I’ve already been banned from an entire server simply because my username apparently contains a secret message of bigotry and hatred, so I hope you’ll excuse if I’m gonna try to keep it civil and friendly and try not to rustle too many jimmies during my time here.

That’s okay, I can live with that.

I do, but if I said it outright I would just be accused of a lack of empathy and intelligence, plus a whole lot of other things far worse than that, so I won’t.

So if you didn’t get my broad hint, I’m not going to be upset, and if you do, like I said, perhaps take my advice to stew and simmer over it before posting a response in affect.

Ah yes, if only one of those country club going billionaires would decide to use their power to try and come help us…

Yeah, I think I’m just gonna let you stew and simmer on that one.

No one with any power, no one from the right families is coming to help their capital livestock.

That’s an interesting sentence right there. What does that even mean, the “right” families? Are you seriously expecting the people who created the problem to now help solve it?

This exploitation machine is exactly what they wanted and spent decades lining pockets to achieve.

No, of course you aren’t. But by God, let’s also not ask for help from the “wrong” families…

I thought the President doesn’t control the price of goods…

I don’t wear any watch at all. Time isn’t real, it was invented by capitalists to sell more watches.

Of course I have a right to tell her that, whether or not she actually does it, or whether I have the right to violently enforce my opinion on her is an entirely different matter. But we were just arguing hypotheticals in this thread anyways.

FWIW I’m not convinced that banning abortion is the solution, but neither that making it easier and safer to access solves any problems, because neither do anything to address the root cause of why women feel like they need to have any abortions at all (excluding those necessary for medical reasons of course).

But sure, I’m clearly the petulant child here that’s out of my depth, because an intelligent person would have no problem seeing such nuances instead of resorting to politically popular catch phrases.

And it’s funny, isn’t it, because women tell men all the time what they ought to do with their bodies (go to work, make money, provide for the family, share the housework, don’t drink, don’t do drugs, the list goes on), yet as a man, I’m supposedly not allowed to even have an opinion what what a woman should do with hers? I’m sorry, that just sounds like blatant sexism, but I’m sure that as long as it’s in favor of women, you’re perfectly happy accepting that.

Yeah, I’m afraid that’s just an ad hominem, not an argument.

And no, I don’t have a problem figuring out where you stand on the issue, but since you apparently can’t even defend your position without resorting to insults, this seems to be a clear case of “you can’t reason anyone out of an opinion which by reason they never acquired”.

Not as ridiculous as you, who, having made no arguments whatsoever, just comes barging in two days later just to give their opinion on the matter.

People from Seattle eating Dick’s will never not be funny.

Okay? I never said that he was.

Well, a draw means that neither of us is more correct than the other, at least that’s what I’ll take away from this.

Okay, well I don’t care enough about winning arguments on the Internet in order to write a whole research paper right now, so I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree and call it a draw.

Me neither, I was talking about historical precedent, not some hard and fast rule of the universe.

Well that’s the thing, “historical precedent” means that this has actually demonstrably happened before, in which case there should be data on it. That’s why I asked for proof. Which I understand you’re most likely not going to be able to provide, since there obviously can’t be any reliable data on the amount of clandestine abortions that happened before it was legalized.

First of all, with the “death or injury” part of this, I don’t see why this is preferable. Seems like threatening their lives and happiness in the interest of forcing births.

I mean, I’m not a woman, but if I were, and I was given the choice between having an illegal procedure that had a good chance of injury or death (and no possible recourse), and carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term, I think I would choose the latter, because it seems a lot safer, no matter how inconvenient.

This is just a piece of that bullshit take that argues women will learn to love their future babies if they are just forced to carry them long enough that abortions are more difficult and less legally accessable. Nah

Well, in the absence of any hard data, I find that idea more convincing than the opposite, but again, I’ll admit that I’m not a woman. But unless you are, you’re likely no more of an expert on this than I am. And even if you are AND have gone through all this, you’d just be a single data point of anecdotal evidence, which would not be enough to convince me.

Good thing I wasn’t claiming that then. I’m saying the amount prevented would be negligible, not magically impossibly zero. It would likely be a small amount, and utterly overshadowed by the negative effects of banning abortions.

You realize that for statistical purposes, “zero” and “negligible” are absolutely identical, right? It’s called a null hypothesis, look it up.

Almost had me with that. Glad you decided to put that /S at the end.

I honestly wouldn’t know where to start looking for data on that. But I didn’t make the claim that this was definitely going to happen, just that it was the likely outcome, based on the common sense assumption that if abortion access wasn’t easy, safe, and anonymous, and involved a significant risk of injury or death for the mother, more women would likely find it less risky to carry their pregnancy to term and give up the baby for adoption if they haven’t changed their mind on it by then.

Also, they may simply choose to use birth control more often, and/or insist on their partners wearing a condom.

From my point of view, I find the claim that making abortion illegal would not prevent even a single one from occurring far more incredulous and therefore requiring a higher level of proof.

So you’re saying it’s better to perfectly kill babies than to imperfectly give them up for adoption?

There is historical precedent that your assumptions are not the case.

Yeah, I’m going to need a source on that.

Banning abortion doesn’t stop abortion, it just shifts it to a black market where women are far more likely to die.

Perhaps, but it will likely at least severely reduce it. It’s certainly not appropriate to assume that every woman who would have had an abortion when it’s safe and legal would also do so when it’s dangerous and illegal. More likely, it would lead to a rise in babies given up for adoption.

Why stop there? You have no idea, right? So why do you masturbate or use condoms? You’re killing millions of potential babies!

Not the guy you’re responding to, but you have a point. Coincidentally, most religions are also against both, so at least you can’t accuse them of being inconsistent on the issue of reproduction.