International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   USA Politics (https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Roe v. Wade overturned -- this is some BS (https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=359834)

acbytesla 22nd August 2023 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY (Post 14145775)
You know it is possible to embrace morality without embracing a doctrine that shares many of the same principles. Your attempt at "Christian shaming", won't have the desired affect in this case.

What morality? That a woman wants to control her own body?

Didn't you say?
Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY (Post 14143401)
.
Morality is a choice, not always the easy choice, but nevertheless up to the individual.

And yet you want to prevent people from making that choice?
Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY (Post 14145775)
I suggest that Minorites are being targeted as many of these groups are residents of high population centers where abortion is pushed as being a "Constitutional Right". And that's clearly false.

It was a Constitutional right until lying nutjobs overturned a law they told the Senate judiciary was settled law.


Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY (Post 14145775)
What's clear is that those that push for abortion rights are the same people that push the agenda of Climate Change (the latest popular name for it now). If you think population control and reduction is not part of the Climate Change agenda, you're either being intentionally naive or dishonest.

Are they the same people? I don't know that they are. But tell me, do you think global warming isn’t a reality?

W.D.Clinger 22nd August 2023 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY (Post 14145861)
Spin? You would honestly attempt to argue that abortion rights are not argued for most often in large metropolitan areas of the US containing the highest numbers of Minority groups is not a fact? Right.


Would anyone honestly attempt to argue that the egregiously extraneous phrase I highlighted is not racist?

bruto 22nd August 2023 09:16 PM

This argument always reminds me of the anti-abortion bumper sticker I've seen around from time to time, saying "Aren't you glad your mother chose life?" Yes, there really are people, many people, millions of people even, who cannot see the irony in that.

Aridas 22nd August 2023 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheGoldcountry (Post 14146108)
2) Be a true pro-lifer and invest your efforts into making the world a better place in which to be a child.

I'm a bit a fan of this. Raise everyone up and there will fairly certainly be distinctly fewer abortions. Even simply having the government actually incentivize having the child and be prepared to handle the caretaking would be a huge improvement in that direction.

Instead, of course, we have the "pro-life" party actively working to increase the insecurities and burdens to be faced, which increases the motivation for abortions to actually happen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger (Post 14146234)
Would anyone honestly attempt to argue that the egregiously extraneous phrase I highlighted is not racist?

At last check, it's likely true enough that the statement itself doesn't have to be racist. That doesn't stop it from being used that way, of course. Nor does it mean that racism isn't very involved in why things are the way they are.

As has been poked at earlier, there's a massive gap in both wealth and income between blacks and white, as well as men and women. White men compared to black women is especially severe. Low income housing tended to be put in more urban areas, so naturally, that's where a lot of low income people without better options gravitated... and a bunch of businesses that desired to take advantage of the lowered housing costs to underpay their workers, excuse me, reduce business costs, have historically helped keep them poor.

That's hardly the only factor, of course. Historically, there's been a bunch of crap that effectively drove black people out of various more rural (and suburban) places. Take black farmers, for example -

Quote:

In addition to theft by state-sanctioned violence, intimidation, and lynching, Black farmers also lost land due to discrimination by banks and financial institutions; through the denial of access to federal farm benefits by local administrators who funneled those benefits to white farm owners; through forced partition sales brought about by predatory third parties; through government misuse of eminent domain, including many cases in which Black landowners were compensated well below market value; through discriminatory tax assessments and non-competitive tax sales; and through longstanding, coordinated discrimination by U.S. Department of Agriculture agents who wield power and control over access to credit and essential resources.

By 1997, Black farmers lost more than 90 percent of the 16 million acres they owned in 1910.
It's not even remotely a pretty story regarding how things have ended up the way they have, in short.

ChrisBFRPKY would have us believe that the perpetrators of evils like this are the people who are actually on black people's side, though. Also, that black people are not on black people's side.

TurkeysGhost 23rd August 2023 05:02 AM

It's pretty wild how much the right has overstepped on this issue.

Some anti-abortion freak was on Joe Rogan show of all places and taking **** for the extremity of the Republican stance on this. This a policy question so easy even a simpleton like Rogan immediately finds his way to the unambiguously correct answer.

Quote:

Rogan pushed back: “You don’t have a right to tell a 14-year-old girl, she has to carry a rapist’s baby.” He follow up by saying, “Like, you don’t have the right to tell my 14-year-old daughter, she has to carry her rapist’s baby. You understand that?”

The two went back and forth on this point. Dillon concluded the debate by saying, “I don’t think two wrongs make a right… I don’t think murder fixes a rape.”
https://variety.com/2022/digital/new...pe-1235343870/

This is the kind of repugnant stance that cuts through the noise, even to the most politically unsophisticated and uninvolved person.

If Dems have any sense at all they'll be banging the drum nonstop about how Republicans want to force rape victims to carry unwanted pregnancies to term, and I don't see how Republicans have any good response to it.

