Broadly that’s hard, yes. But when Roe was passed, you had prior states like CA where it was allowed before as of some year to compare to those who legalized later, etc. basically there was a single year in each state where you could compare the kids born that year to the next year when abortion was legal and see how their outcomes varied 15-20 years later. There wasn’t that much variation you might guess between WA in 1969 (not allowed) between WA in 1970 (allowed) and think that those groups should be fairly similar.
1 Like
The court’s updated calendar says opinion(s) will be released today at 10:00 AM and Wednesday morning. Keep an eye out for something big. Will be any day now. Could be today.
EDIT/UPDATE: No Dobbs opinion today.
1 Like
D**mned Roberts is going to get justices killed by delaying the release.
1 Like
Check your own house for lead before asking where I’m located. Leaded gasoline was not in use since the 1900’s, but rather 1920’s. And lead has always been harmful. Perhaps it took some time for concentrations in the environment or just general exposure to rise to significant enough levels. Probably not that many cars in the 1900’s or the 1920’s.
Sure, it may not be the only factor, but it looks like a significant one.
I think the more pertinent question is, how do you explain the growing levels of stupidity and behavioral problems in the decades since lead was banned in gas/paint/etc?
1 Like
While I greatly appreciate your sincere concern, I don’t have to worry. My house was built within the last 20 years, and did not use Chinese paint.
Wow! It’s amazing how this country survived. I’ve had roughly 20 years of lead paint and lead gasoline exposure. But that’s not the worst. I’ve had roughly 50 years of lead weights (sinkers) exposure and 20 years of Chinese lead product exposure. Combined with 40 years of tobacco inhalation, how can I be alive. Almost forgot - add in 50 years of Ticonderoga #2s, but only occasionally with the point in my mouth.
Mighty firm bedrock you’re standing on there, bubba. Get some insurance. 
Why can’t I be that succinct? 
It just goes to prove that a tack hammer can be more effective than a sledge.
The pro-death crowd cannot admit life begins at conception … ever … at all.
If you have difficultly understanding of why pro-lifers think like this. Just replace fetus with 2 year old child in the argument.
See … now you are a prolifer too.
Would/should a raped 12 year old kill their now 1 year old baby ? If not … why not ? (No need to answer)
Now you see.
Perhaps if you weren’t exposed to so much lead, you’d know that pencils contain graphite 
.
2 Likes
No, I do not. What you wrote doesn’t make any sense.
1 Like
You’re absolutely right. I had to look it up because I didn’t believe you I distinctly recall the phrase “lead pencils” used repeatedly … especially in college math classes. 
Presuming my memory isn’t completely pickled, maybe my calc profs were ignorant to graphite.
And thus why there is such a deep divide. You refuse to even try to understand the other side’s perspective. Most pro-lifers do at least understand the whole rape/young teen argument and other limited exceptions, even if they still object.
And then there’s the problem of how abortion is primarily defended as “a woman’s reproductive rights”. Long before an abortion is even a consideration, the woman’s reproductive rights have already been fully exercised. The polar opposite of being infringed upon. The pregnancy is merely a consequence of her having exercised those rights.
2 Likes
Willfilly ignorant.
If you need help understanding a prolife argument replace foetus 2 year old.
Did you understand that ? Or is swapping words to difficult for you ?
1 Like
Willfilly ignorant.
If you need help understanding a prolife argument replace foetus 2 year old.
Did you understand that ? Or is swapping words to difficult for you ?
That substitution isn’t just a simple word swap, though. It is a massive and fundamental difference.
A fetus isn’t a 2 year old. (and it isn’t a “fetus” at conception, anyway – a zygote, especially, isn’t equivalent to a 2 year old)
1 Like
Again. WILLFULLY ignorant.
IF you cannot understand a prolife argument. Swap the words.
Do you understand the argument now ?
Yes. Of course you do. You always did understand it.
You may not agree with it. I mean anybody who is for chopping up an unborn child in the womb has to have the mental gymnastics of an Olympian to justify stuff.
