Social credit in America - Politics invades personal finance

Generally, from 6 ½ -7 weeks is the time when a heartbeat can be detected and viability can be assessed. A normal heartbeat at 6-7 weeks would be 90-110 beats per minute. The presence of an embryonic heartbeat is an assuring sign of the health of the pregnancy.
Once a heartbeat is detected, the chance of the pregnancy continuing ranges from 70-90% dependent on what type of ultrasound is used.

I don’t think your argument about the heartbeat not really being a heartbeat is doing a good job making any sort of point you are trying to make.

It is clear you two don’t like me using the word “life.” I understand you aren’t willing to have the debate on any sort of terms that makes it seem like you are in favor of snuffing out a life. That’s understandable. But I also get the feeling you aren’t even willing to consider what I am trying to say, so I will move on. Don’t bother responding again to correct my terminology and I won’t with you. Deal?

Irrelevant to what? To the moral question? I agree. Irrelevant to most voters that hold an opinion on abortion laws? I disagree. It is clearly relevant to a lot of people or else it wouldn’t be a debated topic.

Care to cite this claim?

Yes. A single mother on government assistance plus a part time job isn’t so terrible a life as to justify the killing of an unborn baby. Like I mentioned earlier, there are thousands of pregnant women risking their life each month traveling long distances from South America crossing our Southern border illegally in dangerous situations hoping to have the CHANCE to give birth to a baby here and raise it in our version of poverty.

You’re memory is indeed failing you. My reference to your 90% claim was when you said this:

Reread what I wrote to you and you’ll see I specifically said “agree” in reference to your claim that the vast majority of abortions are performed in the first trimester.

Incorrect. No one is forcing mothers of unwanted children to keep them.

So the internet is helping drive teen pregnancy down? Ok. If you say so. Since conservatives aren’t trying to abolish the internet, I guess that means you agree with me that conservative policies are unlikely to increase the rate of teen pregnancies and are therefore unlikely to increase the abortion rate.

You are confusing a policy in which individuals can choose whether or not to vaccinate with a policy that prohibits vaccination. A policy allowing people to choose whether or not to be vaccinated does not make sex less safe generally. The choice itself is what may or may not make sex less safe for that particular individual only.

Sounds like a few anecdotes at best or a completely made up “phenomenon” at worst.

No, but this guy does. And he directly contradicts your claim that a c-section is a bad idea.

That’s up to her. But taking a class x drug that is necessary for the treatment of a serious illness in the mother is not the same thing as having an abortion.

What do you mean? I know you’re not saying it’s “child abuse” to give birth to a baby that is likely to have down syndrome?

That is not what I don’t like. You said “it signifies a new and separate life”, and I simply wanted to point out that it is not separate. We can agree that it is a life form, but that life form cannot be separated from the mother (not until 24(?) weeks with heavy medical intervention and a high chance of complications at that time, or 35-37 weeks for a good chance of success without medical intervention).

Probably not down syndrome. How about microcephaly or anencephaly?

The “pro-life” side misuses “heartbeat”. There’s an electrical signal that can be detected at that point, but there is not an actual operational heart yet. Calling it a heartbeat is highly deceptive.

The reason we are objecting is that it’s a standard deception of the “pro-life” community–exploiting the dual meanings of “human” (which can mean originating with homo sapiens, or it can mean person) and “life” (the state of being living, vs an individual living entity) to prove one thing and then pretend the other meaning was proven.

All you are showing is that most voters do not consider the fetus a child.

Google hit #1: Zara Ahmed: Abortion rates don't drop when the procedure is outlawed. But it does make it more dangerous.

Government assistance + part time job?? Not likely.

If abortion were prohibited we would go back to the old days where unwanted children died in orphanages.

It makes the information more available. Also, there are things like the TV show 16 and pregnant. There’s a noticeable effect in searches for contraceptive information when episodes of such shows air.

It’s not a forbidding but an opposition. I’ve even heard a couple explicitly express the opinion that they wouldn’t because that would encourage premarital sex. (In one case I knew the woman saying it used hard drugs on occasion and was in an early and quite unsuitable marriage so they could have sex. The marriage of course didn’t last.)

