Some considerations

[Jeff250]

Here we enter into my lobster ethics example again - since the child is potentially viable, in any other circumstance the ethical imperative would be to treat it as viable and not take any action to harm it.

If you found a lobster were parasitically attached to you, you would pluck it off, even if it meant the death of the lobster, even if you had concerns that the lobster may have conscious experience, even if you wouldn't boil a lobster alive.

[LightWolf]

It's also almost universally agreed that killing a lobster is okay, while it's almost universally agreed killing an innocent person is not okay. The point of the lobster example is that, if the child might be human, it should be treated as though it is.

[Top Gun]

I think you need to define some things, for example how they do literally nothing when I can tell you about the conservative mental health professionals, the high amount of charitable activity, etc. Don't get me started on Catholics, who form the most cohesive pro-life group and are all about supporting it at all stages. A far cry from the stereotype you seem to like to knock down.

My guy, I was born and raised Catholic. I heard "all life is sacred from conception to natural death" literally my entire life. Outside of a few individuals like Pope Francis, most of the Catholics I've known were no more or less "pro-life" as a blanket term than anyone else. It was all the same level of "pro-birth" with a few other tiny overtures like collecting coins in baby bottles. Most of them sure as hell weren't out there protesting for an end to the death penalty, or for guaranteed paid parental leave, or for universal healthcare coverage, or for rational gun control. Despite all of your word salad up there, all of these positions are part and parcel of being truly "pro-life," of caring about human life during all of its forms and stages. But most people who label themselves that don't give a ★■◆● about anything beyond abortion, because it's simple and those other things are hard. There's a quote from a Methodist pastor named David Barnhart that's been making the rounds over the past year or two, and he says it better than I ever could:

”The unborn” are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.

Honestly though, most of the arguments you're making in here are at the same level of "logic" I used to spout off all over the Internet as a dumbass teen. I hope for your sake that you're still around that age, because then it's easily excused, but if you're well into your 20s or 30s and that's the level you're on, then that's...not great.

[TheWhat]

It’s not “pro-life”, it’s “anti-abortion”. It’s an important distinction because in my almost 50 years on earth I’ve met one, exactly one person who was consistent enough to be pro-life, anti-death penalty, and a practicing vegan. One.

It’s semantics but it counts. It’s not ground breaking to posture with word choice and slogans but it should be pointed out.

It’s anti-abortion because this whole they give a ratsass about life is downright laughable.

[Jeff250]

it's almost universally agreed killing an innocent person is not okay.

Should it be illegal to let someone die from hunger? Should it be illegal to let someone die from lack of healthcare? I don't think your use of the word "killing" is any different.

[Ferno]

Lightwolf: I read what you wrote (almost wish I hadn't) and just didn't bother putting it here. So I'll leave this instead.



Although, I will add this. The line you put in about me not understanding DNA? DNA is recombined into another, similar sequence in offspring. What you were talking about, is called cloning. Learned that in high school.

This was using your logic

Can't use what you don't understand. What you're doing is projection.

[Tunnelcat]

Thank you Top Gun. That Barnhart quote is the best explanation of the current Republican stance out there yet. If a party values life as a party platform, value ALL life, not just those you find convenient for getting ahead politically. My supposedly Christian sister hates abortion and yet she'd be willing to put up machine gun nests at the southern border to stop illegals, never mind that many of those migrants are children. The hypocrisy is twisted and rank. And whether LightWolf likes it or not, to force women to carry a pregnancy they don't want is forced servitude and a life threatening one at that, all under the aspices of government body control and possibly saving a life that may end up worthless once that child is born. There's a lot of death in this world and much of that is innocent death at the hands of other humans. The world is a cold cruel place and choosing fetuses to protect instead of those children already living is nothing but a cheap power play.

[LightWolf]

Although, I will add this. The line you put in about me not understanding DNA? DNA is recombined into another, similar sequence in offspring. What you were talking about, is called cloning. Learned that in high school.

What I am talking about is that at or shortly after conception, the embryo has its own set of DNA. 50% mom and 50% dad. Enough to be considered scientifically and legally distinct from the mother.