ChrisBFRPKY 23rd August 2023 05:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger (Post 14146234)
Would anyone honestly attempt to argue that the egregiously extraneous phrase I highlighted is not racist?

When you can't argue the facts, there's always the Racist card. If that's the best you have, game over. ;)

ChrisBFRPKY 23rd August 2023 05:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 14146185)
What morality? That a woman wants to control her own body?

Didn't you say?

And yet you want to prevent people from making that choice?

It was a Constitutional right until lying nutjobs overturned a law they told the Senate judiciary was settled law.




Are they the same people? I don't know that they are. But tell me, do you think global warming isnít a reality?

Please feel free to point out the part of the Constitution of the United States of America that covers Abortion Rights. You can't because it's not in there and it never was, ever.

TurkeysGhost 23rd August 2023 05:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY (Post 14146474)
Please feel free to point out the part of the Constitution of the United States of America that covers Abortion Rights. You can't because it's not in there and it never was, ever.

You can read the Roe opinion if you like, it's publicly available. They aren't shy about what constitutional rights are violated by banning abortion

It's the 14th amendment

catsmate 23rd August 2023 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aridas (Post 14145976)
Your contention ends up as "This argument is made most often in the areas where the overwhelming majority of discussions happen." No duh. Nothing nefarious about that.

Indeed. Given the the largest ten US conurbations have eighty million people it was a rather silly argument.

acbytesla 23rd August 2023 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost (Post 14146430)
It's pretty wild how much the right has overstepped on this issue.

Some anti-abortion freak was on Joe Rogan show of all places and taking **** for the extremity of the Republican stance on this. This a policy question so easy even a simpleton like Rogan immediately finds his way to the unambiguously correct answer.

Quote:

Rogan pushed back: ďYou donít have a right to tell a 14-year-old girl, she has to carry a rapistís baby.Ē He follow up by saying, ďLike, you donít have the right to tell my 14-year-old daughter, she has to carry her rapistís baby. You understand that?Ē

The two went back and forth on this point. Dillon concluded the debate by saying, ďI donít think two wrongs make a rightÖ I donít think murder fixes a rape.Ē
https://variety.com/2022/digital/new...pe-1235343870/

This is the kind of repugnant stance that cuts through the noise, even to the most politically unsophisticated and uninvolved person.

If Dems have any sense at all they'll be banging the drum nonstop about how Republicans want to force rape victims to carry unwanted pregnancies to term, and I don't see how Republicans have any good response to it.

That's the problem. There are no simple answers. The anti-abortionists have simplified any termination of a pregnancy as murder. Everything is black and white devoid of nuance
Biology doesn't tell them that. Even the Bible, their holy handbook doesn't do that. But it does say that a rapist can be forced to marry their rape victim. God's law in the Bible does not say 'Thou shall not kill.' It says 'Thou shall not murder.' Which is not the same thing. Murder is the illegal taking of a life.

It also says an eye for an eye. But causing a woman to miscarry is a civil infraction or tort. The offender must compensate the woman for her loss. It isnít a crime. It isnít murder.

Whether a fetus should be considered a human life is definitely arbitrary. No question it is living human tissue. But so are skin tags and cancerous tumors. We surgically and chemically remove them. You can't prove it is sentient.

But it wouldn't matter to me if you could. I'm opposed to anyone imposing the bodily autonomy of another and that includes the unborn. We should not grant fetuses special rights to infringe on the rights of the woman carrying them.

acbytesla 23rd August 2023 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY (Post 14146474)
Please feel free to point out the part of the Constitution of the United States of America that covers Abortion Rights. You can't because it's not in there and it never was, ever.

Neither are a lot of specific rights we rely on.

But it is more than reasonable to argue the right is there is an implied right of privacy as guaranteed in the third, fourth and fifth amendments. There is also the right to due process and equal protection guaranteed by the 14th Amendment

TurkeysGhost 23rd August 2023 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 14146509)
That's the problem. There are no simple answers. The anti-abortionists have simplified any termination of a pregnancy as murder. Everything is black and white devoid of nuance
Biology doesn't tell them that. Even the Bible, their holy handbook doesn't do that. But it does say that a rapist can be forced to marry their rape victim. God's law in the Bible does not say 'Thou shall not kill.' It says 'Thou shall not murder.' Which is not the same thing. Murder is the illegal taking of a life.

It also says an eye for an eye. But causing a woman to miscarry is a civil infraction or tort. The offender must compensate the woman for her loss. It isnít a crime. It isnít murder.

Whether a fetus should be considered a human life is definitely arbitrary. No question it is living human tissue. But so are skin tags and cancerous tumors. We surgically and chemically remove them. You can't prove it is sentient.

But it wouldn't matter to me if you could. I'm opposed to anyone imposing the bodily autonomy of another and that includes the unborn. We should not grant fetuses special rights to infringe on the rights of the woman carrying them.

