Perhaps, but it will likely at least severely reduce it.
I rejected that. I didn’t say “there would be the same amount of abortions no matter the law” or anything like you seem to think. I don’t think it would be “severely” reduced, and the negatives are extreme to the point of being unacceptable.
As for the data you want me to provide, I refer to the other things said. Unless you agree to also put in the effort to provide data to support your argument, I’m not going to put in all that effort for a random internet convo. Since you made the first claim (at least that I interacted with) (“Perhaps, but it will likely at least severely reduce it”), you can go first.
To be blunt I find the behaviour of demanding rigorous sources and academic honesty in internet arguments obnoxious and hypocritical. Very few people read them, they just want them as stamps of approval. And most conversations I see where someone is demanding sources, they are who should be logically providing sources to the conversation. It is just a silly part of internet culture dancing around pretending to be intellectualism. On a personal level I do love sources though, when they get posted. Not just for accuracy, I find them fun to read.
That is exactly my point. Glad you could see it my way.
Except for the draw part. This wasn’t a competition, and in the nicest way possible, I’ll just walk away from this thinking you are fully incorrect, and I assume you will do the same about me. “Agree to disagree” is more for people who actually know each other. Bye stranger!
Alright I’m gunna take this point by point because broadly I understand what you are trying to get at but you have a few details that bother me and I feel derail the whole thing.
But I didn’t make the claim that this was definitely going to happen, just that it was the likely outcome
Me neither, I was talking about historical precedent, not some hard and fast rule of the universe.
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
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. But also, this assumes there aren’t other ways this can shake out in the end, and child abuse, abandonment and childhood homelessness, and human trafficking are all part of this topic and all things that increase when abortion is illegal. Your common sense assumption is based on a situationally perfect example, and it doesn’t make sense when applied to real world experiences.
if they haven’t changed their mind on it by then.
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
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.
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.
I honestly wouldn’t know where to start looking for data on that.
Generally any search engine is a good start, although you can go to google scholar if you want more academic and dense results. Then, just look for what experts/doctors are saying. Try to stick to groups that verify each other and are verified by outside groups, individual experts are fallible on who knows what, so trust the experts that other experts seem to trust. Generally unless you want to be a researcher yourself, these are the most trustworthy and direct sources for data and such you can possibly get.
You know what I changed my mind. I’ll do a little research paper for you, but only if you do it first, defending your claim that the most likely result of an abortion ban is (mostly) an increase in adoptions.
I prefer sources to be papers, but I’ll accept anything that cites it’s data well.
No, I don’t see fetuses as babies, I feel no moral stress whatsoever in supporting abortion rights. But that is a different point. You were casually claiming adoption as a solution even though it requires thousands of times more effort from a society that currently refuses to provide that effort.
And this is an internet comment, not a research paper, google it. There is so much data on this shit, I’m not gunna spoon feed it to a stranger just because I point out something they said is BS.
I’m on team “glad you responded” but I still wanna respond to 2 things you said.
First, a lot of anti-abortion people want the abortion conversation to end at “this is murder”, but how do you address the bodily autonomy argument? Even if I accept any and all abortions as the full death of a complete person, why are women compelled to donate their bodies to save another person? I don’t support forced organ donations to save lives, and by that logic I also do not support forced pregnancies. Any opinion on that perspective?
Christian nationalism isn’t complicated in what it is, it is just the desire/push/beliefs from the people that want a nation with an explicitly christian government, a christian theocracy. If it completely took over everything, freedom of religion would be dead, everything would be christian. To try and rephrase it bluntly, Christian nationalism is the desire for and work towards a Christian nation. Some people take it seriously, some people don’t, some people outright support it, others deny it even is a real concept.
Edit to add: if you aren’t anti-lgbtq, will you call your representatives that you vote for and emphatically tell them so? The difference in opinions between conservatives and their politicians about lgbtq is something I hear from most conservatives I’ve talked to, but it makes me sad to see they don’t really care beyond saying “I’m not anti-lgbtq”. If you vote for an anti-lgbtq politician because of other policies they support, please at least tell them you don’t agree with their anti-lgbtq stance. It is literally the least amount of help I can think of to ask for.
Really? My main reason for still trying to use adblockers instead of NewPipe or another frontend is that every one I’ve tried is slooooow. Is there a setting I should change or something???