This was using your logic

Can't use what you don't understand. What you're doing is projection.

It's almost like you get it. Except you fail to see your own projection I was basing mine off of. Since you missed it, I'll reiterate:

If they were really pro-life, they would be supporting initiatives for free healthcare, post-natal care, extended parental leave, sick leave and mental health and sensible gun control.

Implication: No real pro-life supporter believes in these things. This is a projection. (Does Louisiana's pro-life Democrat governor count, who likely believes in everything you listed in a manner you approve?)
Real event: Targeting and shutting down of pregnancy resource centers, which in most states women can choose to go to or not.
Implication: Real pro-choice do not support pregnancy resource centers, or the choice to visit them. This is also a projection.

Finally, re your image:

nor shall any State deprive any person of life...without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I don't see any of these children receiving their equal protection.

Let's say a person is forced against their will to be chained to you. Do you have the right to kill them?

Or, how about we take a trip to the not-so-distant past: These children cannot speak up for themselves, literally. Historically speaking, though they could certainly try literally, people denied civil rights legally could not speak up for themselves in almost every case. Tell me, what side of history do people tend to be on when denying civil rights to people who cannot defend themselves? Consider, for example, the historical south. They were the holdouts over slavery, long after others recognized that your race does not make you any less of a human. Slaveowners asserted they had rights to their slaves, that their slaves had no rights, and ensured that their slaves could not speak up without fear of punishment. One civil war and 13th amendment later, and Jim Crow started. Same thing, except on paper non-whites had some rights that southern states chose to completely ignore anyway. Best yet: Those that disagreed could shut up over their phony beliefs in the supposed 'freedom' of other groups; clearly they only cared about blacks.

Did you know the portions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 related to discrimination on basis of sex were actually introduced by pro-segregationists? They thought they were going to call out that pro-civil rights factions only cared about the civil rights of blacks and not other groups such as women, exposing the alleged hypocrisy of the pro-civil rights congressmen. Turns out, at least on paper, the pro-civil rights faction was fine with women's rights. (Nice fail, Jim Crow.) You might even note that the pro-segregationists were right that many pro-civil rights congressmen were sexist, just making a losing gamble on the extent - they were pro-desegregation if you will, to mirror modern 'pro-birth' - and if you've been tracing recent history, you would note that where such hypocrisy did exist, it has been steadily eroding where it hasn't been eliminated completely.

The only difference now is that those being denied their civil rights physically can't even tell someone their rights are being violated instead of simply being at great risk to do so. The parallels to the racist south do not stack up in favor of the pro-choice movement. At this point I'm just waiting for a national act or constitutional amendment formally protecting unborn rights to complete this part of the story, and protecting the post-born is the next domino in the life movement anyway, much like a paper acceptance of civil rights was the first domino to full civil rights. Much like the pro-desegregation generation is already virtually gone, the solely pro-birth generation is already fading away.

At the end of the day, abortion is a conflict of rights: the mother's right to space and autonomy and the child's right to life. Neither should be infringed, but one has to. You have made it clear whose rights you see as greater, I disagree with that assessment. Citing people who simply assert that these children in fact do not have these civil rights is not going to change this.

=====

Should it be illegal to let someone die from hunger? Should it be illegal to let someone die from lack of healthcare? I don't think your use of the word "killing" is any different.

The main difference is that killing is an action you take. 'Letting die' is inaction, not to mention one so broad and subjective in these cases it is unfeasible to legally define who is responsible. I've already said who I think is responsible, and that I and many others are willing to support groups which take on that responsibility.

to force women to carry a pregnancy they don't want is forced servitude and a life threatening one at that

There's a reason I referred to this as a conflict of rights (which that abortion data site I linked earlier also recognizes). Two groups' rights are in direct conflict. This is why the supreme court decided how it did, because why should it be up to some court which rights are more important than others rather than the people which experience those rights? And since there is unlikely to be a new civil rights act toward either side that lasts more than four years and I guarantee there is not enough support for an amendment either way, it is up to states to pass their own civil rights acts to settle the matter. States on both sides have already begun doing just that.