They have a very simple answer, it just happens to be one that is disgusting to anyone with a functioning moral compass.

acbytesla 23rd August 2023 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY (Post 14146470)
When you can't argue the facts, there's always the Racist card. If that's the best you have, game over. ;)

Kind of the pot calling the kettle black there don't you think Chris? You're whole argument has been that the simple availability of abortion services is somehow a racist attack on the African American community.

W.D.Clinger 23rd August 2023 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY (Post 14146470)
When you can't argue the facts, there's always the Racist card. If that's the best you have, game over. ;)

That is indeed one possible explanation for your gratuitous reference to "large metropolitan areas of the US containing the highest numbers of Minority groups".

It may be an even more compelling explanation for ChrisBFRPKY's earlier introduction of race into this discussion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aridas (Post 14146268)
At last check, it's likely true enough that the statement itself doesn't have to be racist. That doesn't stop it from being used that way, of course. Nor does it mean that racism isn't very involved in why things are the way they are.

Lots of things are factually true but irrelevant. I was asking whether there was any non-racist reason for ChrisBFRPKY's reference to a correlation between urbanization and race in the context of this thread.

At first glance, race might actually be relevant to this thread. According to the Pew Research Center, two thirds of black and Asian citizens of the US think abortion should be legal in all or in most cases. For white and Hispanic citizens, that fraction is a little lower, under 60%.

But does considering race and ethnicity bring any explanatory power to the discussion? Correlation is not causation. Race and ethnicity are correlated with urbanization, but urbanization is also correlated with political preferences. It is those political preferences that have the most obvious causal link to abortion law in the United States.

It is a fact that state-level abortion laws are correlated with urbanization. All of the states in which abortion is (at this time) completely illegal are less urbanized (by the Census Bureau's current definitions) than the US average of 80%. The most urbanized of those states are Indiana (71%), Missouri (70%), and Idaho (69%). Ohio (76%) may soon become the most urbanized state to ban abortion, but Ohio is still less urban than the US average.

The main problem with attributing abortion law to urbanization is that there's a better explanation: All of the states in which abortion is currently illegal are also controlled by the anti-abortion political party.

There's a second problem with that attribution: Although it is true that the most anti-abortion states are less urban than the US average, it is not true that the least urban states are uniformly anti-abortion. The least urban state is Vermont (35%), where abortion is legal at any stage. Here's the complete list of states where abortion is legal at any stage or through the second trimester:
  • Vermont (35% urban)
  • Alaska (65%)
  • New Mexico (74%)
  • Virginia (76%)
  • Oregon (80%)
  • Colorado (86%)
  • Massachusetts (91%)
  • New Jersey (94%)
In that list, there's basically no correlation between urbanization and abortion law. There is, however, a fairly strong correlation between abortion law and political control, with Alaska being the clear outlier.

In short, there is no good reason to attribute abortion law to urbanization, and even less reason to bring race into the discussion. Abortion law is most strongly correlated with politics, and the causal connection is obvious.

The correlation between abortion law and politics does of course mean that abortion law will also be correlated (though less strongly) with largely irrelevant characteristics that happen to be correlated with politics, but it is a mistake to confuse those happenstance correlations with causation.

acbytesla 23rd August 2023 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost (Post 14146532)
They have a very simple answer, it just happens to be one that is disgusting to anyone with a functioning moral compass.

That's what happens when you attempt to enforce the morality of the Bible and their bronze age God on the modern world. A book that endorses slavery and even tells you how much to pay for your slaves. A book that says a father can tell his daughter who she has to marry or sell her off as a slave. A book that says you can take an unruly child to the edge of town to be stoned to death. A book that says a groom not only has a right to kill his bride, but a duty if he discovers her not to be a virgin.

TurkeysGhost 23rd August 2023 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 14146546)
That's what happens when you attempt to enforce the morality of the Bible and their bronze age God on the modern world. A book that endorses slavery and even tells you how much to pay for your slaves. A book that says a father can tell his daughter who she has to marry or sell her off as a slave. A book that says you can take an unruly child to the edge of town to be stoned to death. A book that says a groom not only has a right to kill his bride, but a duty if he discovers her not to be a virgin.

I attribute it to the right's puritanical obsession with sex and making sure that sex they don't approve of carries some horrible punishment. Their laser focus on making sure that promiscuity carries horrible, unavoidable punishment in the form of unwanted pregnancy has lead to a total flattening of the issue, so they rarely seriously think about rape or other reasons why people might want or need an abortion.

Some of the saddest stories coming from these abortion ban states aren't coming from young, promiscuous libertines trying to escape an unwanted pregnancy, but from would-be parents having to deal with the horror of having a planned pregnancy end in tragic miscarriage. Stories of women having to carry stillbirths to term, or give birth to deformed children that die shortly thereafter, or waiting until their own health is sufficiently in danger before doctors can perform an emergency abortion.