Wait i assumed you werent prodeath of 2 year olds. Are you ?
Let me make this very clear. There is no difference. You can play whataboutism all you want. A human life is a human life.
Ive never met a democrat yet that looks at it from the baby’s view. Only the mothers. Once you do try to look at it from the babys view … on come the gymnastics.
1 Like
But the label is irrelevant, it’s a life regardless of the stage of development. The pro-life argument is if you are going to draw a line as to when you are going to start considering it to be a life, you might as well draw that line at 2 years old, since it’s just as arbitrary and baseless as drawing it at 2 days or 6 weeks or 3 months old. You are free to disagree, but if you cant understand their perspective, it’s because you simply dont want to understand.
This whole parsing of terminology reminds me of the frequent conversations I have with my 3 year old nephew - when I say that the cat got in trouble, he immediately argues that it isnt a cat, it’s a kitten. When the only relevant point is that it, whatever he wants to call it, was trying to eat my lunch on the counter.
2 Likes
The pro-life argument is if you are going to draw a line as to when you are going to start considering it to be a life, you might as well draw that line at 2 years old, since it’s just as arbitrary and baseless as drawing it at 2 days or 6 weeks or 3 months old. You are free to disagree, but if you cant understand their perspective, it’s because you simply dont want to understand.
The point is, is that it is NOT “arbitrary and baseless” to make a distinction based on developmental stages.
It is absurd to say that a fresh zygote, that starts as a single cell at conception, is equivalent to a 2 year old.
At some stage of development, the attempt at equivalence becomes less absurd.
You’re right – I feel like I’m arguing with a 3 year old.
1 Like
Again. WILLFULLY ignorant.
IF you cannot understand a prolife argument. Swap the words.
Do you understand the argument now ?
Yes. Of course you do. You always did understand it.
You may not agree with it. I mean anybody who is for chopping up an unborn child in the womb has to have the mental gymnastics of an Olympian to justify stuff.
Wait i assumed you werent prodeath of 2 year olds. Are you ?
Let me make this very clear. There is no difference. You can play whataboutism all you want. A human life is a human life.
Ive never met a democrat yet that looks at it from the baby’s view. Only the mothers. Once you do try to look at it from the babys view … on come the gymnastics.
I’m sorry, but it is “willfully ignorant” to believe that you can arbitrarily swap words in a sentence and then claim that the two things are equivalent statements.
The cell that you start with at conception (a zygote) doesn’t magically become morally equivalent to a 2 year old because you decided to swap words in a sentence and claim they are equivalent statements, when they aren’t.
A 2 year old is a human being. A zygote and an early stage fetus are not, yet. They have a lot of developing to do before they become human. They are the building blocks of a human. If the mother doesn’t miscarry during the first trimester, which many many do, then they will eventually become human. But they aren’t a human being yet, at that stage.
I would agree with the assertion that at some stage in utero, there is a stage of development that an abortion is more equivalent to killing a living child. But the zygote and early stage fetus doesn’t “have a view” on that subject, because they don’t even have a brain yet.
The mental gymnastics of saying that level of development is morally equivalent to a living 2 year old, is entirely on your end of things.
1 Like
You can disagree all you want, it doesnt change the fact that this is their belief and the basis for their entire position. They dont care if you think that “life” is a label that is only earned after having existed for an arbitrary period of time, and they dont understand how you can be so calloused and cold about a living thing and treat it worse than your appendix.
But at least the pro-lifers do acknowledge and try to consider that there are two lives involved.
2 Likes
But at least the pro-lifers do acknowledge and try to consider that there are two lives involved.
At some stage there are two human lives involved.
But there is some period of time that we’re talking about an entity without a brain, active nervous system, or developed internal organs (without getting to the further milestone of those organs being capable of sustaining life on their own).
It is a stretch to call that particular fact an “arbitrary distinction”.
There are certainly a whole host of “arbitrary” time periods that people do discuss. But it isn’t arbitrary to say that a zygote, at conception, isn’t morally equivalent to a living 2-year-old.