[Verv]

As I said in my post to which you replied, science shows that banning abortions does not recuse the number of abortions.

Science also says that banning abortion causes higher maternal mortality.

I had posted information which showed that the total number of abortions in the US has gone down, but I would concede that it can be largley uncountable with things like the morning after pill.

There would have to be a large cultural effort to bring people back from the current excesses that they participate in, sadly, so I am not shocked to hear that abortions do increase in other states and many order the pill.

Now, what is funny about what you are saying is your misuse of the word science - unless you want to broadly refer to any any soft science as a "science!" and further bury the credence that the word "science" used to have. Is that your goal, POD?

Sorry, I already closed the tab. I suggest opening the article you cited and following the links. I think that is how I found it.

OK, I will consider it.

You literally just listed a bunch of reasons why a woman would also choose not to use a condom.

Yes, exactly - why they would forego a condom if they knew that there was still one thing left they could do if they fell pregnant.

I am now dismissing this tangent because of the complete lack of evidence.

Then you will have an incomplete picture of reality - which goes to show that you have some kind of abnormality in how you communicate and function in the world. Some people even speculated that you are a bot in Gorkiy Park, but I know better: before there was any kind of popular AI on the market that would enable this kind of thing to be done, you were just like this.

[late]

You are playing with definitions and languge to justify infanticide and you call it science.

Thanks for making my point for me.

Law in Modern countries is secular, it has to be secular. Which means Dobbs will be overturned when the Supreme Court isn't dominated by incompetent hacks.

Btw, your power play is an attempt to play with definitions and language to hide religious motivation. I can go over this in detail, but seriously, this situation is both old and stupid.

There is a profoundly deep irony in that the actors that made abortion controversial did it as part of an attack on the people of America, to reduce them to 2nd class citizenship, at best.

One of the good things about Dobbs, with women dying and suffering horrific injuries from being denied health care, is that it makes the ethics clear and simple. This is a f**king nightmare inflicted on women and female children by incompetents.

Btw, I live in Maine, which has the most liberal abortion law in the country. The state doesn't lift your skirts. We also have a bill under consideration that would add abortion to the Maine constitution.

[Fasces]

You are playing with definitions and languge to justify infanticide and you call it science.

The man using the term infanticide to describe the termination of what he himself recognizes is not an 'infant' calling out other's for "abuse of language."

An infant or neonate, by every definition, has to have been born. A 39 week old fetus is not an infant or neonate. A 35 week premie is an infant or neonate. The word you're looking for is feticide, but that doesn't have the rhetorical punch you want.

[Pants-of-dog]

I had posted information which showed that the total number of abortions in the US has gone down, but I would concede that it can be largley uncountable with things like the morning after pill.

No.

You posted information which showed that the total number of legal abortions in the US has gone down. I then posted scientific studies showing that this does not mean that the total number has gone down.

Yes, exactly - why they would forego a condom if they knew that there was still one thing left they could do if they fell pregnant.

Other than all the reasons you just listed?

A lack of good sex education would also make them less likely to use a condom.

And the states that have banned abortion almost certainly have very poor sex education.

[Verv]

The man using the term infanticide to describe the termination of what he himself recognizes is not an 'infant' calling out other's for "abuse of language."

An infant or neonate, by every definition, has to have been born. A 39 week old fetus is not an infant or neonate. A 35 week premie is an infant or neonate. The word you're looking for is feticide, but that doesn't have the rhetorical punch you want.

There are broad definitions of it, though: the Cambridge Dictionary defines it as the act of killing a child.

A child can be a toddler, or an infant, or a more grown up kid.

... Or the child in the womb.

[Verv]

Thanks for making my point for me.

Law in Modern countries is secular, it has to be secular. Which means Dobbs will be overturned when the Supreme Court isn't dominated by incompetent hacks.

This is a stupid statement unless you use modern in a loaded way. Of course, law in Western liberal democracies is generally secular, but even in many of these states there are establishments of religion with special status... And what would it even mean that the law is secular...?

But OK. I get what you are saying but this is very clumsy phrasing... And it's fractally wrong because you have also smuggled into this the idea that you cannot be anti-infanticide if you're not religious, while majority areligious/athesitic nations like South Korea illegalized abortion.

In fact, feudal Korea followed Chinese concepts of abortion: there was no penalty for the inducement of an abortion in the first trimester. In fact, if a woman was in the first trimester and physically assaulted resulting in loss of the fetus, it was specifically stated that the perpetrator would only face punishment for the wounds inflicted on the woman, but after the first trimester, he would face 80 lashes and two years imprisonment explicitly for aborting the fetus.

... The first abortion laws in South Korea came during Japanese occupation, with Article 533 imposed on them by the Japanese that illegalized any kind of medically induced abortion. (건강과 대안)

... This is the government, of course, that illegalized Christianity and practiced state Shintoism and worked in close cooperation with Buddhism, so that's fun.

Subsequently, south Korea would illegalize abortion in 1953, after the Korean war. At this time, Korea was a largely Buddhist and shamanist society with the Christian numbers in the single digits. Anyone familiar with Korean Buddhists would also say that this was very low intensity - probably the bulk of people never attended temple and had no serious religious beliefs.