Telling women that not only is their baby going to die, but they must risk also losing their own life in order to satisfy these freakish right wingers who have decided that we live in a Just World where bad things only happen to bad people. These people do not consider why someone would be pursuing a late-term abortion, for example. They assume it's just some irresponsible person who didn't plan ahead when more often it's because it's an intended pregnancy that has gone horribly awry. Even in our culture of extreme partisan divide, these scenarios shock the conscience of all but the most extreme zealots.

These people are perverts, they want to intrude onto the most intimate, private affairs of women and parents. They want to heap misery onto the miserable who are grieving the loss of an already loved child that has miscarried. They want to be accessories after the fact to child rape by compelling children to carry forced pregnancies to term. Truly the most despicable scum of the Earth.

JayUtah 23rd August 2023 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 14146531)
Neither are a lot of specific rights we rely on.

Neither are some broader legal propositions like qualified immunity or the "major question" doctrine, which are dear to conservatives. The notion that if X isn't specifically mentioned in the Constitution then it can't be a constitutionally-protected right is a patently absurd argument.

catsmate 23rd August 2023 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY (Post 14146470)
When you can't argue the facts, there's always the Racist card. If that's the best you have, game over. ;)

Indeed. Perhaps you should look at the facts and develop some better arguments.

acbytesla 23rd August 2023 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayUtah (Post 14146556)
Neither are some broader legal propositions like qualified immunity or the "major question" doctrine, which are dear to conservatives. The notion that if X isn't specifically mentioned in the Constitution then it can't be a constitutionally-protected right is a patently absurd argument.

Or corporations being citizens with all the rights of living breathing human beings. Or money is speech. Or Executive Privilege.

I'm sure we're only scratching the surface.

acbytesla 23rd August 2023 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost (Post 14146550)
I attribute it to the right's puritanical obsession with sex and making sure that sex they don't approve of carries some horrible punishment. Their laser focus on making sure that promiscuity carries horrible, unavoidable punishment in the form of unwanted pregnancy has lead to a total flattening of the issue, so they rarely seriously think about rape or other reasons why people might want or need an abortion.

Some of the saddest stories coming from these abortion ban states aren't coming from young, promiscuous libertines trying to escape an unwanted pregnancy, but from would-be parents having to deal with the horror of having a planned pregnancy end in tragic miscarriage. Stories of women having to carry stillbirths to term, or give birth to deformed children that die shortly thereafter, or waiting until their own health is sufficiently in danger before doctors can perform an emergency abortion.

Telling women that not only is their baby going to die, but they must risk also losing their own life in order to satisfy these freakish right wingers who have decided that we live in a Just World where bad things only happen to bad people. These people do not consider why someone would be pursuing a late-term abortion, for example. They assume it's just some irresponsible person who didn't plan ahead when more often it's because it's an intended pregnancy that has gone horribly awry. Even in our culture of extreme partisan divide, these scenarios shock the conscience of all but the most extreme zealots.

These people are perverts, they want to intrude onto the most intimate, private affairs of women and parents. They want to heap misery onto the miserable who are grieving the loss of an already loved child that has miscarried. They want to be accessories after the fact to child rape by compelling children to carry forced pregnancies to term. Truly the most despicable scum of the Earth.

If they were just perverts, I wouldn't mind so much. But what they really are is total ********. Mean, despicable ********. Heaping misery on others is a spectator sport. These are the modern day equivalent of the Roman spectators in the coliseum. Or the French who gathered day after day to watch the spectacle of the Guillotine.

They are devoid of human feelings.

gnome 23rd August 2023 08:34 AM

I think this is probably coming into play:

https://xkcd.com/1138/

catsmate 23rd August 2023 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger (Post 14146542)
That is indeed one possible explanation for your gratuitous reference to "large metropolitan areas of the US containing the highest numbers of Minority groups".

It may be an even more compelling explanation for ChrisBFRPKY's earlier introduction of race into this discussion.


Lots of things are factually true but irrelevant. I was asking whether there was any non-racist reason for ChrisBFRPKY's reference to a correlation between urbanization and race in the context of this thread.

At first glance, race might actually be relevant to this thread. According to the Pew Research Center, two thirds of black and Asian citizens of the US think abortion should be legal in all or in most cases. For white and Hispanic citizens, that fraction is a little lower, under 60%.

But does considering race and ethnicity bring any explanatory power to the discussion? Correlation is not causation. Race and ethnicity are correlated with urbanization, but urbanization is also correlated with political preferences. It is those political preferences that have the most obvious causal link to abortion law in the United States.

It is a fact that state-level abortion laws are correlated with urbanization. All of the states in which abortion is (at this time) completely illegal are less urbanized (by the Census Bureau's current definitions) than the US average of 80%. The most urbanized of those states are Indiana (71%), Missouri (70%), and Idaho (69%). Ohio (76%) may soon become the most urbanized state to ban abortion, but Ohio is still less urban than the US average.

The main problem with attributing abortion law to urbanization is that there's a better explanation: All of the states in which abortion is currently illegal are also controlled by the anti-abortion political party.

