Both my sources in this thread piint to credible people witnessing the supernatural with these things
Both of your sources are anecdotal. I have personally assisted in exorcism. Are you prepared to accept my testimony as uncritically?
Both my sources in this thread piint to credible people witnessing the supernatural with these things
Both of your sources are anecdotal. I have personally assisted in exorcism. Are you prepared to accept my testimony as uncritically?
Sidewalker wrote:
You shouldn't be prejudiced against a person just because of the shape of their skin.
Uh, sure?
RemyBrown wrote:
"Unreasonable" is vague.
You're being pedantic:
pedantic
adjective
us
/pɪˈdænt·ɪk/
caring too much about unimportant rules or details and not enough about understanding or appreciating a subject
Best I can tell, exorcism is an antiquated (and ineffective) way of dealing with mental health issues.
RemyBrown wrote:
List them then.
Any policy which is built on an unreasonable intolerance of a entire group of individuals (eg. Jews, drag queens, LGBTQ, immigrants).
I'm just saying it would be effective at reducing the number of abortions.
I'm not convinced of that, and I not sure why you are.
RemyBrown wrote:
Do you think, "Many" or, "All"?
"Many socially conservative opinions are ignorant by definition."
I can understand the problem of enforcement. But by all accounts, Savant has proven bans will stop some people. And that makes it worth it.
Overwhelmingly, bans do not stop people - they make many abortions unsafe. It is best to address the underlying issue and have these procedures under regulation.
[Link]
As for the idea of abortion being a mercy- who are you to do decide that? Who are you to say, an autistic person would be better off not living?
Who are you to put words in my mouth? Abortion can certainly be viewed as a mercy when it comes to nonviable pregnancies and preventing suffering associated with such a pregnancy going to term. Secondly, so far as I am aware, autism isnt something has ever been linked to justifications for abortion. I view that as a gross misunderstanding of the typical argument for abortion and autism.
Suicide is awful, but if one of them is unhappy, they can off themselves later in life
I say this as someone who is autistic and has difficulty understanding social norms ...you should stop talking. Someone might think you're suggesting autistic people are right to think about suicide. 😬
No, woman's body doesnt belong to woman, it belongs to humanity, and humanity cannot survive if women dont fulfill their role.
If humanity can't figure out how to survive without slavery, it doesnt deserve it.
Banning the procedure doesnt remove the underlying need. That is what needs to be addressed. Abortion is a symptom of many things - ignorance, lack of contraception, inability to provide, etc. Under certain circumstances, it is a mercy or a necessity - maternal mortality, fetal abnormality, etc. Banning the procedure is like taking a northern route to get to a western destination. Undoubtedly, It is a lot of energy going in the wrong direction.
Legal abortions decreased and illegal abortions increased, I'm not disputing that. I
So it sounds like these are people who would have gotten abortions anyway, not people getting abortions just because of the ban?
Yes, thats the point. Bans dont cause people to get abortions. People get abortions in spite of bans.
If the goal is to reduce abortions, bans are a demonstarably poor strategy.
That's not really representative, and it indicates people got abortions they were planning to get anyway in anticipation of bans making them harder to get long term
It seems like you agree with OP, unless youre arguing bans weren't pretty much in full effect in 2023?
In Northern Europe, the restrictiveness of abortion laws explains 72% of the variation in the abortion ratio (the percentage of pregnancies ending in abortion).
It is unclear what this is supposed to mean ir how it is relevant.
Pregnant women before Roe vs. Wade had dramatically lower abortion rates.
Dramatically lower *legal* abortion rates. Meanwhile, legal abortions were dramatically increased:
"A study of low-income women in New York City in the 1960s found that almost one in 10 (8%) had ever attempted to terminate a pregnancy by illegal abortion; almost four in 10 (38%) said that a friend, relative or acquaintance had attempted to obtain an abortion. Of the low-income women in that study who said they had had an abortion, eight in 10 (77%) said that they had attempted a self-induced procedure, with only 2% saying that a physician had been involved in any way."
When Bulgaria liberalized its abortion laws, the abortion rate increased by a factor of over 30.
Explicitly temporary
If we just take your stat at face value, it's implying banning abortion in general makes people want it more, but how exactly does that work?
Thats a fair criticism. While the number of proceedures have gone up nationwide, the data also show shows drastic increases in non-ban states. For instance, in 2023 illinois had a 71% increase compared to 2020. Virginia had a 77% increase. North Carolina 44%. New Mexico had a 256% increase. The increases are generally due to travel across states lines.
SatanLucy wrote:
Cool - do you have any thoughts on the subject of this thread?
Yes, bans reduce number of legal abortions.
Then the issue, for you, isn't really about reducing abortions.
Also, abortion isnt banned in USA, so your study is a bit wack.
6 week bans are quite common and effective at making (legal) abortions difficult to obtain given the legal cutoff is only 2 weeks beyond a missed period.
tho if you want women to be a better baby factory, one must also ban contraception and healthcare. (edit: and education too)
Yikes. I have no interest in forced birth (and everything that is wrong with that suggestion). I am only interested in preventing unwanted pregnancies. Reduced unwanted pregnancies = reduced abortions.