Given the number of reports vs the sample size (protesters that are there enough for clinic workers to recognize them) it must be fairly widespread.

Context! I specifically said that C-section was a bad idea in one scenario. Specifically, Lassa Fever. Dangerous for her, dangerous for the surgeon.

What he is saying in general is right but limited–yes, maternal health is threatened in the third trimester, deliver or C-section is the normal treatment. Deliver or C-section is not an option before the third trimester.

It was exactly the same as an abortion as that’s what they did–surgical abortion. Pregnancy class X drugs do not induce miscarriage, they’re drugs that will damage the fetus. The ultimate example of a class X drug is thalidomide.

That’s on the mild end. How about delivering a Harlequin baby? They’ll be in agony until their inevitable demise in a few days.

It’s nearly impossible to tell the extent to which a baby will have a disease during pre-natal testing. While testing can determine that a genetic mutation is present, it can’t tell, for instance, if a child will have something so severe that he will live for only hours or days, or that she will live for decades and be able to function well in society on her own.

The most common genetic disorders can have a huge range of symptoms. I’m sure you are familiar with adults with down syndrome and how full and happy their lives often are. It’s a shame how many unborn babies with down syndrome are aborted. You’ll never convince me otherwise.

No. All I am showing is that most people do not value the life of pre-natal unborn baby the same as the extreme pro-life crowd does.

The study in that article you linked cited that the abortion rate remained constant while the rate of unintended pregnancies decreased.

You claimed that “places that prohibit abortion entirely have an abortion rate as high as places it’s legal–because their policies result in more oopses.” The pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute says that the abortion rate has gone down everywhere in the US at a similar rate, regardless of if the state has added abortion restrictions.

So it sounds like, from that data, the policies in places with abortion restrictions DON’T result in more oopses.

I agree that there are disincentives to working when it comes to some government assistance programs, but most of them do not force mothers to stay home all day eating bon-bons in order to keep their assistance. My point was that, after a child becomes school aged, the need for assistance drops because there isn’t a need to pay for child care all day.

Wrong. There are adoption waiting lists for American babies.

Agreed. Things that pro-lifers have no ability to stop. Thanks for making my point.

Up until recently, anti-vax sentiment was pretty equal across the political spectrum. It’s possible the view on the HPV vaccine will change to only folks on the right being against it, but that hasn’t been determined yet. Regardless, your anecdote has nothing to do with the point you are trying to make. Sex wasn’t made more dangerous because of any particular policy advocated by pro-lifers.

Good, glad we agree that there are no where near as many medically necessary abortions as the abortion rights crowd claims there are.

You are incorrect. Taking a drug that can cause birth defects in order to treat a life threatening disease is one thing. Having a surgical abortion because the baby might be harmed by the drug is a different thing. A surgical abortion doesn’t necessarily have to follow the taking of a class x drug. If a side effect of the the drug causes the death of the unborn baby, that isn’t an abortion, as the goal of the drug was to cure the mother, not to kill the child.

There are some conditions they don’t know how serious they will be. The example I gave, Harlequin, is 100% fatal.

As I said, Down’s Syndrome is on the low end of problems. There are many that are much worse.

But if they don’t put that value on it they obviously do not consider it a child.

Because abortion restrictions in the US aren’t enough to have a big effect.

I was talking about countries that ban abortion.

Because abortion is legal. If you actually got rid of it the supply would exceed demand and we would be back to where the extras were left to die in orphanages.

I was talking about the intent, not the effect.

I have found it a much more accurate predictor of where the “pro-life” community will stand on an issue. The theory that makes the best predictions is the one that stands.

Third trimester abortions are almost all fetal defect or something like infection.

She treated the infection then she had a surgical abortion because of the high probability of damage. Fortunately, she lives in a country where people don’t try to guilt women over what happens in life.

So you are picking the least common, most deadly conditions to make your point even though the fact that the most common later term abortions are for conditions that are way less fatal and debilitating.

Do you hear yourself?

Now we’re back to semantics on words like “life” and “child.” I’m not arguing that the majority of people don’t agree with my definition, but I am not about to define what they do agree with as there is generally a spectrum. I’m not sure why that is so hard for you to admit though.

Cool. So stop saying that republican policies will lead to more abortions.