There's a second problem with that attribution: Although it is true that the most anti-abortion states are less urban than the US average, it is not true that the least urban states are uniformly anti-abortion. The least urban state is Vermont (35%), where abortion is legal at any stage. Here's the complete list of states where abortion is legal at any stage or through the second trimester:
  • Vermont (35% urban)
  • Alaska (65%)
  • New Mexico (74%)
  • Virginia (76%)
  • Oregon (80%)
  • Colorado (86%)
  • Massachusetts (91%)
  • New Jersey (94%)
In that list, there's basically no correlation between urbanization and abortion law. There is, however, a fairly strong correlation between abortion law and political control, with Alaska being the clear outlier.

In short, there is no good reason to attribute abortion law to urbanization, and even less reason to bring race into the discussion. Abortion law is most strongly correlated with politics, and the causal connection is obvious.

The correlation between abortion law and politics does of course mean that abortion law will also be correlated (though less strongly) with largely irrelevant characteristics that happen to be correlated with politics, but it is a mistake to confuse those happenstance correlations with causation.

:thumbsup: Excellent analysis.

JayUtah 23rd August 2023 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 14146577)
Or corporations being citizens with all the rights of living breathing human beings. Or money is speech. Or Executive Privilege.

I'm sure we're only scratching the surface.

We are. I chose those two because it's so easy to see how the reasoning twists back upon itself depending on how the conservatives want the answer to come out. We derive the doctrine of qualified immunity (somehow) from the Constitution to establish that the officers of the executive are presumed trustworthy and therefore should enjoy broad deference to carry out their difficult, specialized duties unmolested by the courts.

Then in the same breath we (somehow) derive from that same Constitution the doctrine that the executive cannot be trusted to wield power Congress has expressly delegated to it, without unchallenged supervision from those same courts who previously had to keep their hands off. It's not even enough to say that Congress and the executive should work it out through the normal channels of oversight and rulemaking or a political process. No—the Supreme Court appoints itself the final authority in how the executive may exercise power.

Not only does the Court routinely read into the Constitution concepts of rights and obligations that the document doesn't espouse or express, it does so with alarming fickleness. But still, the idea that unless the right to an abortion (or any other specific right) is expressly stated in the Constitution then it cannot enjoy Constitutional protection is something not even the conservatives believe. The notion that such a childish argument should issue from a body that demands almost religious deference to its supposed powers of reason is insulting.

acbytesla 23rd August 2023 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayUtah (Post 14146671)
We are. I chose those two because it's so easy to see how the reasoning twists back upon itself depending on how the conservatives want the answer to come out. We derive the doctrine of qualified immunity (somehow) from the Constitution to establish that the officers of the executive are presumed trustworthy and therefore should enjoy broad deference to carry out their difficult, specialized duties unmolested by the courts.

Then in the same breath we (somehow) derive from that same Constitution the doctrine that the executive cannot be trusted to wield power Congress has expressly delegated to it, without unchallenged supervision from those same courts who previously had to keep their hands off. It's not even enough to say that Congress and the executive should work it out through the normal channels of oversight and rulemaking or a political process. Noóthe Supreme Court appoints itself the final authority in how the executive may exercise power.

Not only does the Court routinely read into the Constitution concepts of rights and obligations that the document doesn't espouse or express, it does so with alarming fickleness. But still, the idea that unless the right to an abortion (or any other specific right) is expressly stated in the Constitution then it cannot enjoy Constitutional protection is something not even the conservatives believe. The notion that such a childish argument should issue from a body that demands almost religious deference to its supposed powers of reason is insulting.

The Constitution isn't an end all be all guarantor of our rights. Nor was it intended to be. If it was they never would have written the 9th Amendment

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I'm thoroughly convinced that the Constitution should be rewritten. But I don't trust the politicians today to do it fairly.

smartcooky 23rd August 2023 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 14146534)
Kind of the pot calling the kettle black there don't you think Chris? You're whole argument has been that the simple availability of abortion services is somehow a racist attack on the African American community.

Kabooom!!!!

ChrisBFRPKY 23rd August 2023 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger (Post 14146542)
That is indeed one possible explanation for your gratuitous reference to "large metropolitan areas of the US containing the highest numbers of Minority groups".

It may be an even more compelling explanation for ChrisBFRPKY's earlier introduction of race into this discussion.


Lots of things are factually true but irrelevant. I was asking whether there was any non-racist reason for ChrisBFRPKY's reference to a correlation between urbanization and race in the context of this thread.

At first glance, race might actually be relevant to this thread. According to the Pew Research Center, two thirds of black and Asian citizens of the US think abortion should be legal in all or in most cases. For white and Hispanic citizens, that fraction is a little lower, under 60%.

But does considering race and ethnicity bring any explanatory power to the discussion? Correlation is not causation. Race and ethnicity are correlated with urbanization, but urbanization is also correlated with political preferences. It is those political preferences that have the most obvious causal link to abortion law in the United States.

