Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, eliminating constitutional right to abortion

The Rockets play in Gilead, but I’d rather discuss Hunter’s leaked hooker pics.

 

Let's be clear.... "god" is the biggest abortion provider via miscarriages. It was never about the kids.

 

What does supporting socialism have to do with not murdering children?

 

Media Bias Alert: Slanted Reports on Nebraska Teen Jailed for Burning Remains After Abortion

https://www.allsides.com/blog/media...ka-teen-jailed-burning-remains-after-abortion

excerpt:

The New York Times (Lean Left) and many other media outlets showed numerous types of media bias when reporting on a Nebraska teen jailed for illegally concealing human remains after a self-induced abortion, including bias by slant, bias by omission, and bias by viewpoint placement.

In their headlines, numerous media outlets obscured the fact that the teen was jailed for illegally concealing human remains, not for having an abortion. They showed slant and bias by omission, which made it appear the teen was jailed for having an abortion.

The New York Times’ headline, “Nebraska Teen Who Used Pills to End Pregnancy Gets 90 Days in Jail,” is slanted, making it appear that the teen was jailed for ending her pregnancy under a Nebraska law that banned abortion after 20 weeks (the law now bans abortion after 12 weeks, following the overturning of Roe v. Wade). However, the headline omits that the teen was jailed for illegally concealing human remains, implying she was jailed for using pills to end her pregnancy. It is not until deep into the article, paragraph 16, that the Times clarifies, “Prosecutors did not charge Celeste Burgess under Nebraska’s abortion law,” showing some bias by placement. The New York Times, to its credit, does reveal the true cause of her conviction in the very first, or lede, paragraph.
​

more at the link

​

 

I know you know this, and you can digest what most of call decency (feeding little kids) as "socialism" if you like, but the point is this.

Why do you care more about pre-birth life than post-birth life. Never had a prouder day than when my (very old) father pulled his truck over and yelled at people picketing an abortion clinic.

"Have even one of you adopted a child?"
*crickets*
"Volunteer to help needy kids. Anyone? Deliver a meal, volunteer at pre-K? Anything?"
*crickets*

You can (and will) say it's logically consistent to take a strident stand on a debatable (to most of us) stage of proto-life and then take a very harsh (to most of us) stand on the youngest post-birth lives... but it looks ridiculous (and transparent) to most of us. It's not about giving humans a chance. It's about control, whether you digest it that way or not. Cheers.

 

How is opposing the government taking property from people and giving it to other people supporting control? Control by whom of what? I am against killing people. I am against taking things from people. No, none of this is inconsistent. I hate to tell you this, but most abortions are not of children that would be born into a situation where they will starve to death, or even be malnourished. In fact, there is no poverty-based starvation in America. Most abortions are not of children who will not receive an education. Saying someone is not supporting life because they don't think we need publicly funded university education is ridiculous. I do help needy people, I have volunteered in education of children. None of that should matter, because as a matter of policy, you can oppose killing and also not spend your time or money on those things.

 

First off there is poverty starvation in the US
https://www.thehivelaw.com/blog/how-many-people-starve-to-death-in-america/
“13,690 people starve to death in America per year.

• 10.2% (13.5M) of households are food insecure in the US.
• 33.8M people experience food insecurity every day. “
  
• 
  There is a fundamental philosophical question about when life begins so while you may firmly believe that life begins at conception many don’t. In that sense yes you can throw out rhetoric about “murdering children” that probably satisfies you morally but is really just talking past people and hardening positions.
• 
  If we want to talk about reducing abortions what others have stated does show promise in reducing abortions. Even before the latest ruling overturning Roe abortions were declining even in states that had fairly permissive laws. This is where the pragmatic and even Libertarian position should be instead of relying upon legal bans to find other solutions that can reduce the demand for abortions. As a lawyer you recognize that just making something illegal doesn’t do away with the demand. As in the case of recreational drugs. In many cases like we’re seeing with Fentanyl it just pushes it to aa largely uncontrolled black market. I don’t see why simply outlawing abortions would be any different and given history we know that abortions happened before Roe.

 

There is no poverty based starvation in America. Americans starve to death pretty much exclusively when they are unable to care for themselves and are neglected (old people, the disabled, and very small children). The federal government and I believe every state provide food assistance that will give you enough calories to avoid starvation.

I am not going to police my language to assuage the feelings of people who don't believe life begins at conception. Abortions terminate the life of a human being who has not yet reached adulthood. That is killing children, in my book. Where done illegally, that would be murdering children.