Also worth noting that it is only life-threatening for a small percentage of women, even then as self-reported by those mothers. Many doctors have testified they have never seen a scenario where a baby which would make it to term threatens the life of a mother. Even so, all states have exceptions for life-threatening situations to the mother, with Pennsylvania being the only state with a candidate for governor considering a no-exceptions law if he wins and can gather sufficient legislative support. His opponent favors abortion. https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory ... n-85641444

(As a side note, in researching this I discovered Georgia's law explicitly considers unborn children with a heartbeat people/children for the sake of census, child support, third-party homicide, and income tax credits, along with a blanket statement that unborn children are included in the legal definition of 'people'; Arizona and other states may pass similar laws.)

There's a lot of death in this world and much of that is innocent death at the hands of other humans. The world is a cold cruel place and choosing fetuses to protect instead of those children already living is nothing but a cheap power play.

Quite bold of you to decide whose lives deserve protection then saying those that disagree are the ones making a cheap power play as though you are not. Also, I would certainly qualify abortions in that innocent death at the hands of other humans.

...and possibly saving a life that may end up worthless once that child is born.

What standard do you use to decide when a person is so worthless they don't deserve life? (If you did not mean to imply that anyone can be so worthless as to not deserve life, this statement needs serious clarification.)

[Darth Wang]

The main difference is that killing is an action you take. 'Letting die' is inaction, not to mention one so broad and subjective in these cases it is unfeasible to legally define who is responsible. I've already said who I think is responsible, and that I and many others are willing to support groups which take on that responsibility.

This is such a false distinction. Consider the trolley problem: A train is heading on a track towards where two people are tied up. There is a switch that can divert the train to another track, but that track has one person tied to it. If you do nothing, two people die. If you take action, one person dies. Which one is the right thing to do?

[mystery2018]

No.

If they were really pro-life, they would be supporting initiatives for free healthcare, post-natal care, extended parental leave, sick leave and mental health and sensible gun control.

It's all about control and that whole paragraph is nothing but bull★■◆●. Full stop.

Lmao nothing is free idiot.

[Spidey]

The main difference is that killing is an action you take. 'Letting die' is inaction, not to mention one so broad and subjective in these cases it is unfeasible to legally define who is responsible. I've already said who I think is responsible, and that I and many others are willing to support groups which take on that responsibility.

This is such a false distinction. Consider the trolley problem: A train is heading on a track towards where two people are tied up. There is a switch that can divert the train to another track, but that track has one person tied to it. If you do nothing, two people die. If you take action, one person dies. Which one is the right thing to do?

The right thing to do is.........nothing.

Who the hell gave you the right to decide who lives and who dies?

Your inaction is killing people all over the world...when is the last time you went to Africa and fed some starving person?

[woodchip]

After skimming thru this, if I missed some things you may have broached, please accept my apologies. First off I'm assuming all of you are cognizant that Roe vs Wade was flawed law And all SCOTUS did now was address that issue. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that abortion is a right. Want to whine and cry like children who had their favorite stuffed animal taken away, you are entitled to do so. In reality, SCOTUS just turned abortion back to the states and made it a states right issue. Didn't ban abortion nor did they make it the law of the land. So instead of complaining, roll up your sleeve's and get cracking if you want to make it legal.

More importantly, It was becoming apparent the sick people on the left were only interested in pushing the envelope as far as they could. What started out as a simple procedure, abortion ballooned out in a far more sinister direction as the State of New York and others began allowing Partial birth abortions. Do all of you understand what this is about. You argue things like viability as to whether it makes it OK or not. What about viability in the third trimester let alone when the baby is being born. :

Partial-birth abortion (PBA) is the term Congress has used to describe a procedure that crosses the line from abortion to infanticide. The doctor delivers a substantial portion of the living child outside his mother's body --- the entire head in a head-first delivery or the trunk past the navel in a feet-first delivery --- then kills the child by crushing his skull or removing his brain by suction.

