What's new

Roe v. Wade is going down

It is, and it is also why there are carve-outs for those instances in nearly every piece of legislation. The dishonest side is the one claiming because those instances exist that all women should be able to kill their own children.
There is that word again.
You never answered my question about whether a person who takes their family member off life support is a killer like you call these women.
 
You never answered my question about whether a person who takes their family member off life support is a killer like you call these women.
Are they choosing to end the life of a human? Yes. 100% yes they are choosing to end the life of a human being. The arguments in such cases are over it being compassionate for the afflicted, not that the family member isn't a human or that it is empowering for the ones who don't want to visit the hospital anymore because it is like boring and totally cramping their social life.
 
Are they choosing to end the life of a human? Yes. 100% yes they are choosing to end the life of a human being. The arguments in such cases are over it being compassionate for the afflicted, not that the family member isn't a human or that it is empowering for the ones who don't want to visit the hospital anymore because it is like boring and totally cramping their social life.
Sometimes the argument/reason for abortion is also over it being compassionate for the fetus rather than that its not human or whatever.
 
I read everything you say in response to one of my posts but expecting that I go back to search for everything you've ever written, ever, is ridiculous. And you were responding to a comment I made to OneBrow, not you. The biggest fault I see in your thinking is that you outsource your own morals. An act is right or wrong because she thinks it is, or because of what consensus says. It is all someone else. It is all go along to get along. There is no ownership.

Is it a good thing if your family, friends, and neighbors are more likely to be a victim of crime? Without looking around to see what everyone else thinks, is a rising crime rate a good thing? How about rising divorce rates? Do you think it is a good thing when families split apart and lawyers take a third of everything that couple has built over their lives? Do you want to see more of that? How about suicide rate? Do you have an opinion of your own on the health of a society that increasingly chooses to kill themselves. Do you think children raised by single mothers do better at life than children raised in two-parent households? The data on all of this is absolutely damning.

While I don't agree with the prescriptions this guy makes at the conclusion of his video, his examination of the data is very good.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sp_rgqRugho
Ok, you make a good argument for abortion. Unwanted children contribute to everything you mentioned.

Sent from my SM-G986U using JazzFanz mobile app
 
I read everything you say in response to one of my posts but expecting that I go back to search for everything you've ever written, ever, is ridiculous. And you were responding to a comment I made to OneBrow, not you. The biggest fault I see in your thinking is that you outsource your own morals. An act is right or wrong because she thinks it is, or because of what consensus says. It is all someone else. It is all go along to get along. There is no ownership.

Is it a good thing if your family, friends, and neighbors are more likely to be a victim of crime? Without looking around to see what everyone else thinks, is a rising crime rate a good thing? How about rising divorce rates? Do you think it is a good thing when families split apart and lawyers take a third of everything that couple has built over their lives? Do you want to see more of that? How about suicide rate? Do you have an opinion of your own on the health of a society that increasingly chooses to kill themselves. Do you think children raised by single mothers do better at life than children raised in two-parent households? The data on all of this is absolutely damning.

While I don't agree with the prescriptions this guy makes at the conclusion of his video, his examination of the data is very good.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sp_rgqRugho

You presume to reframe my comment in the most ugly way possible. That's just ********. At least ask my position. But we already know your aren't intellectually honest about any of your arguments. You're maybe a half step above a troll. Don't presume then make unfounded accusations. And yes, if you are going to make inflammatory comments for no good reason you should go educate yourself on someone's position and not jump to insults and vitriol just to get your jollies. It's disgusting tbpfhwy.
 
Sometimes the argument/reason for abortion is also over it being compassionate for the fetus rather than that its not human or whatever.
If you want to carve out exceptions for debilitating birth defects then I'm open to listening, but that doesn't describe 99%+ of abortions.
 
Sometimes the argument/reason for abortion is also over it being compassionate for the fetus rather than that its not human or whatever.
Or the safety of the mother, or not forcing a 10 year old incest rape victim to carry a baby to term against her will and possibly causing permanent damage to her body and definitely furthering the damage to her psyche.

But he's not honest in the discussion. No reason to further it with him.
 
Ok, you make a good argument for abortion. Unwanted children contribute to everything you mentioned.
The video I linked earlier addresses the Freakonomics claim, but the more disturbing thing about your argument is that it could be used exactly as you are using it to justify the genocide of Black Americans. I am very comfortable with my intellectually consistent position of believing the intentional killing of the unborn and a planned genocide of Black Americans are both morally abhorrent ideas.
 
You have a hilariously backwards view. It isn't the fetus that is pregnant. It isn't the fetus secreting all the hormones that change a woman's body.
You have a hilariously ignorant view of the complex interactions that occur between an embryo/fetus and the person carrying them. If one takes a hammer to another's hand, the pain will emanate from the nerve cells and brain cells of that other, the inflammation response will come from the other's immune system, etc.; nevertheless, we blame the pain, inflammation, etc. on the wielder of the hammer.

It is the woman's body, and in nearly every case it is the result of an act the woman chose to commit.
It's always about punishing the woman for choosing to have sex, which is why rape and incest exceptions exist.
 