I don’t know if supply would exceed demand and neither do you. But I am comfortable predicting that in 2021 and beyond, unwanted American born babies would not be “left to die in orphanages.” That is some pretty disgusting rhetoric right there.

So pro-lifers are intending to make premarital sex more difficult with their policies, but you can’t cite a policy that has had that effect because anything they try to do is counteracted by our current information age? That’s a very convenient excuse for not being able to prove your point.

I’ve been in the pro-life world for quite some time and before this year, I haven’t heard many people talk negatively about vaccines. The only ones I did hear were saying the same things I heard from pro-choice atheists. Prior to covid, if I heard someone say they weren’t vaccinating their infant or were going on some sort of delayed vaccine schedule that wasn’t recommended by their pediatrician, I would have not known if they were pro-life or pro-choice just from that stance. I think you are letting the current anti-vax stance of many trump supporters (many who are not pro-life, by the way) cloud your judgement.

And all are medically unnecessary.

She was indeed fortunate that she lived in a place where she could take life saving medication during pregnancy. However, I don’t believe her unborn baby was fortunate that she chose to end his or her life based on some probability that he or she were harmed by the drugs she took. We’ll never know how healthy that child would have been had she not chosen abortion.

You picked the one at about the bottom of the spectrum. I gave a counterexample of one that’s at the upper end of the spectrum. There are a large number of possible things to go wrong, both genetic and also simple failures.

The point is the position of the average “pro-life” person isn’t about life, it’s about making sex dangerous. Pit the true pro-life people against the pro-choice people and pro-choice wins by a landslide.

Quit moving goalposts. I said Republican restrictions aren’t enough to make statistically obvious effects on the abortion rate. That’s not the same as saying Republican policies can drive up the abortion rate.

The adoption demand is greater than the current supply but less than the current supply + abortion rate. If you actually removed those abortions you would expect a return to the situation before abortion was legal–supply exceeds demand, babies die in orphanages.

I’ve seen the pattern long before Covid came along.

You’re assuming all fetal defect cases don’t need abortion. There’s few third trimester maternal health reasons that can’t be solved by delivery but that doesn’t say anything about fetal defects.

I don’t know how bad it would have been, just that the doctors said the risk was high enough that she should have the abortion.

I picked the most common genetic diseases that mothers choose to abort over. You picked one of the least common ones. Which side of the spectrum does it make more sense to focus on?

Your mixing two points here. Where you’re wrong on point 1 is that there is no average pro-life person and no average pro-choice person. That is because the average person shares elements of both beliefs. Where you are wrong on point 2 is that you have no evidence that pro-lifers want to make sex more dangerous.

You said “places that prohibit abortion entirely have an abortion rate as high as places it’s legal–because their policies result in more oopses.” If republicans want to restrict abortion, you are saying their policies will lead to more ooopses. And more oopses lead to more abortions.

You are right that we do not have data that says that republican restrictions will reduce the abortion rate. Current data says that it has no effect. But don’t act like you didn’t claim that republican policies will make things worse. You clearly did say that.

No. I wouldn’t expect every mother that couldn’t get an abortion for her unwanted pregnancy to put her baby up for adoption. So I have no idea how the “supply” of babies up for adoption would look. But more importantly, why do you keep saying they will “die in orphanages?” That’s a really grimm prediction with no basis in reality.

This is your bias affecting your viewpoint. Your view is not based in actual facts. The anti-vax movement was more prominent in blue enclaves than red ones prior to the covid vaccine.

Correct. They don’t.

There are countless stories of women that refused doctors’ recommendations to abort their unborn babies than went on to have healthy children. There are countless stories in which those children were sick, but went on to live very fulfilling lives and the mothers did not regret their decisions to have their children. Just because a doctor recommends and abortion doesn’t mean that the baby is going to die as an infant if he or she is delivered.

Facebook secret banned list published,

The Intercept has reviewed a snapshot of the full DIO list and is today publishing a reproduction of the material in its entirety, with only minor redactions and edits to improve clarity. It is also publishing an associated policy document, created to help moderators decide what posts to delete and what users to punish.