Still all rah rah about abortion being a right? If not welcome to the human race.

[Spidey]

It's a shame that so few people in this country understand how rights work here.

In other countries your rights come from government, in this country your rights are inherent.

Here government doesn't give you rights, nor does the constitution, the constitution can only protect rights...not grant them.

The US government can only do two things...
1. Protect your rights.
2. Take away your rights. (as per most laws)

Abortion is not a protected right, so it can be taken away by the states or even the federal government for that matter.

For those looking for the government to codify abortion rights...good luck on that because 25 or so states wouldn't ratify, and there is no way there would be the votes needed in congress if they did figure out some magic way to codify without a constitutional convention.

[Tunnelcat]

What do you do when people are polarized and mad enough, on either side of the issue, to resort to violence in the effort to change things, lack of a Constitutional right or not? People are so passionate about their beliefs, right or wrong, that I see that happening as a consequence. It's already happened between 2 Congressional candidates and the Pro Life man attacked and punched the Pro Abortion woman, who of course has been charged with assault. This country had to secure it's freedoms via a violent revolution well over 200 years ago. That mindset is inherent in our country's backbone and soul and I don't see that going away anytime soon, especially now that people seem primed for violence.

[Spidey]

What can you do? Some (many) people in this country seem to think violence is the answer to all problems.

[Top Gun]

After skimming thru this, if I missed some things you may have broached, please accept my apologies. First off I'm assuming all of you are cognizant that Roe vs Wade was flawed law And all SCOTUS did now was address that issue. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that abortion is a right. Want to whine and cry like children who had their favorite stuffed animal taken away, you are entitled to do so. In reality, SCOTUS just turned abortion back to the states and made it a states right issue. Didn't ban abortion nor did they make it the law of the land. So instead of complaining, roll up your sleeve's and get cracking if you want to make it legal.

More importantly, It was becoming apparent the sick people on the left were only interested in pushing the envelope as far as they could. What started out as a simple procedure, abortion ballooned out in a far more sinister direction as the State of New York and others began allowing Partial birth abortions. Do all of you understand what this is about. You argue things like viability as to whether it makes it OK or not. What about viability in the third trimester let alone when the baby is being born. :

Partial-birth abortion (PBA) is the term Congress has used to describe a procedure that crosses the line from abortion to infanticide. The doctor delivers a substantial portion of the living child outside his mother's body --- the entire head in a head-first delivery or the trunk past the navel in a feet-first delivery --- then kills the child by crushing his skull or removing his brain by suction.

Still all rah rah about abortion being a right? If not welcome to the human race.

Do you have any ★■◆●ing idea why most late-term abortions (and in this case "late-term" still means around the 20-24 week window) are (rarely) performed? They happen because it's discovered that the fetus has some sort of massive congenital deformity that ensures it's physically impossible to live outside the womb, things like anencephaly where the fetus' brain and skull just fail to develop properly. Or they happen because the mother's life is in imminent danger, and she would be unable to safely carry the fetus to term. They're horrible, gut-wrenching decisions, and intensely personal ones, and those of us who don't have a uterus have no goddamn business getting involved in them.

(For the record, "partial-birth abortion" isn't remotely a medical term, but instead was created whole-cloth by pro-life groups.)

Oh, and spare us that "states' rights" bull★■◆●. It's an antiquated, fossilized concept that's been used to justify all sorts of horrors in this country's history and should have been killed for good in 1865.

[Tunnelcat]

to force women to carry a pregnancy they don't want is forced servitude and a life threatening one at that

There's a reason I referred to this as a conflict of rights (which that abortion data site I linked earlier also recognizes). Two groups' rights are in direct conflict. This is why the supreme court decided how it did, because why should it be up to some court which rights are more important than others rather than the people which experience those rights? And since there is unlikely to be a new civil rights act toward either side that lasts more than four years and I guarantee there is not enough support for an amendment either way, it is up to states to pass their own civil rights acts to settle the matter. States on both sides have already begun doing just that.

