You’re making my point for me. Our society has determined that we are only allowed to kill pets (non-humans) in a humane way, but hurting/killing them inhumanely can be considered illegal. Pets don’t have a right to life, but they have a right to be treated humanely. Yet human unborn human babies receive even LESS protection. They don’t have a right to life OR a right to be treated humanely.
Another way of looking at it… how many mothers who have had abortions have also brought their unwanted pet to a kill-shelter? Which being did they treat more humanely? The human, who they killed knowing there are countless families willing to adopt him/her? Or the dog, who they brought to a place that has the goal of uniting unwanted/homeless pets with people/families that want to adopt? I’m sure you’ll argue that the mom has to undergo 9 months of “trauma” in order to do the same thing with a baby that takes 1 hour with a dog, and you’re right. But the difference is - one is a human, and the other is a dog. Once that dog goes to the shelter, as you point out, it may not be adopted and may be euthanized. That baby after it is born, however, would never be euthanized, because we don’t euthanize humans (against their will). Our society agrees human babies clearly hav more value (infinitely more) than the dog, yet the pro-abortion crowd won’t admit that those babies’ value is worth even 9 months of discomfort of the human that had a hand in creating it.
As you can see, these are all legitimate societal questions in which people can come to the same conclusion as me without sacrificing compassion for the mother.
The laws are not the same. The federal law against protesting near a judge’s residence makes sense, because it intimidates a judge. The Florida law that blanket bans protests near any private residence is draconian.
I don’t know how “near” they define in the FL law – but I would argue that protesting in front of a private residence is harassment and generally shouldn’t be allowed as part of basic property rights.
You should have a certain valid expectation that if you are on your own property, people should leave you alone just as they themselves would like to be left alone at their own house.
If they want to protest outside of a neighborhood, or in a public parking lot somewhere, where they will generally be seen – more power to them. But outside a house where you can hear them from inside should be offensive to anyone.
But…
After Politico published the leaked Supreme Court draft opinion seeking to overturn abortion rights at a federal level, Meta’s number-two executive, Sheryl Sandberg, called abortion “one of our most fundamental rights” on her public Facebook page. “Every woman, no matter where she lives, must be free to choose whether and when she becomes a mother,” she wrote. “Few things are more important to women’s health and equality.”
I’m pretty sure there are tons of women who are being denied that choice. But they want to become a mother, so those rights obviously don’t apply to them.
The only choice a woman has the right to, is the choice of having sex. Becoming/not becoming pregnant is a consequence of that choice, a consequence no woman has complete control over.
There’s no contradiction and you’ve changed the subject. This thread is about abortion and the mother’s right to get one if that is her wish. If and when we get to argue about mandated genetic testing, we’ll argue about it then.
Why so rigid? I can see why judges should be excepted.
You sacrifice compassion for the mother when the pregnancy is a result of a rape and when you believe that a clump of cells at the early stages is a human.
I don’t think the electorate is currently anywhere near the level of anti-abortion sentiment that a ban on abortion is smart policital policy. Same goes for 15 week bans without rape exceptions. Any republican advocating for that law right now is risking the gift the prolife movement has been given with this decision. It’s going to take decades to convince people that rape isn’t an acceptable reason to take a life. The pro - abortion side has had 50 years of a stacked deck. We’re now finally on the even footing. I think conservatives should act like we’re still split, not like we have mandate to abolish abortion tomorrow. In a few decades of our post Roe world, I predict “clump of cells” will only be used by the most extreme abortion supporters that aren’t actually helpful to their side because of how off putting their rhetoric is.
The string of rampages by the group comes after the surprise leak of a Supreme Court draft majority opinion that would overturnRoe v. Wade , the 1973 landmark decision that legalized abortion on a national level.
I’m sure President Joseph Robinette Biden’s AG and Justice Department will actively prosecute these violent “domestic terrorists” with the same vigor and ruthlessness as the Jan 6 capitol rioters … or, sadly, more like the BLM rioters …
Here’s another domestic terrorist for you. Trying to cut down the conservative SCOTUS majority one shot at a time.
At approximately 1:50 a.m. today, a man was arrested near Justice Kavanaugh’s residence. The man was armed and made threats against Justice Kavanaugh.
Let’s have an inquisition of Schumer for insurrection, attacking our democracy, right? He was encouraging this more than Trump encouraged anyone to invade the Capitol.
At least we’ve learned over the past couple years how the typical Democrat cant even fill out a ballot without lots of extra help doing it for them. So it’s unlikely Schumer’s attempted insurrection will ever amount to anything of any consequence.
Experts believe Senator Warren may have been radicalized by her own rhetoric in recent months, as well as the rhetoric commonly found on every mainstream news channel, NPR, Twitter, The View, and all of Chuck Schumer’s political speeches.
“I want to tell you, Gorsuch; I want to tell you, Kavanaugh: You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer roared Wednesday to a crowd of protesters angry over a Louisiana case before the court that threatens abortion rights. “You won’t know what hit if you go forward with these awful decisions.”
You may remember a few decades ago the economists behind Freakonomics made headlines claiming a link between abortion legalization under Roe v Wade in the early 70s and the drop in crime ~18 years later when the then unwanted children could be aborted instead of growing up to be criminals.
They did a follow up with another 15-20 years of data, which I hadn’t seen until recently. You can listen to the podcast or read the transcript of them reviewing the old paper, the critics, and what they found when they revisited the claims with more data.
These were some of the highlighted claims from their discussion
roughly half the large drop in crime which was due to legalization of abortion
further removal of lead in gas / paint also was a large contributor a decade later
their update uses data through 2014 and found even larger impacts for abortion reducing crime. They said the cumulative impact of legal abortion was behind 80-90% of the drop in crime since then.
unwanted pregnancies are the primary mechanism, since these can be avoided with cheap, legal abortion. Teen pregnancy for example fell dramatically and abortion rates fell from 1.6M/year to 0.6M/year.
everyone hated his paper on both sides of the political aisle, but he got more death threats from the left than the right.
You can see what happened in the early 90s, which was right around the time when some fraction of these unwanted children ceased to become criminal teens.
If we see Roe overturned and have a patchwork of state restrictions or non-restrictions, a new generation of economists will be able to tell us how much crime we created with this change 20 years hence.
My comments -
I wonder what caused the big run up in crime from the 60s to the 80s
they suggest that if abortion legalization did cause much / most of the drop in crime, this casts some doubt on the policies we should consider to address rising crime now. For example, reducing drugs and adding more police staff helped, but more aggressive policing and harsher punishments did not.
social aid to help children being born be more “wanted”, whatever that means, seems like it might be good social policy to avoid these eventual criminal outcomes.
Leaded gasoline. Lead exposure makes people dumber and can lead to behavioral problems. This entire video is interesting, but the crime link with charts is around 16:06-18:55:
Is there lead in LA? That’s where you’re located, right?
I didn’t watch the artistic video, but … Leaded gasoline has been in use since the 1900’s and has been in widespread use since the 1930’s. Are you saying that it wasn’t harmful until 1960?
Alternatively, were there any other widespread social/chemical/economic changes that started around the 1960s?
I find it really difficult to attribute a 50-year history to one single factor. So much changed in society over that timeframe, it’s impossible to adjust and equalize the data to focus on one variable.