Korea was officially secular in 1953 -- Syngman Rhee was a Protestant, but Park Chunghee, who truly shaped the country, was religionless, his wife a Buddhist, and his daughter famously a member of a Shamanist cult.

It's just not an accurate characterization of abortion policy...

Btw, your power play is an attempt to play with definitions and language to hide religious motivation. I can go over this in detail, but seriously, this situation is both old and stupid.

No... It's a belief held by many religious and non-religious alike. It's a logical perception of when life begins.

I understand, though, how materialists can calculate it: the fetus does not have thoughts, and has not yet had thoughts, and the future does not necessarily exist for it or for anyone else and should not be considered to be of value by itself, so it is not a big deal to terminate it.

This is the exact attitude Romans and such had towards neonates - and the idea you would still have if there was no reliable abortion procedure.

One of the good things about Dobbs, with women dying and suffering horrific injuries from being denied health care, is that it makes the ethics clear and simple. This is a f**king nightmare inflicted on women and female children by incompetents.

Women are being literally aborted in the womb, bro.

Btw, I live in Maine, which has the most liberal abortion law in the country. The state doesn't lift your skirts. We also have a bill under consideration that would add abortion to the Maine constitution.

Terrible!

[Verv]

BTW, just to clarify and try to extend an olive branch... I do not think women who have done this are murderers. Of course, I believe they have killed babies, because to me it is a baby, a real human life that is sacred... But I understand that this is 100% different than literally looking at someone and then killing them.

I guess I feel a little bit like how you feel about the fact that dogs are still eaten by some people... Or how I suppose some Indians feel about us eating beef, and vegetarians about us eating meat in general... We are absolutely snuffing out worthwhile lives, but we do so without malice, and just as a cultural practice.

I am more concerned with tryign to give the pro-life perspective a fair hearing, and tryng to advance the pro-life culture... And I would like to say, in this day and age of endless birth control methods, please always and faithfully use them.

Since we have so many methods, everyone should feel an obligation to use them unless they are trying to have a child, and if they still somehow get pregnant, accept responsibility. God (or fate or the Universe or however you want to call it) really wants you to have a kid if you use protection and it still happens... Life is never a mistake, go with it.

I do not fully agree with "safe, legal, and rare," but I feel comfortable living in a society where this seems to be the real effort. What saddens me is that in the post-Dobbs world, this idea of it being 'rare' is seen as superfluous.

[Pants-of-dog]

If the goal is to reduce abortions, then people should see what actually reduces abortions and try to do more of that.

Banning abortion does not reduce abortions, according to the science.

So what does? Free birth control is one.

[late]

This is a stupid statement unless you use modern in a loaded way. Of course, law in Western liberal democracies is generally secular, but even in many of these states there are establishments of religion with special status... And what would it even mean that the law is secular...?

But OK. I get what you are saying but this is very clumsy phrasing... And it's fractally wrong because you have also smuggled into this the idea that you cannot be anti-infanticide if you're not religious, while majority areligious/athesitic nations like South Korea illegalized abortion.

In fact, feudal Korea followed Chinese concepts of abortion: there was no penalty for the inducement of an abortion in the first trimester. In fact, if a woman was in the first trimester and physically assaulted resulting in loss of the fetus, it was specifically stated that the perpetrator would only face punishment for the wounds inflicted on the woman, but after the first trimester, he would face 80 lashes and two years imprisonment explicitly for aborting the fetus.

... The first abortion laws in South Korea came during Japanese occupation, with Article 533 imposed on them by the Japanese that illegalized any kind of medically induced abortion. (건강과 대안)

... This is the government, of course, that illegalized Christianity and practiced state Shintoism and worked in close cooperation with Buddhism, so that's fun.

Subsequently, south Korea would illegalize abortion in 1953, after the Korean war. At this time, Korea was a largely Buddhist and shamanist society with the Christian numbers in the single digits. Anyone familiar with Korean Buddhists would also say that this was very low intensity - probably the bulk of people never attended temple and had no serious religious beliefs.

Korea was officially secular in 1953 -- Syngman Rhee was a Protestant, but Park Chunghee, who truly shaped the country, was religionless, his wife a Buddhist, and his daughter famously a member of a Shamanist cult.

It's just not an accurate characterization of abortion policy...



No... It's a belief held by many religious and non-religious alike. It's a logical perception of when life begins.

I understand, though, how materialists can calculate it: the fetus does not have thoughts, and has not yet had thoughts, and the future does not necessarily exist for it or for anyone else and should not be considered to be of value by itself, so it is not a big deal to terminate it.

This is the exact attitude Romans and such had towards neonates - and the idea you would still have if there was no reliable abortion procedure.



Women are being literally aborted in the womb, bro.



Terrible!

Law had to be secular, I don't give a flying f**k what Japan did to Korea. The American Founding Fathers made a secular government because Europe had suffered war after war thanks to religion.

This means you can't rape language...