Also worth noting that it is only life-threatening for a small percentage of women, even then as self-reported by those mothers. Many doctors have testified they have never seen a scenario where a baby which would make it to term threatens the life of a mother. Even so, all states have exceptions for life-threatening situations to the mother, with Pennsylvania being the only state with a candidate for governor considering a no-exceptions law if he wins and can gather sufficient legislative support. His opponent favors abortion. https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory ... n-85641444

(As a side note, in researching this I discovered Georgia's law explicitly considers unborn children with a heartbeat people/children for the sake of census, child support, third-party homicide, and income tax credits, along with a blanket statement that unborn children are included in the legal definition of 'people'; Arizona and other states may pass similar laws.)

There's a lot of death in this world and much of that is innocent death at the hands of other humans. The world is a cold cruel place and choosing fetuses to protect instead of those children already living is nothing but a cheap power play.

Quite bold of you to decide whose lives deserve protection then saying those that disagree are the ones making a cheap power play as though you are not. Also, I would certainly qualify abortions in that innocent death at the hands of other humans.

...and possibly saving a life that may end up worthless once that child is born.

What standard do you use to decide when a person is so worthless they don't deserve life? (If you did not mean to imply that anyone can be so worthless as to not deserve life, this statement needs serious clarification.)

What standard do you use? You seem to think that action is what makes the difference. I say that inaction is just as deadly and just as consequential. Action is done to make someone feel good and assuage their conscience. Remember, humans cause death both by direct action and inaction, so NO ONE'S hands are clean in this world, not even mine. Do you send money to aide starving children in Africa? Remember, there are currently MILLIONS of them all starving due to flooding or heat induced crop failures. Are you willing to spend tax dollars to support homeless children who were abandoned or abused by their poor mothers? Do you walk by a homeless tent and think this person is just a lazy SOB and deserves his or her fate, including death? Are you willing to allow the U.S. to take in illegal migrant children who's parents are fleeing poverty, crime and war and keep them together as a family? Are you pissed off that Russia is deliberately targeting and killing families and children in Ukraine? I say death is cheap in this world, whether we take action or inaction to accomplish it. So my take away with conservative Right to Lifers is, not born yet, deserving of state protection. Already born, so much trash to dump and forget.

So if Georgia has all those laws supporting fetuses, why do they still have one of the highest rates of child poverty in the U.S., most of them non-white minorities? In a Republican run state where they say they'll do better. My ★■◆●ing ass. Damn hypocrites.

https://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/art ... n-poverty/

In fact, most of the concentrated child poverty rates are in mostly Republican counties. I guess those conservatives don't want to pay for those poor mostly minority non-white freeloading mothers and their children, but they sure as hell want to increase the population of those children. If every Right to Lifer wants to save children, for the love of God, save those already living in miserable conditions FIRST, but of coarse, that would take money and actual WORK, not a cheap easy protest march or clinic bombing.



As for women dying from pregnancy, the CDC says that around 700 women die each year in the U.S. alone. That's 700 women, already living human beings that you're personally are willing to let die for a cause just to save maybe thousands of other fetuses who have not yet lived a day in this world. Is that a fair trade and who's life is more important? When you get to decide who deserves to live, are you are playing God? That's what every anti-abortion person is essentially doing right now.

https://www.cdc.gov/hearher/pregnancy-r ... index.html

Now we come to the procedure itself, specifically botched abortions. Currently, 1 woman dies every 7 minutes in the world because of a botched abortion. Not only does the mother suffer, the fetus does too as those people who perform these procedures rarely have good medical ethics or training. Even Planned Parenthood has a checkered record on botched abortions and probably because they are under constant assault by pro-lifers and can't keep good clinicians. But nothing even they failed at compares to what went on before Roe. Pre-Roe, 5000 women a year died as a result of botched abortions. Pre-Roe, there were 829,000 illegal abortions in 1967. extrapolated to the entire U.S. from North Carolina numbers. In some years, it may have been as high as 1.2 million illegal abortions. Currently in the U.S. 1270 babies are born alive after botched abortions, and of course, they are unceremoniously killed, which is horrifying. Most botched abortions are performed by desperate and poor mothers who go to not so well trained unethical people to get one. Now you and your Republican Right to Lifers have just made that number soon to skyrocket. And lets make one thing clear. Banning abortion DOES NOT STOP THE PRACTICE. All you are doing is making yourself feel good for doing something that has no effect on the situation at all. You can't stop the human sex drive and you can't cure having irresponsible sex, so punishing these women does nothing except take away the legal right to control their own bodies. So I say banning abortion will not change the status quo of fetal deaths and personally, it'll probably make things far worse, FOR THE MOTHER AND THE FETUS. With this SCOTUS decision, you and every Right to Lifer have just cloaked themselves in a bloody shroud of righteousness.

