born of incest?
Which US abortion ban country wide did they base the studies on?
The studies also look at the effects of restrictions, which are also negative.
Are you suggesting bans (which are just heavier restrictions) would be less negative than restrictions? 😆
Science shows that the abortion restrictions and bans are a negative. No way around it. You're not going to post counter-citation are you?
Which US abortion ban country wide did these studies come from? If you can't provide that (because it never happened), these are just guesses.
What do you mean, one study looked at restrictions that US states have enacted over the last decade and found only negative results. The 55 page study also uses USA data, they conclude less access to abortions has negative results just like the US only study does. After the near abortion ban in Texas last year, most of those people just sought abortions out of state.
Science shows that the abortion restrictions and bans have negative results, and don't really work. No way around it. You're not going to post counter-citation are you, Mr.Anti-Science?
P.S. Are you suggesting all major US medical groups are wrong? Very anti-science.
You can't give me one study based on a country wide ban. You're linking things not related.
You can't give me one study based on a country wide ban. You're linking things not related.
That wasn't the claim. The claim was abortion restrictions and bans primary result in negative effects, and barely work or don't work at all.
All of the data shows this to be the case. I only require you to post information showing otherwise, or counter-studies to refute mine.
That's the claim you made. Of course people trying to do abortions themselves which would be illegal in this scenario would be harmful. You don't need to link studies to that.
The amount of abortions would go down though. Which works for me.
@LJS9502_basic: so it’s not a life before it’s born, it’s dead?
According to the fucking bible, life begins at first breath, you know (and even then, a month old baby is not considered human), the shitty fantasy book that you pro birthers base your whole life on, but don't even know what it says?
A pro abortion advocate citing the Bible.
I've seen it all now
why cite something that bears no weight in the conversation
You said I wasn't pro-life because you expanded the definition to mean what you want. I linked what it means from the dictionary to say you're incorrect.
That isn't 2+2=5. That's asking you to back up your claims. Like I stated before. Whenever you get confroned you dodge and try to get out of it because what you say is baseless.
Pro life means one is for life. Nothing else. If you want to play semantics to make yourself feel better because you, in fact, do find some lives disposable be my guest. But you are not for life.
You said I wasn't pro-life because you expanded the definition to mean what you want. I linked what it means from the dictionary to say you're incorrect.
That isn't 2+2=5. That's asking you to back up your claims. Like I stated before. Whenever you get confroned you dodge and try to get out of it because what you say is baseless.
Pro life means one is for life. Nothing else. If you want to play semantics to make yourself feel better because you, in fact, do find some lives disposable be my guest. But you are not for life.
Link? Proof? By how much? More than the negative health outcomes? I have only seen scientific data suggesting otherwise. Overturning Roe doesn't result in a nationwide abortion ban in USA, and that wasn't my claim. You're making stuff up.
I'm just glad I made you contradict your science statement earlier. You pick and choose the science you listen to. You don't care that all the science shows abortion restrictions and bans would be a negative. You don't care what all major medical groups say on abortion.
Overturning Roe doesn't result in a nationwide abortion ban in USA, and that wasn't my claim. You're making stuff up.
I'm just glad I made you contradict your science statement earlier. You pick and choose the science you listen to. You don't care that all the science shows abortion restrictions and bans would be a negative. You don't care what all major medical groups say on abortion.
You must hate science tbh.
My mistake, I thought we were talking about if abortion got banned. If we're talking about roe vs wade being overturned and it's just a legal issue, what does any medical science have to do with it?
This is an interesting read and certainly shows the politicization of the Supreme Court and the separation of church and state being blurred for the Evangelicals.
Given where abortion has morphed I doubt the Supreme Court would have ruled the way they did in 1973. Tomorrow the senate is a vote to protect Roe V. Wade in which the abortion can occur while the woman is in labor. Do you think the court would rule as it did if this was before them for consideration.
If women have the right to choose what happens to their bodies, why shouldn't they be able to choose up until the moment of birth, because of your feelings?
Just no. At the point it's definitely a viable baby.
So because feelings then. There are plenty of born and viable people we allow to die every single day. Why is an unwanted fetus more important? Feelings aside, shouldn't the woman get to decide? What if she were a rape victim and pregnant in a coma, having woken up at 9 mos pregnant? Should the state force her to birth her rapists baby because of everyone's feelings? It's a life that shouldn't exist in the first place.
State laws already take that in to account so your point is mute.
Oh, yeah? Look at some of the law coming in backwards red states, ones with no exceptions. Women are the new GOP cattle.
If we're talking about roe vs wade being overturned and it's just a legal issue, what does any medical science have to do with it?
You're probably trolling at this point, either that or post ITT when very "sleepy"....but I'll answer.
Many states have already, are currently, and/or are going to enact tougher abortion restrictions (some near bans) due to this decision. Even the predictions of this decision brought on near bans last year.
These tougher restrictions and bans result in negative outcomes. As all studies on this show, unless anyone can find one that doesn't say this. I certainly can't. I tried.
Log in to comment