The Gaming Den

violence in the media wrote:

tzor wrote:Frank, you are the one in fucking hell, and you should fucking know better. You cite a single case as though it was the fucking norm, as though all late term abortions are done on brain dead or already dead fetuses.

Late-Term Abortions are Never Necessary: Former Abortionist

Referring to a statement by Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, who admitted in 1997 that the vast majority of partial-birth abortions were performed on healthy mothers and babies, Dr. Davenport explains that "contrary to the assertion of abortion rights supporters that late- term abortion is performed for serious reasons, surveys of late abortion patients confirm that the vast majority occur because of delay in diagnosis of pregnancy. They are done for similar reasons as early abortions: relationship problems, young or old maternal age, education or financial concerns."

Again, those reasons and justifications are totally acceptable because fetuses aren't people and don't matter in comparison to the wants and needs of the woman carrying them.

But that's a point of contention that you and Tzor are never going to agree on. Yelling your opinion at him certainly isn't going to do jack or shit to change his mind.

Shit -- I'm not convinced a fetus that's viable outside the womb doesn't have some basic rights. And to be entirely clear what I mean by viable: If the fetus is healthy and could survive as a normal infant.

But again, my opinion is that my opinion doesn't fucking matter. It's not my body, it's the mother's. I don't get a say, you don't get a say, Tzor doesn't get a say. The mother, based on the advice of her doctor(s), is the only one.

Zherog wrote:But that's a point of contention that you and Tzor are never going to agree on. Yelling your opinion at him certainly isn't going to do jack or shit to change his mind.

It's probably worth a try though.

I mean since basically just proving he is wrong with facts isn't enough for him.

For instance, the law has declared that LSD has no clinical use.

You want to know something? LSD studies (which were stopped by that law) show that it can stop cluster headaches - a type of pain seizure we currently have no treatment for, which induces a level of pain to completely immobilize the sufferer - and that it could be used to trigger the novel response and create new learning pathways which can be used for well, learning, or treatment of PTSD.

But the law says it's against the law. So no more studies are done. And in fact, the entire class of drugs which have this effect are then shut down, and we can't even study why it does what it does!

The law is a terrible place to litigate whether a procedure should be used. You could ban limb removal because it's terrible and should never be used by choice. And yet, to do so would be to let many people die.

Why are you banning abortion and not limb-removal? Because... Why?

There's just no scientific evidence that supports the legal system getting involved between a woman and her doctor.

-Crissa

Zherog wrote:But that's a point of contention that you and Tzor are never going to agree on. Yelling your opinion at him certainly isn't going to do jack or shit to change his mind.

Shit -- I'm not convinced a fetus that's viable outside the womb doesn't have some basic rights. And to be entirely clear what I mean by viable: If the fetus is healthy and could survive as a normal infant.

But again, my opinion is that my opinion doesn't fucking matter. It's not my body, it's the mother's. I don't get a say, you don't get a say, Tzor doesn't get a say. The mother, based on the advice of her doctor(s), is the only one.

You have a very level head, dude. Much like you, I can say that my opinions on this subject are very clear-cut (it's the mother's decision, and not mine) but I can also agree that the issue itself is far from clear-cut, especially when it comes to definitions about whether a fetus qualifies as a life that deserves rights or not, and at what point does this occur.

This is a highly emotionally-charged issue, so those of us who choose to at least try to be civil and understand the opposing viewpoint deserve a gold star here. Besides which, your avatar is a Guinness, so I'd follow you to Hell and back just on general principles.

RobbyPants wrote:

K wrote:--There has been a strong correlation that shows that legalizing abortion reduces crime rates at a disproportionate rate, most likely because women least able to provide a nurturing environment are most likely to have abortions.

My wife told me she read something similar somewhere. The book noted a noticeable drop in crime something like 15-20 years after abortion was made legal. The idea was this time period would have been when another wave of unwanted kids would be becoming teenagers and getting into trouble.