https://healthresearchfunding.org/18-no ... tatistics/

Facts About Botched Abortions

1. 1 out of every 3 pregnancies in the world today is considered an unplanned pregnancy.
2. 1 in 4 women live in a nation where abortion laws are highly restrictive.
3. Making abortion illegal or legal has no effect on the total number of abortions performed in the world.
4. Half of the unplanned pregnancies will result in the decision to have an abortion, with half of those abortions being conducted in unsafe conditions.
5. 1 woman dies every 7 minutes in the world today because of a botched abortion.
6. 22%. That’s the percentage of pregnancies that will end in abortion every year.
7. 43% of the women who identify a religious preference when receiving an abortion list it as “Protestant.”
8. 83% of the women who will seek out an abortion are unmarried.
9. Women living below the poverty level are 4x more likely to seek out an abortion.
10. In the United States, there are 1,270 babies who have been born alive after a botched abortion.
11. Prior to Roe vs. Wade in the United States, more than 5,000 women per year were killed because of botched abortions.
12. 98% of the unsafe abortions that are performed every year occur in developing nations.
13. 6,000. That’s the number of US women who will have an abortion this year and have serious complications from it as a result.
14. In the US, 11 out of every 100,000 women will die because of childbirth.
15. 30 abortion clinics were closed in the United States in 2013 because of botched abortions.
16. In 1930, abortion deaths were 18% of the total maternal deaths that were listed in the United States [2,700 deaths]. In three decades, those numbers dropped to 200 deaths per year in the US.
17. In the State of Texas, about 1,000 women who seek out an abortion must be hospitalized because it has been botched in some way.
18. 6%. That’s the percentage of women who will seek out a medication-induced abortion and will later require a surgical abortion.

[Top Gun]

I love how that map shows what a giant festering shithole the entire Deep South is. Keep thumping your Bibles while children starve, assholes!

[vision]

I love how that map shows what a giant festering shithole the entire Deep South is. Keep thumping your Bibles while children starve, assholes!

Also, racism.

[Vander]

This country sucks. We should make it better.

[Top Gun]

This country sucks. We should make it better.

We can start by seriously revamping the Constitution, which a certain Founding Father was of the opinion should happen every 20 years or so. We're two centuries overdue.

[Spidey]

Be careful what you wish for.

[Top Gun]

I mean in this particular case, a sizeable majority of Americans are in favor of some level of legalized abortion, so...

[Ferno]

For all of Lightwolf's word salad, there's a theme that sticks out. Control. He wants control. That's it. He wants laws that bind but do not protect us, and laws that protect but do not bind him.

[Tunnelcat]

Uhhhhh, Hitler and white life mentioned in one speech, with Trump standing behind her cheering her on. Mistake my rear end. It's more like a Fruedian slip. Holy ★■◆●.

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/politic ... 49918/?amp

[vision]

For all of Lightwolf's word salad, there's a theme that sticks out. Control.

Also don't forget using the no true Scotsman fallacy several times.

[LightWolf]

For all of Lightwolf's word salad, there's a theme that sticks out. Control. He wants control. That's it. He wants laws that bind but do not protect us, and laws that protect but do not bind him.

That's exactly the argument the slave-owning south made. We all know how that went.

Also don't forget using the no true Scotsman fallacy several times.