It is a fact that state-level abortion laws are correlated with urbanization. All of the states in which abortion is (at this time) completely illegal are less urbanized (by the Census Bureau's current definitions) than the US average of 80%. The most urbanized of those states are Indiana (71%), Missouri (70%), and Idaho (69%). Ohio (76%) may soon become the most urbanized state to ban abortion, but Ohio is still less urban than the US average.

The main problem with attributing abortion law to urbanization is that there's a better explanation: All of the states in which abortion is currently illegal are also controlled by the anti-abortion political party.

There's a second problem with that attribution: Although it is true that the most anti-abortion states are less urban than the US average, it is not true that the least urban states are uniformly anti-abortion. The least urban state is Vermont (35%), where abortion is legal at any stage. Here's the complete list of states where abortion is legal at any stage or through the second trimester:
  • Vermont (35% urban)
  • Alaska (65%)
  • New Mexico (74%)
  • Virginia (76%)
  • Oregon (80%)
  • Colorado (86%)
  • Massachusetts (91%)
  • New Jersey (94%)
In that list, there's basically no correlation between urbanization and abortion law. There is, however, a fairly strong correlation between abortion law and political control, with Alaska being the clear outlier.

In short, there is no good reason to attribute abortion law to urbanization, and even less reason to bring race into the discussion. Abortion law is most strongly correlated with politics, and the causal connection is obvious.

The correlation between abortion law and politics does of course mean that abortion law will also be correlated (though less strongly) with largely irrelevant characteristics that happen to be correlated with politics, but it is a mistake to confuse those happenstance correlations with causation.


According to the National Library of Medicine: Black women have been experiencing induced abortions at a rate nearly 4 times that of White women for at least 3 decades, and likely much longer. The impact in years of potential life lost, (YPLL is something never mentioned in the Media) given abortionís high incidence and racially skewed distribution, indicates that it is the most demographically consequential occurrence for the minority population. The science community has refused to engage on the subject and the popular media has essentially ignored it. In the current unfolding environment, there may be no better metric for the value of Black lives.

It's more than just coincidence and its more than just political. According to the US Census Bureau the US Black population is around 13.6% and the White population is at 75.5%. Yet Black women are having nearly four times the abortions of the White women. Abortion and Race is an ugly reality that those that are Pro-abortion would like to sweep under the table, yet there it is in plain sight.

JayUtah 23rd August 2023 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 14146722)
The Constitution isn't an end all be all guarantor of our rights. Nor was it intended to be.

Agreed. My avatar is me in 1776 (the poor person's Hamilton), from which comes a line, "Mr. Jefferson, nowhere do you mention deep-sea fishing rights!" in the Declaration of Independence. We're allowed to think outside the text, no matter what the "textualists" think.

Quote:

If it was they never would have written the 9th Amendment.
You mean the amendment conservatives categorically ignore?

MarkCorrigan 23rd August 2023 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY (Post 14146800)
According to the National Library of Medicine: Black women have been experiencing induced abortions at a rate nearly 4 times that of White women for at least 3 decades, and likely much longer. The impact in years of potential life lost, (YPLL is something never mentioned in the Media) given abortion’s high incidence and racially skewed distribution, indicates that it is the most demographically consequential occurrence for the minority population. The science community has refused to engage on the subject and the popular media has essentially ignored it. In the current unfolding environment, there may be no better metric for the value of Black lives.

It's more than just coincidence and its more than just political. According to the US Census Bureau the US Black population is around 13.6% and the White population is at 75.5%. Yet Black women are having nearly four times the abortions of the White women. Abortion and Race is an ugly reality that those that are Pro-abortion would like to sweep under the table, yet there it is in plain sight.

I mean it's not like there are other possible factors that contribute to that. Nah must just be race, and because black women get more abortions that obviously means that the access to abortion is an attempt to keep the black population down.

Flawless logic there. Absolutely flawless.

acbytesla 23rd August 2023 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY (Post 14146800)
According to the National Library of Medicine: Black women have been experiencing induced abortions at a rate nearly 4 times that of White women for at least 3 decades, and likely much longer. The impact in years of potential life lost, (YPLL is something never mentioned in the Media) given abortionís high incidence and racially skewed distribution, indicates that it is the most demographically consequential occurrence for the minority population. The science community has refused to engage on the subject and the popular media has essentially ignored it. In the current unfolding environment, there may be no better metric for the value of Black lives.

It's more than just coincidence and its more than just political. According to the US Census Bureau the US Black population is around 13.6% and the White population is at 75.5%. Yet Black women are having nearly four times the abortions of the White women. Abortion and Race is an ugly reality that those that are Pro-abortion would like to sweep under the table, yet there it is in plain sight.

So what?

The poverty rate among black women is more than double of that of White women.

Want to decrease the number of abortions, reduce poverty. BTW, unwanted children are both a cause and a result of poverty. Banning abortions will only increase poverty and crime.

But you donít care about that now do you?