In case of USA, its enough to just travel about 100 miles where abortion is legal
Lol, Thats not true. The closest abortion clinic to me is 6 hours away, and I live in North Texas. Someone who lives further south in, say, Corpus Christi is driving 12 to 13 hours.
If I had a girlfriend and she wanted abortion, I would say I will leave her if she has an abortion, cuz I aint staying in a relationship with an abortionist abomination.
Imagine all the emotional abuse she would miss if she stayed with you! You really know how to woo a girl!
This does not by itself establish a causal relationship between abortion laws and birth rates, as birth rates are also strongly influenced by factors including education, contraceptive access, child mortality, income, urbanization, and age at marriage.
This disclaimer argues against the point you're trying to make...
Cool - do you have any thoughts on the subject of this thread?
Title should be "Do bans reduce abortions? Autocorrect can kiss my ask. 😉
No. Bans do not, in fact, reduce the number of abortions. This has been known for a long time, yet we as an ignorant collective dimly continue to push for the same failed strategy thinking, 'this time it will be different'. Surpise - it isnt. If reducing abortion is really the goal (which I question), then we should recognize the importance of REAL sex ed and the value of access to contraception. Shielding our children from understanding how their bodies work and telling them 'abstinence is the way' isnt working. Again - shocker.
New findings from the Monthly Abortion Provision Study show that an estimated 1,037,000 abortions occurred in the formal health care system in 2023, the first full calendar year after the US Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization overturned Roe v. Wade. This represents a rate of 15.9 abortions per 1,000 women of reproductive age,* and is a 11% increase since 2020, the last year for which comprehensive estimates are available. It is also the highest number and rate measured in the United States in over a decade.
https://www.guttmacher.org/2024/03/despite-bans-number-abortions-united-states-increased-2023
wylted wrote:
They slashed waste in those areas which makes them more sustainable. Kinda evil of you to think those services should be unsustainable and not be there for the long term to help people
That certainly seems to be the thinking when it comes to bailing out corporations or having distractionary wars with Iran.
It was an abuse of power on Trump's part. It was another demonstration that FIFA allows outside influences to affect what happens on the pitch. I was disappointed Balogun nor the US team didn't say 'thanks, but no thanks'. Not a shread of integrity to be found anywhere around this.
I cheered for Belgium.
linate wrote:
Why does anyone have to believe the accuser here?
There are multiple accusers. Platner is the common denominator. It seems likely he crossed a line.
SatanLucy wrote:
If you hate abortions and child murder, you cannot vote for democrats. Not voting for democrats helps prevent murder of unborn.
So yah, anyway...back to Graham Platner?
All socially conservative opinions are ignorant to the left, so being ignorant (by the definition of being right wing) is a good thing.
Many socially conservative opinions are ignorant by definition.
fauxlaw wrote:
hasn't worked in any authoritative way in 6 centuries.
Not supposed to work by authoritative ways. It's an individual effort with individual accomplishment results, always. Since Eden, not just a few hundred years. Hell, socialism has never succeeded for that long. Never will, because it basically ignores individual effort as a key ingredient.
Yikes. This has gone off the rails! The subject was gender/sex.
with someone like trump, even if it was proven beyond doubt he was a rapist
Its been established by a preponderance of evidence in the E Jean Carrol civil trial. Yet, folks still support him. It's all very cult-y.
The only thing I wonder is when(if) he will finally face accountability.
OK, OK, my bad, I said “vast majority” when it’s only 90%, I’m sorry I upset you.
So which is it, an appeal to the nature of humanity (excluding a significant portion of humans) or an fallacious appeal to popularity?
OK, so you are saying atheism is a statement of belief.
Atheism is a statement regarding belief. Theism is a statement of belief.
You can’t say humans have eyesight because there are blind people
You can’t say people have two legs because there are people with one leg
The portion of humanity that doesnt subscribe to supernatural is 20 times the portion that can't see. 1250 times more than people missing limbs. These are not comparable.
10% is a significant chunk of humanity. All people over the age of 65 make up 10% of humanity. Characterizing humanity while excluding such a large demographic undeniably skews the picture being painted.
That's your pfp. What does that have to do with America besides the graphic added to the bottom corner?
I told you they are not my definitions, Boyo. Go butter-up the OED [from six centuries ago]
Most people aren't proudly admitting their ideas were in fashion 6 centuries ago...
I think the simplistic answer is that Republicans either honestly believe in the trickle-down and bootstrap ideologies or they are wealthy. One is a matter of true belief and the other is a matter of personal benefit at the expense of society.
Gender is determined at conception,
The most correct thing you could say (which is still wrong given intersex conditions) is that *sex* (not gender) is determined at conception. Your summary from your source states sex and gender are distinct. The modern definition of gender from the OED states:
Psychology and Sociology (originally U.S.). The state of being male or female as expressed by social or cultural distinctions and differences, rather than biological ones; the collective attributes or traits associated with a particular sex, or determined as a result of one's sex. Also: a (male or female) group characterized in this way.