The No True Scotsman fallacy is where you, in support of a generalization, say counterexamples don't count. I'm the one pointing out the counterexamples to the generalization many of you guys keep asserting. I don't think I'm the one using that fallacy here.

Oh, and that map TC - I found one with the 2020 election results:



Notice how there are only a few cases where pockets of child poverty are not in or around blue counties, Kentucky and Georgia being the primary exception - and outside New England and California, the reverse trend (a blue county implying child poverty) holds true shockingly often, far more often than child poverty implying a nearby blue county, almost being a 1:1 correlation in some states. You can even reliably predict blue counties where there are bands of >40% childhood poverty (except in Kentucky). The 2016 red-blue map didn't look too different from 2020. This fits with a pattern I've long noticed - democrats promising solutions and never providing. Is this the work you're referring to? Or perhaps you could discuss some real policies you're implementing in those counties to save those living in miserable conditions that we've overlooked?

...not a cheap easy protest march or clinic bombing

Can we agree to keep domestic terrorists on the side? If you guys keep lumping clinic bombers in with pro-life, I'm going to lump church arsonists with pro-choice, and not just as an example of projection. Fair's fair, right?

[Tunnelcat]

I didn't say the Dems were doing any better at dealing with child poverty. They aren't the ones banning abortion. Plus, they have to work with Republicans to get tax money doled out of their state's coffers to all the counties, so in Red States, who's to say that blue counties aren't getting screwed by their red state governments. The takeaway is, in the South, in rural areas and in areas populated mostly by minorities (also the South), the child poverty rates are high. I did hear a belated comment by Asa Hutchinson on Meet the Press that after this decision, more needs to be done for the child poverty in his state, Arkansas. We'll see if he comes through or dances his anti-abortion victory dance and moves on, forgetting the future rise in the number of unwanted children in his own state.

This map was done in 2020, so it's more up to date but listing everyone living in poverty. But the county by county findings are similar to your electoral map in that many blue counties (especially in Red States) have high rates of child poverty.

https://overflow.solutions/demographic- ... n-poverty/

But his map is more interesting. It's a map of counties with the most children. So that has an effect on poverty too.

https://overflow.solutions/demographic- ... -children/

And your map makes it look like Trump won with a landslide of votes, but it doesn't take into consideration the population density of the votes in each county, which is disingenuous to say the least.



Importantly, this is a map of infant mortality in 2018, pre-Covid pandemic. Again, mostly in the South with some in the mid-west and northeast, infant mortality rates are high. These are the deaths of postnatal to 1 year old infants. Also occuring in mostly Southern states, so large geographic disparities exist. Rates went up for Hispanic and Blacks in several states due to lower birth weights and premature births, probably as a result of poor health care, also a Republican failing and third rail. But there's something about living in Mississippi and Alabama that causes waaaay higher infant mortality rates. Politics, lack of good health care and race maybe?

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/01/04/heal ... index.html



It wasn't the seasonal flu either. It was pretty much spread evenly around the country that year.



But I digress with maps. It isn't the Dems who are the ones taking away the right of a women to control her own body, it's the Republicans, the party of keep big bad government out of our lives, except when it comes to sex of all things. Next up it'll be the kind of sex we can have in the privacy of our own bedrooms. I understand your passion to preserve life. But you need to understand the passion of a woman to want to control her own body and life, so we're at an impasse as to who's life is more important. I also haven't seen Republicans working these last 50 years to solve the situation of child poverty and now they're currently the ones making it worse. Yes, the Dems need to step up too, but they don't control the purse strings in many of these anti-abortion states. The Republicans work for 50 years to incrementally get to this point of overturning Roe and it took a cheat, yes a ★■◆●ing cheat, by Trump/McConnell to stack SCOTUS to the conservative side. But all they've done is cause a flaming catastrophe of royally pissed off women who will get to vote in November and in 2024. And here I thought inflation was going to sink the Dems, because more people in this country want abortion safe and legal than those who want it outright illegal.