Just because making something illegal doesn't stop it, doesn't mean we don't make things illegal. Yes, we should also provide easy access to contraception. Yes, we should provide comprehensive education (though I doubt many pregnant girls really didn't know how babies are made). No, doing so doesn't preclude outlawing abortion. According to the Journal of the American Medical Association, the abortion restrictions in Texas post Dodds reduced the number of abortions by 10,000. Not increased, not pushed underground, reduced. That, to me, means the abortion restrictions have had a positive impact.

 

I provided you the evidence you can choose to not believe it but that is opinion then and not fact.

You can say what you want but that’s not really debate. That’s just you expressing moral self righteousness. You’re not alone in doing so and admit to doing so myself but that is talking past each other.

I doubt the AMA has stats regarding underground abortions. Also from what you just wrote would indicate it didn’t stop abortions. As noted again abortion was declining even before Dobbs so it could also be possible that any declines could also be caused by those factors.

 

You didn't provide me with evidence, you provided me with a cartoonishly bad article that made the unsupported assertion that for every 1,000 people who are food insecure, there are 0.37 who starve to death, then calculated that this means 13,690 people starve to death. That isn't evidence of anything. They also list as causal factors "living in a food desert" among other things. No one in America has no access to food.
Here is the CDCs top ten causes of death every year from 1981 through 2020.
Injuries and Violence Are Leading Causes of Death | Injury Center | CDC
13,690 would be in the fifth to seventh place range every year. Maybe the CDC just forgot to include starvation.

You are not required to engage, either at all or specifically on the point of whether abortion is killing a child. If it helps you, just replace it in your head with humanely dispose of a clump of random cells which bear no relation to human life.

Take that up with JAMA, they are the ones who attributed that number of fewer abortions to the restrictions. Texas didn't ban abortions, so I don't know why you would expect the increased restrictions to absolutely stop them. We have outlawed murder, but there are still murders. Maybe we should just scrap those pesky murder laws, since they didn't work. What a disingenuous argument to make. Argue in favor of abortion if you want, but to say that banning something doesn't absolutely stop it from happening means we shouldn't ban it is nonsense.

 

Is that actually what the JAMA study concluded? My understanding is that they conclude that there may have been an increase of 10,000 births, not that there was 10,000 fewer abortions. And that there may have been other factors that effected the birth rate.

Can you show where in the study it concluded there were 10,000 fewer abortions?

 

Texas’ 2021 Ban on Abortion in Early Pregnancy and Changes in Live Births | Law and Medicine | JAMA | JAMA Network
I don't have access to the full article, but the abstract indicates they are talking about fewer abortions. That would of course also have a concomitant increase in live births, as a large percentage of children who are not aborted will be born. The CNN article about the JAMA article only frames it in terms of increase in births, but also talks about how the other factors related to the abortion decision may push down the birth rate. I don't know what about the abortion restrictions would increase the birth rate.

 

In other words, the study doesn't say 10,000 fewer abortions but rather in increase in live births. And there are multiple factors that can contribute to a larger number of live births.

 

Did you click the link? It says in the first month after SB8 abortions in Texas and adjacent states went down by 2171. So both an increase in live births and a reduction in abortions were talked about. I don't know if the 10,000 number is perfectly mapped to the abortion reductions as well. If the same rate as the first month held steady, the same nine-month period from the CNN article would correspond to 19,539 fewer abortions in Texas and six adjacent states. You can nitpick it all you like, but JAMA says the restrictions reduced abortions.

 

That isn't quoting the same study (that was a previous study), and that study included neighboring states, not just Texas. And it doesn't say the study found that the number of abortions were reduced by 10,000.

 

Perhaps you can answer a question for me, Judo. Is the "morning after" pill illegal now? Seems like the wide use of that option would eliminate the need for huge numbers of abortions, especially if there were a coordinated effort to publicize it and, if needed, make it very cheap thanks to government subsidies.

I'll add that there is indeed food insecurity in our country. Heck, there are large numbers of mentally challenged people, both on and off "the streets," that don't eat nearly as much as they should, sometimes with dire consequences, in my opinion.

 

So the pro-Abortion side is the one that cares about babies?! What greater and more certain control is that than life or death?

 

Not murdering children. Children are between the ages of one year and twelve years old.

 

According to whom?
Child - Wikipedia
Child Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
child, n. meanings, etymology and more | Oxford English Dictionary (oed.com)