Stacyhs 23rd August 2023 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY (Post 14146470)
When you can't argue the facts, there's always the Racist card. If that's the best you have, game over. ;)

Um...I do believe you're the one who played the racist card when you claimed pro-choice supporters are targeting the Black minority.

https://media.giphy.com/media/jrtnUu...jjbz/giphy.gif

Stacyhs 23rd August 2023 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 14146546)
That's what happens when you attempt to enforce the morality of the Bible and their bronze age God on the modern world. A book that endorses slavery and even tells you how much to pay for your slaves. A book that says a father can tell his daughter who she has to marry or sell her off as a slave. A book that says you can take an unruly child to the edge of town to be stoned to death. A book that says a groom not only has a right to kill his bride, but a duty if he discovers her not to be a virgin.

CHRISTIAN SHAMING!!!!!

:rolleyes:

acbytesla 23rd August 2023 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 14146890)
CHRISTIAN SHAMING!!!!!

:rolleyes:

Don't get me started. The anti-abortionists sees pregnancy and forced childbirth as a punishment for women being Jezabels. God forbid that a woman enjoys and has sex.

cosmicaug 23rd August 2023 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY (Post 14146470)
When you can't argue the facts, there's always the Racist card. If that's the best you have, game over. ;)

Aren't you the person here who has been arguing for two pages that abortion rights are meant as a tool for eugenic racism?

Or am I getting confused with a different ChrisBFRPKY?

smartcooky 23rd August 2023 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY (Post 14146800)
According to the National Library of Medicine: Black women have been experiencing induced abortions at a rate nearly 4 times that of White women for at least 3 decades, and likely much longer.

You'll find this 4 to 1 ratio is nearly the same for white women in the bottom 15% of the poverty statistics compared with white women in the top 85%.

There is a clue in there for you if you are smart enough to spot it.

Aridas 23rd August 2023 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger (Post 14146542)
Lots of things are factually true but irrelevant. I was asking whether there was any non-racist reason for ChrisBFRPKY's reference to a correlation between urbanization and race in the context of this thread.

If we look at the progression of things, I'd go with yes, there is non-racist reasoning. It's bad reasoning and just a different flavor of hate, but it can count as non-racist reasoning. Sorta like actively working to suppress the Democratic vote and disenfranchise Democrats has no need to be racist, specifically.

Remember, ChrisBFRPKY's trying to effectively claim that the liberal policy of allowing any abortions at all is genocidal policy, akin to <insert actual genocidal policy>. Urban areas, being the "liberal" areas that they are, can be tied to that via the liberal part of things. Race comes into the picture in his argument as an example of those he's trying to claim that liberals are genociding. It looks like his stated logic is basically like "liberals are why women are legally allowed to have abortions, abortion clinics are primarily in liberal cities, especially nearer those parts where minorities have large populations, those minorities very disproportionately have abortions = Liberals are genocidally evil and dumb, even though they put on airs and pretend not to be."

Honestly, if one's chosen to be dumb enough to not apply any critical thinking at all, the logic does sound sorta plausible. That can be all it takes for those desperately grasping at straws and are thus unwilling to apply critical thinking.

Seriously, when liberal and conservative policies created a projected gap of nearly 400,000 working age people's deaths for the year of 2019 alone, aka pre-COVID, and when conservative policy actually increases abortion rates, those who want to pretend that conservatives are actually the "pro-life" people have can have quite the challenge. Motivated fallacy and grasping at straws tend to be prevalent when being a "conservative" and being "pro-life" have become integral parts of one's identity.

Seriously, if ChrisBFRPKY actually wanted fewer abortions and premature deaths in general to happen in practice, he should be supporting Democrats. Liberal Democrats. That he proclaims himself a proud Trump supporter tells plenty about the nature of his actual position, though.

Aridas 27th August 2023 11:25 PM

Just because, here's an old, but still all too true blog post that's unfortunately still rather relevant to that last topic. To poke at some of the most relevant bits to the preceding discussion -

Quote:

You know, I've studied history, I've read about America and you know something, if it weren't for liberals, we'd be living in a dark, evil country, far worse than anything Bush could conjure up. A world where children were told to piss on the side of the road because they weren't fit to pee in a white outhouse, where women had to get back alley abortions and where rape was a joke, unless the alleged criminal was black, whereupon he was hung from a tree and castrated.

What has conservatism given America? A stable social order? A peaceful homelife? Respect for law and order? No. Hell, no. It hasn't given us anything we didn't have and it wants to take away our freedoms.

<snip>

For the better part of a decade, the conservatives made liberal a dirty word. Well, it isn't. It represents the best and most noble nature of what America stands for: equitable government services, old age pensions, health care, education, fair trials and humane imprisonment. It is the heart and soul of what made American different and better than other countries. Not only an escape from oppression, but the opportunity to thrive in land free of tradition and the repression that can bring. We offered a democracy which didn't enshrine the rich and made them feel they had an obligation to their workers.