[Darth Wang]

Can we agree to keep domestic terrorists on the side? If you guys keep lumping clinic bombers in with pro-life, I'm going to lump church arsonists with pro-choice, and not just as an example of projection. Fair's fair, right?

Aren't most attacks on churches in the US by right-wing white supremacists attacking primarily black or Hispanic churches?

[woodchip]

This country sucks. We should make it better.

We can start by seriously revamping the Constitution,

Yes this is what leaders like Maduro frothed at the mouth about and why Venezuela has become the ★■◆● hole it is today.. Can't wait until you wake up to this brave new world.

[Tunnelcat]

So a Neo Nazi America run by a demented toddler with a short fuse is a better alternative to you?

[woodchip]

In general I'm not sure why we are even having this discussion what with all the modern contraceptives we have today. And don't give me that crap about the cost of the pill, if there is a expense the Dems can jolly well cough up the shekels to cover it. Or those of you who cry fake tears over the loss of abortion rights can pony up the costs

[woodchip]

So a Neo Nazi America run by a demented toddler with a short fuse is a better alternative to you?

Neither one are attractive, nor should they be for you.

[Tunnelcat]

Well, I don't support Biden, so do you support Trump despite any reservations? And before you answer, remember that The Proud Boys and Patriot Front groups are considered Neo Fascist White Supremacist terrorists currently on the FBI's watch list and these nice guys support Trump and came armed to the Jan. 6th Capitol riot. The Secret Service refused to remove the metal detectors at the Capital at Trump's request because he felt they wouldn't hurt him. Well, what about the VP and every other congressperson in the building that day?

[Top Gun]

Wow, woody milked the "muh Venezuela" cow again. So intellect. Such argument. Wow.

[Tunnelcat]

Republicans hate Venezuela so much, they're willing to let everyone in this country pay higher gas prices than let Biden import their oil. And remember, our high oil prices aren't due to the amount of available oil, we've got enough for demand, they're due to a lack of refining capacity by our own damn oil company refineries, on top of Putin's little war affecting global markets.

[Jeff250]

The right thing to do is.........nothing.

Who the hell gave you the right to decide who lives and who dies?

Your inaction is killing people all over the world...when is the last time you went to Africa and fed some starving person?

Isn't this the argument though? That the same right that you have to not donate money to save someone from starving to death is the same right that you have to not carry a pregnancy to term?

[Vander]

Yes this is what leaders like Maduro frothed at the mouth about and why Venezuela has become the ★■◆● hole it is today.. Can't wait until you wake up to this brave new world.

Sorry guys, constitutional amendments are now unamerican.

[vision]

Also don't forget using the no true Scotsman fallacy several times.

The No True Scotsman fallacy is where you, in support of a generalization, say counterexamples don't count. I'm the one pointing out the counterexamples to the generalization many of you guys keep asserting. I don't think I'm the one using that fallacy here.

You literally said this:

I am aware that there are always people who fit misconceptions or are inconsistent or hypocritical; from my experience they do not necessarily represent the majority.

You blame social media for these "misconceptions," but the stereotypical view of a pro-lifer is decades older than the modern internet, and that stereotype exists for a reason -- and one of those reasons is they all support laws that are absolutely cruel.

[Spidey]

The right thing to do is.........nothing.

Who the hell gave you the right to decide who lives and who dies?

Your inaction is killing people all over the world...when is the last time you went to Africa and fed some starving person?

Isn't this the argument though? That the same right that you have to not donate money to save someone from starving to death is the same right that you have to not carry a pregnancy to term?

No. because I'm not personally responsible for the starving person (unless you apply the butterfly principal)

If I was responsible for the person starving, then I would have an obligation to correct the situation.

And remember...I have never claimed to be Pro-Life, I have always said it is none of my business if a woman wants to kill their unborn babies.

My problem has always been expecting me to accept the justifications that others use to have an abortion. (if you recall any of the previous discussions)

And you probably remember my philosophy on all things alive having the right to stay that way from previous conversations, and although it may seem as Pro-Life I never expect other people to conform to my personal beliefs, and have no active part in turning over Roe v Wade or denying any human rights to people.