“Facebook puts users in a near-impossible position by telling them they can’t post about dangerous groups and individuals, but then refusing to publicly identify who it considers dangerous,”

The list and associated rules appear to be a clear embodiment of American anxieties, political concerns, and foreign policy values since 9/11, experts said, even though the DIO policy is meant to protect all Facebook users and applies to those who reside outside of the United States (the vast majority). Nearly everyone and everything on the list is considered a foe or threat by America or its allies: Over half of it consists of alleged foreign terrorists, free discussion of which is subject to Facebook’s harshest censorship.

the DIO policy and blacklist also place far looser prohibitions on commentary about predominately white anti-government militias than on groups and individuals listed as terrorists, who are predominately Middle Eastern, South Asian, and Muslim, or those said to be part of violent criminal enterprises, who are predominantly Black and Latino, the experts said.

Here’s the list

Sure aren’t many Christian terrorist organizations.

Nearly every single US banned group is either some sort of patriotic or white organization, and you sure get put on the list fast for putting the word “Militia” in your name, even groups like “the well regulated militia”. Proud Boys are banned, and they banned people like Hitler and the KKK just to make sure you knew how bad everyone else was.

There was the Anti-Antifa milita, but of course Antifa is “just an idea” so they don’t need to be listed. I think I saw one Black Panthers group listed, but certainly not BLM which is odd because all these Aryans groups that consist of one mad white guy and 3 FBI agents never did a billion dollars in damage like BLM did in the Mostly Peaceful Celebration of Floyd last year.

After all, Black Nationalists / Separatists are no longer Hate Groups according to the Southern Poverty Hate Mongers, the official Hate source used by many of these tech companies looking to outsource responsibility. Hating whitey is fine but if you hate Jews or trannies, then back on the list they go.


Cebulski admitted in 2017 that he used the name “Akira Yoshida” and published several Marvel comics under it in the early 2000s,

“It’s just another example of non-Asians feeling they are more authoritative than actual Asian people,”

How utterly stupid. Pseudonyms are often used in writing.

Where’s the outrage of Li Jun Fan having made movies under a very “white” pseudonym? Or the countless actors, actresses, and writers who continue to do so every day?

What about all the immigrants (of the legal variety) who intentionally assumed more “American” names when immigrating here over the past century? Surely they should all be denounced as well?

1 Like

But Bruce Lee never changed screen name, especially for one with link to a completely different ethnic group. For writers, there could be tons more reasons but it’s easier to use and change pseudonym since your identity is not as directly connected to the name as an actor.

Anyway, I agree that for Cebulski, the person quoted missed the mark by quite some distance probably trying to be more woke and outraged to push their agenda.

The real reason for his pseudonym was that Marvel prohibited editorial staff to write and get paid for writing/drawing works since these editors had an unfair advantage over outside writers for getting published. Basically he cheated his way around company policy to get more of his work published. If I had to guess, I’d say he used a Japanese name to put more distance between himself and the made up persona, using his fluency in Japanese to better create a believable persona, but probably not so much to sound more authoritative than Asian authors. He knew that getting caught breaking company policy would have negative consequences so the less obvious the connection the better. If he had written under pseudonym like Jan Kowalski, I don’t think the identity of the person behind the pseudonym would have stayed a secret as long as it did.

That said, I also agree with the article, in that picking a pseudonym (any pseudonym would have been equally bad) to get away with breaking company policy and boost your career ahead of other writers does show a deep lack of ethics, at least at the time of the actions. The fact that he revealed it after the policies he broke were no longer in place, does not help either.

But I don’t think it fits into social credit/politics context. For me, it’s more of a case of getting what’s coming to you for past unethical behavior.

1 Like

That’s an argument I can understand.

It’s about your life being jerked around in the (twisted) name of so-called social justice. If you (not you personally) are going to demand that a white dude only uses white-dude fake names, then I’m going to expect an Asian dude to only use Asian fake names too.

I like your explanation. But this article/issue is not about cheating his way around company policy, it was solely about the specific name chosen to do so.

1 Like

Kowalski, progress report!

1 Like

Clearly anti-Polish ethnic stereotyping.

Next thing you know, you’re going to insist there are two genders, and the guys have bigger muscles. Hate Speech!

1 Like

I find this all over the right wing sites but no mention elsewhere. That makes me very suspicious.