Yes, you're pro-gay marriage too, right? As long as they marry a person of the opposite sex. I'm pro-capitalist too, as long as the means of production aren't privately owned. We're all just drawing different lines believing the same things. Amazing we cant just all hold hands and sign kumbaya.
Actually. Im not anti gay marriage from the state. My marriage is between my wife, myself and God. I dont give a rats donkey what the state thinks. Just dont force a church to honor it.
Hey man, sorry I hit you on the other thread about racism. Hated to make an example out of you, had to be done. It’s really what some of you guys do to us pubs.
So I just caught my wife up on this thread. Turns out, she is actually pro-life. And I’m the pro choice one…who knew? We don’t talk politics enough apparently.
Paraphrasing the immortal words of one of the great philosophers of our day, Ron White..."Just because the roller coaster is broken doesn't mean they have to shut down the entire amusement park."
Okay, so 14-25% don't apply to this general rule, which is a pretty substantial chunk of the 33% mentioned before. So that doesn't really back your notion that "1 in 3 isnt unaware after two weeks" as a medical fact, given that at least half that number wouldn't even find that weird (especially given that even more regular women can have the occasional skipped cycle).
C'mon man. It's not hard. Just say,: "OK Tilly, you were right. 14%-25% is less than 33%, and you did indeed prove it like i requested." And we can fistbump and move on.
I’m confused by this post, abortion has never been illegal nationally. Actually abortion has mostly been legal since even before this country’s founding. Roe didn’t suddenly make abortion legal nationally where it was previously illegal nationally. Roe actually reinforced what was English common law, that “the quickening” was a reasonable legal cutoff. Might be safe to say the religious zealot states are actually pushing much harder now than they ever did when Roe was originally being decided. All Roe did was restrict certain states from going too far, protecting the rights of women, now the zealots are going farther. All the way to conception, as many (falsely) assured they had no intention of doing… yet here we are. So how could someone provide “numbers” for a state of affairs that never existed? What plenty of studies have done is observe what happens in 3rd world countries that have fully outlawed abortion. The numbers don’t go down, mortality relating to pregnancy and child birth goes up substantially. We are already seeing the tip of the iceberg here in this country (the 5 women suing in TX, the woman in FL who went septic while trying to find a provider, etc). Those are just the ones who already came forward. One would hope here it isn’t as tragic as tends to be in the 3rd world, women with means here (including hypocritical Republican women) will travel across state lines to seek what they need. This hurts women without means the most, the ones trapped in states with 3rd world quality healthcare. If we are going all the way to conception to term, the damage will be more severe. Even if there are incrementally more pregnancies carried to term with a healthy child ( the “net gain” of births over the women who will die from complications), “unwanted” pregnancies are naturally disadvantageous compared to “wanted” pregnancies. If a women is forced to carry do you think it’s high likelihood to be a caring, loving home? Common sense would suggest it would be much more likely to be a socioeconomically disadvantaged home, or even create mental illness where the mother resents the existence of child she was forced to carry by the state government.
So you are convinced that beyond the up to 25% of women that are irregular, 8% of women couldn't miss a period and not be aware of it because they aren't irregular but had some other reason for either ignoring it or just not realizing it (such as a period of high stress)?
You are the one that joined my point I made with City's graph that 95% of abortions happen before 15-16 week, so having it as cutoff at that point does nothing to reduce numbers and you act like you made some revelation. I was simply stating if the desire is to reduce abortions, doing it at 16 weeks doesn't reduce them by much. Who is the dense one?
By the way, to my larger man’s paining point. Women have always been more likely to be pro choice than men are. And in Florida’s house they are a third of the votes and in the senate they are 37 percent or so. So it’s men by and large making this decision for women.