<snip>

It was the liberals who opposed the Nazis while the conservatives were plotting to get their brown shirts or fund Hitler. It was the liberals who warned about Spain and fought there, who joined the RAF to fight the Germans, who brought democracy to Germany and Japan. Let us not forget it was the conservatives who opposed defending America until the Germans sank our ships. They would have done nothing as Britain came under Nazi control. It was they who supported Joe McCarthy and his baseless, drink fueled claims.
I think I'll just repeat the most salient line about conservatism, again, though. It hasn't given us anything we didn't have and it wants to take away our freedoms. That's pretty much exactly what seems to have been happening, across the board, for a long time now. It's even more perverse when they try to steal the four freedoms - the freedom of speech, the freedom of worship, the freedom from want, and the freedom from fear - under the banners of freedom. The freedom to control, the freedom to exploit, the freedom to censor, and the freedom to menace are NOT the freedoms that made America great and they actively undermine the freedoms that do make America great.

Stacyhs 28th August 2023 01:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aridas (Post 14149926)
Just because, here's an old, but still all too true blog post that's unfortunately still rather relevant to that last topic. To poke at some of the most relevant bits to the preceding discussion -



I think I'll just repeat the most salient line about conservatism, again, though. It hasn't given us anything we didn't have and it wants to take away our freedoms. That's pretty much exactly what seems to have been happening, across the board, for a long time now. It's even more perverse when they try to steal the four freedoms - the freedom of speech, the freedom of worship, the freedom from want, and the freedom from fear - under the banners of freedom. The freedom to control, the freedom to exploit, the freedom to censor, and the freedom to menace are NOT the freedoms that made America great and they actively undermine the freedoms that do make America great.

Well said. I find it disgusting that the same people who wrap themselves in the flag of patriotism are the same ones who want to take away the very freedoms they claim to revere. They're the ones who support a criminally indicted, sexual offender, lunatic man-child who has undermined the very foundation of our democracy with his lies about a 'rigged and stolen' election. They worship a mentally ill, narcissistic, serial adulterer who instigated a mob to riot at our nation's Capitol because he can't admit he's a loser. Those are today's Conservative Republicans.

ChrisBFRPKY 28th August 2023 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmicaug (Post 14147107)
Aren't you the person here who has been arguing for two pages that abortion rights are meant as a tool for eugenic racism?

Or am I getting confused with a different ChrisBFRPKY?

Perhaps you'd be better served to read the comment and reply in context rather than going off on a tangent spin to wherever it is you're trying to go.

ChrisBFRPKY 28th August 2023 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 14146820)
So what?

The poverty rate among black women is more than double of that of White women.

Want to decrease the number of abortions, reduce poverty. BTW, unwanted children are both a cause and a result of poverty. Banning abortions will only increase poverty and crime.

But you donít care about that now do you?

Let's look at poverty rates to see if your statement holds any weight. From Status of Women Data Org:

"Poverty rates vary considerably among adult women from the largest racial and ethnic groups. Native American women have the highest poverty rate at 28.1 percent, followed by Black (25.7 percent) and Hispanic (24.0 percent) women. The poverty rate for white women is the lowest among the groups shown in Figure 4.4 and is less than half the rate for Native American, black, and Hispanic women (11.7 percent). For each of the largest racial and ethnic groups, womenís poverty rate is higher than menís; the difference is greatest between Hispanic women and men"


According to your statement Native American Women should have the highest rates of abortions, then Black women followed by Hispanic women, then White women at a proportional rate based on income. However, it's not proportional at all. While the poverty rate of Black women is only 1.7% higher than Hispanic women the abortion rates of Black women was still over twice that of Hispanic. The top poverty rated group of Native American women (28.1%) barely register in abortions as "other". So your "It's all about poverty." argument has failed spectacularly.

acbytesla 28th August 2023 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY (Post 14150196)
Let's look at poverty rates to see if your statement holds any weight. From Status of Women Data Org:

"Poverty rates vary considerably among adult women from the largest racial and ethnic groups. Native American women have the highest poverty rate at 28.1 percent, followed by Black (25.7 percent) and Hispanic (24.0 percent) women. The poverty rate for white women is the lowest among the groups shown in Figure 4.4 and is less than half the rate for Native American, black, and Hispanic women (11.7 percent). For each of the largest racial and ethnic groups, womenís poverty rate is higher than menís; the difference is greatest between Hispanic women and men"

According to your statement Native American Women should have the highest rates of abortions, then Black women followed by Hispanic women, then White women at a proportional rate based on income. However, it's not proportional at all. While the poverty rate of Black women is only 1.7% higher than Hispanic women the abortion rates of Black women was still over twice that of Hispanic. The top poverty rated group of Native American women (28.1%) barely register in abortions as "other". So your "It's all about poverty." argument has failed spectacularly.

Figures don't lie but liars figure.

I'm really not sure your point.

My point was that reducing poverty will reduce the number of abortions. Not that poverty itself was a cause of abortions. Empowering women is the best method to reduce poverty. Allowing women to be in charge of their own reproductive health is a game changer.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:24 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-24, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.