Freakonomics.

Fascinating book.

They weren't the only ones, but don't read their current book. It's a bunch of BS instead of the guy's actual work this time.

Ugh. Superfreakonomics should be super shredded.

-Crissa

Now I know you're crazy and full of shit, tzor, but:

tzor wrote:It also goes right to the argument that no one should be punished for the crimes of their parents. Just because your biological father raped your biological mother is no reason you should be sentenced to death without appeal.

Let's leave aside the act that it's a cluster of cells that isn't even as self-aware as the things you eat every day. You would prefer that, instead of it being spared a really fucking miserable life, the mother (THE ACTUAL VICTIM HERE, NO, FUCK YOU TZOR) be punished for the actions of the father.

I was pretty disappointed with the original Freakenomics as well. A lot of flippant spin generation and sleight of hand to show how clever he was and some mighty large leaps to some mighty shaky conclusions.

So for example: when a country puts restrictions on abortions, crime goes up. When they put heavier restrictions on abortion, crime goes up more. And indeed, crime goes down when you legalize abortions in places they were previously illegal. But the conclusion that unwanted pregnancies end in criminals is shaky as hell. For one thing, you notice the trend lines right away, with them continuing to rise/fall for a whole generation relative to not doing it. So while it's entirely possible that less unwanted pregnancies puts less desperate criminals on the street, that literally can't be the only thing because we're pretty sure that there aren't any 2 year olds holding up liquor stores, whether they have supportive loving families or not.

A better explanation is simply that any time you criminalize anything you are creating crime. You are taking normal people and making the actions they are committing into criminal ones. Those people then live in fear and contempt of the law and are more likely to break it in the future. Other people can also prey upon them with ease, since you've taken the law as a protective force away from some portion of your population. Criminal networks can then form to provide services in performing that illegal activity.

The criminal effects you get from legalizing/criminalizing abortion are exactly the same as the ones you get from prohibition. And for exactly the same reason. People get abortions. They have reasons, those reasons are pretty compelling to them or they wouldn't do it. People have always, and will always get abortions. Period. And if they have to go through the mafia to see mafia doctors to do it, that is exactly what they will do. And that will strengthen organized crime and create more people sympathetic to organized crime and contemptuous of the law.

You don't have to invoke the idea that an unscheduled pregnancy results in a man more likely to murder and steal to explain the data, and so why would you? Except in the case of Freakenomics, to generate smug synthetic controversy to sell more books.

The fact that the new book doesn't even bother to fit its wild speculations to the real data at all makes it a worse book, but it's not a complete turnaround in my opinion. It's not the beginning of sloppy research, it's the end.

-Username17

Heck, you don't have to strangle the data to think that an extra mouth to feed might push someone into crime to feed it, too.

The first book was full of tenuous connections. But the current book is filled with outright lies. Like 'the CO2 expended to make a solar panel plus the heat absorbed by the panel in operation means that using that panel for energy creates a higher heat-impact to the climate than just burning coal.'

It's so stupid as to be mind-boggling. That and the dumb forests-create-more-heat thing. Forests create mediated heat. The soil not absorbing the heat means it doesn't get all radiated into the air in a big burst, but over a longer period, which is better, not worse.

-Crissa

Zherog wrote: But that's a point of contention that you and Tzor are never going to agree on. Yelling your opinion at him certainly isn't going to do jack or shit to change his mind.

Shit -- I'm not convinced a fetus that's viable outside the womb doesn't have some basic rights. And to be entirely clear what I mean by viable: If the fetus is healthy and could survive as a normal infant.

But again, my opinion is that my opinion doesn't fucking matter. It's not my body, it's the mother's. I don't get a say, you don't get a say, Tzor doesn't get a say. The mother, based on the advice of her doctor(s), is the only one.