Is it a good thing if your family, friends, and neighbors are more likely to be a victim of crime? Without looking around to see what everyone else thinks, is a rising crime rate a good thing? How about rising divorce rates? Do you think it is a good thing when families split apart and lawyers take a third of everything that couple has built over their lives? Do you want to see more of that? How about suicide rate? Do you have an opinion of your own on the health of a society that increasingly chooses to kill themselves. Do you think children raised by single mothers do better at life than children raised in two-parent households? The data on all of this is absolutely damning.
Over the first two decades of the 21st century, the marriage rate has continued to decline, yet the crime rate and divorce rate have also declined (according to Colttaine's hypothesis, both should have risen), while the suicide rate has increased (according to the hypothesis, should have lowered with lower divorce rates). Time has undone many of the correlations Colttaine relied on.
 
It's always about punishing the woman for choosing to have sex, which is why rape and incest exceptions exist.
That is quite a view of children you've got there. I don't view having a family as "punishment".

Over the first two decades of the 21st century, the marriage rate has continued to decline, yet the crime rate and divorce rate have also declined (according to Colttaine's hypothesis, both should have risen), while the suicide rate has increased (according to the hypothesis, should have lowered with lower divorce rates).
Crime rates in the seven years since his video are up, not down, and the divorce statistics are only falling because the marriage rate has collapsed. The percentage of people who can sustain a successful marriage has fallen every year since the birth control pill hit the market. Not a single one of those statistics cited are better than they were when our society was altered by that product.
 
Last edited:
That is quite a view of children you've got there. I don't view having a family as "punishment".
If you didn't want a family then you probably would. Many men view a woman getting pregnant as a punishment. I have heard the phrase that getting a woman pregnant "is the definition of a life sentence"
Im sure there are women who dont want a family but end up pregnant who feel like they are being punished.
 
That is quite a view of children you've got there. I don't view having a family as "punishment".
Nor do I, but when you're forced to have children you don't want, it is a punishment.

Crime rates in the seven years since his video are up, not down, and the divorce statistics are only falling because the marriage rate has collapsed. The percentage of people who can sustain a successful marriage has fallen every year since the birth control pill hit the market. Not a single one of those statistics cited are better than they were when our society was altered by that product.
Missing/dodging the point that they have behaved in ways counter to the hypothesis over the 2010s.
 
Missing/dodging the point that they have behaved in ways counter to the hypothesis over the 2010s.
Except that is hasn't. The hypothesis was centered on changes to society from the introduction of birth control, and at no point in the 2010's did those metrics drop to pre-1960 levels. As use became more widespread, the metrics all moved in one direction and by the 2010's there was market saturation so the levels plateaued which is exactly what you'd expect to see if the hypothesis were correct. It isn't the only variable but the data makes it easy to argue that it is the single strongest component. Looking at the data it is very difficult to make the case that it has been a net positive to society which is why most choose to pretend the data doesn't exist.
 
Last edited:
The video I linked earlier addresses the Freakonomics claim, but the more disturbing thing about your argument is that it could be used exactly as you are using it to justify the genocide of Black Americans. I am very comfortable with my intellectually consistent position of believing the intentional killing of the unborn and a planned genocide of Black Americans are both morally abhorrent ideas.

You're sounding like Trump, bringing up genocide of blacks then acting like you're not racist.
 
Except that is hasn't. The hypothesis was centered on changes to society from the introduction of birth control,
Birth control has been around since at least the 15th century.

and at no point in the 2010's did those metrics drop to pre-1960 levels. As use became more widespread, the metrics all moved in one direction and by the 2010's there was market saturation so the levels plateaued which is exactly what you'd expect to see if the hypothesis were correct.
Except, not all levels plateaued. Some moved up, some moved down, and supposedly related measures moved in ways that defied the hypothesized relationships.

It isn't the only variable but the data makes it easy to argue that it is the single strongest component.
That should have raised your skeptical radar right there. You have all kinds of complex social changes, and you are attributing them to a single cause? That's not how the world works. There are always multiple forces at play. I could make a similar argument regarding LSD use (with the recent uptick in use preceding the recent uptick in crime), or average length of skirts/shorts on women.

Looking at the data it is very difficult to make the case that it has been a net positive to society which is why most choose to pretend the data doesn't exist.
Looking at the data, it is difficult to conclude anything, unless you want to conclude a specific thing.
 
So what are the reasons abortion is okay by your standards? Birth defects? Rape? Incest?
In theory I don’t have a problem with abortions for birth defects, incest, or rape, but in practice the rape exception concerns me a bit because women lie. Our justice system is incredibly gynocentric. The family court system is notoriously biased against men, but even in the criminal courts men receive 63% longer sentences than women do for committing the same crime.

Even with as fundamentally structured as our system is to favor women, less than 1% of supposed rapes end in a felony conviction because 99% of the time women are full of crap. Remember that we are talking about women who want to kill their own children. Do you really think a woman like that will think killing her own child is fine, but saying “her truth” that isn’t the actual truth is inconceivable?

I fear that if making an allegation of rape is all that is needed to gain access to a professional who will kill her unwanted child, claims of rape will be like the claims of seeking asylum when border patrol catches those illegally crossing into the United States. It'll just be the thing they know to say. A lot more young men will wrongfully face charges of rape and the child will end up just as dead.
 
Back
Top