You know, as much as people here say they aren’t happy with it, I haven’t seen any specific complaints that detail the problems. What bad change does windows 11 even make from windows 10?
Not saying I don’t see problems with windows, there are… A lot. But what are the new problems with windows 11?
Edit: to the people downvoting as if you disagree with me: I’m literally asking a question because I don’t know much about windows 11. I am not trying to make any kind of statement for or against windows 11, I just don’t know what the current flavor of bullshit is and wanted to.
Seriously. I don’t want to install something on my phone when the dev is just using a WebView, if that’s what it’s called. When the app is basically just a website with the browser hidden....
This is a guess but I would assume the bottling process in water bottling plants, and the manufacture of the disposable water bottles, contributes to the amount of microplastics more than passive decay of plastic. Really my main points/beliefs are:
We should be careful making claims based on scientific studies to make sure they are accurate to the study, especially when it comes to claims about how a solution for a problem may be reached. A slight misunderstandings can cause good motivations to make things worse (like people collectively throwing away all their reusable water bottles and buying NEW water bottles made with metal, effectively turning millions of usable waterbottles into trash and creating demand for more polluting industry).
Plastic pollution, microplastics, and everything related, is an overproduction industry problem, not an individual responsibility problem. While a concern for ones own health is individual, it’s also almost impossible to meaningfully avoid microplastics with the current situation. The responsibility doesn’t rest on the shoulder of consumers to collectively make good choices, but on governments to regulate and for owners of industry to be held accountable for the damage they have caused.
That is for bottled sold water, not from water bottles that you refill.
I’m sure using plastic anywhere in any form contributes to microplastics absorbed into ones body, but there is probably a difference? It’s just important to be specific what a study says and not accidentally make assumptions.
Also though, I’m gunna keep using my refillable plastic bottle. Trying to manage intake of microplastics based on how much plastic I interact with seems tedious to the point of being impossible. Plastics are the kind of thing that need regulated. And while I might spare myself some microplastics hypothetically, it’s not like the water bottle won’t break down into microplastics in the dump if I replaced it with a metal bottle.
If the culture war is the class war then the class war is the culture war. Dealing with the culture war is often many many times more actionable. We can and should deal with both.
Can comments just be funny? Why does everyone have to try and make some deep point?
Really though why should a broad medium like comics need to be limited in tone and theme? Just because you like unserious comics? Serious comics don’t stop those from existing.
I actually don’t know anything about those. Were they put there while the soviet union still existed/built by the soviet union themselves, or were they put there later after by some fan of the soviet union? If the goal is to keep what is historical, regardless of political context, that would be the key distinction in my opinion.
Most confederate statues are cheap crap bulk built all over the place sometime after the civil war as a sort of long term propaganda. They aren’t historical, they are reputation management.
Whether it was intentionally designed this way or just something that stuck because it benefitted them, the way they are trained teaches them to behave in that confusing way, and results in them being more often able to justify the use of force (just justify it, they use force whenever they want) because “the suspect wasn’t following orders”.
I can’t tell you why but it is a style to have most characters to have huge round eyes, and then have characters have magically tiny beady eyes whenever they have glasses on. They do move and look like pupils, but also get to blink for some reason. You can see that style in lots of stuff.
Non-religious Republicans of Lemmy, how do you reconcile your non-religious convictions with a party that bases a lot of its policies on religion?
E.g. abortion rights, anti-LGBTQ, contempt for atheism, Christian nationalism, etc.
I'm really getting over the enshitification of the internet. (lemmy.world)
When Windows 10 dies, I am going to jump ship over to Linux. Which version would you recommend for someone with zero prior experience with Linux? **Edit: Linux Mint it shall be.**
Whom also likes to game every now and then ;)...
Why are there so many apps that could be websites?
Seriously. I don’t want to install something on my phone when the dev is just using a WebView, if that’s what it’s called. When the app is basically just a website with the browser hidden....
$45 for a cup?! (lemmy.world)
NWBTCW (lemmy.world)
Advice on blocking Youtube ads.
Hello scurvy dogs...
Riven – Port Sherry (Pedro Arizpe) (i0.wp.com)
Source: Riven – Port Sherry...
10:30 it is 👍 (lemmy.world)
Southern Heritage (lemmy.world)
sErVe aNd pRoFeCt (lemmy.ml)
Half a ti (lemmy.world)
It's over (lemmy.world)