Oh, I'm well aware of that. I just feel that pro-lifers too often get free reign to slip their morality into the abortion debate, and that pro-choicers meekly go along with it. This is how we get the current situation of concessions towards "reducing the need for abortions" and other such shit that serves as a platfrom for removing and denying access. I want to make it absolutely clear that his focus of the status of the fetus has no meaning or impact in any of my considerations about the legality or morality of the act.

Koumei wrote:Go saw your own head off with a sheet of corrugated iron you vile fuck.

You are a glorious ray of sunshine, Princess K. If I could bottle up your sweetness, I'd keep it in a jar in my kitchen and put a dollop of you in my coffee every morning.

That sounded incredibly creepy.

*bows* At your service, O Great and Noble Ceilingcat.

Remind me not to invite you to my house. In fact, I think I'll just go get a 50-cal for personal protection. Just in case.

Maj wrote:

RobbyPants wrote:

K wrote:--There has been a strong correlation that shows that legalizing abortion reduces crime rates at a disproportionate rate, most likely because women least able to provide a nurturing environment are most likely to have abortions.

My wife told me she read something similar somewhere. The book noted a noticeable drop in crime something like 15-20 years after abortion was made legal. The idea was this time period would have been when another wave of unwanted kids would be becoming teenagers and getting into trouble.

Freakonomics.

Fascinating book.

Yep. That's the book. I couldn't remember the name, but I remembered the cover of the green apple with the inside of an orange.

CryptoSolipsist wrote:

Zherog wrote:But that's a point of contention that you and Tzor are never going to agree on. Yelling your opinion at him certainly isn't going to do jack or shit to change his mind.

Shit -- I'm not convinced a fetus that's viable outside the womb doesn't have some basic rights. And to be entirely clear what I mean by viable: If the fetus is healthy and could survive as a normal infant.

But again, my opinion is that my opinion doesn't fucking matter. It's not my body, it's the mother's. I don't get a say, you don't get a say, Tzor doesn't get a say. The mother, based on the advice of her doctor(s), is the only one.

You have a very level head, dude.

No, not really. I've just learned that the only thing accomplished by pissing into the wind is to get my shoes wet.

We did point out that leading abortion groups are against contraception, right? And that abstinence is actually the worst type of contraception?

-Crissa

If abortion is outlawed, what should happen to women who get abortions? I understand that many people in America believe Roe v. Wade should be overturned and that abortion should be made illegal. Fair enough. But if abortions are illegal, what kind of penalties should be imposed against women who get abortions? The same penalties that murderers receive?

the adverse event rate cited in the OP is less than half the australian rate for adverse events from all prespections.

This thread has been a goldmine for my sig.

Grek I am fucking offended that my pro fetus killing stance didn't make it into your sig.

tzor wrote: All that surplus went to the General Fund of the Federal Congress, who "borrowed" from the fund. Social Securtiy is filled with IOU notes from congress. As the late Senator Moyahan once called it, this is embezzlement, pure and simple and the only reason why congress isn't in jail is because it writes the laws so none of them actually apply to congress.

Not exactly. The Social Security Administration chose to invest its surplus in interest-bearing federal savings bonds. United States savings bonds are the premier zero-risk investment for governments and financial institutions worldwide and have a very generous return compared to most other zero-risk investment opportunities.

Where the hell else are you going to get a 5.5% annual return for absolutely no risk?

Kaelik wrote:Grek I am fucking offended that my pro fetus killing stance didn't make it into your sig.

You didn't advocate eating fetuses or sacrificing them to heathen gods. You have to do one of the two to get into my sig.

Grek wrote:

Kaelik wrote:Grek I am fucking offended that my pro fetus killing stance didn't make it into your sig.

You didn't advocate eating fetuses or sacrificing them to heathen gods. You have to do one of the two to get into my sig.

Sacrificing them to heathen gods?
Why didn't you say so ...
On second thought ...
I'm just not going there ...
Especially if I know it's going to be sigged ...
Making it sig worthy spoils the effect.