|
Post by AmeriCanVBfan on Jun 22, 2024 16:58:39 GMT -5
mike likes to fudge numbers to make a point. Unless I'm counting wrong (entirely possible) there are 36 states (two-thirds of the country) where abortion is legal and 33 states where access to abortion remains unchanged for the most part. I'm not saying anything is or isn't great, I'm saying that claiming that women's healthcare has been devastated is inaccurate and hyperbolic in the way square said it and meant it.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jun 22, 2024 17:00:23 GMT -5
No women's health rights are devastated in the states that have banned abortion. You certainly enjoy cherry picking. And you enjoy hyperbole. Saying that women's health rights are devastated gives the impression that they are devastated across the whole of the United States. You know this isn't the case. According to the link I mentioned I could have listed approximately another 33 states. That's hardly cherry picking. You're projecting, as you lament something that, so far, has affected 17 states. I think the argument "It's not devastating to women's health because it's not devastating to all women" is not a strong argument. Apply that same argument to say, slavery in the Southern states, and it obviously doesn't make much sense. The disparity in rights for women in different states is the fundamental problem with the Dodd decision.
|
|
|
Post by jsquare on Jun 22, 2024 17:01:40 GMT -5
mike likes to fudge numbers to make a point. Unless I'm counting wrong (entirely possible) there are 36 states (two-thirds of the country) where abortion is legal and 33 states where access to abortion remains unchanged for the most part. I'm not saying anything is or isn't great, I'm saying that claiming that women's healthcare has been devastated is inaccurate and hyperbolic in the way square said it and meant it. I'm going with taking away women's health rights in 1/3 of the country's states is devastating. Where do you draw the line?
|
|
|
Post by AmeriCanVBfan on Jun 22, 2024 17:03:09 GMT -5
Nope, that's one of 14 states, plus three others who have slightly less restrictions where abortion is concerned. Relatively small state Minnesota has no restrictions, here's their numbers. Abortions in Minnesota have increased by roughly 40% since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in the Dobbs decision last June, part of a nationwide increase since the end of Roe.
The latest data from the Society of Family Planning, a trade group for medical professionals in obstetrics and related fields, shows that there were about 2,880 abortions performed in Minnesota in April, May and June of 2023. That represents a 37% increase over the same period last year. The Dobbs decision was handed down on June 24, 2022. It doesn't go unnoticed you ignored the story of the 12 year old rape victim, but you define devastating any way you want. I'll go with mine. I ignored a story YOU didn't mention? Whose fault is that? You're allowed to go with your definition of devastating, doesn't mean you're right, ESPECIALLY when you're devoid of context (as usual).
|
|
|
Post by jsquare on Jun 22, 2024 17:06:47 GMT -5
Sorry, it was a 10 year old. Those are the strings of nonsense you do like to tug on.
|
|
|
Post by jsquare on Jun 22, 2024 17:07:25 GMT -5
It doesn't go unnoticed you ignored the story of the 12 year old rape victim, but you define devastating any way you want. I'll go with mine. I ignored a story YOU didn't mention? Whose fault is that? You're allowed to go with your definition of devastating, doesn't mean you're right, ESPECIALLY when you're devoid of context (as usual). I've proven my point. You, on the other hand, just look foolish.
|
|
|
Post by AmeriCanVBfan on Jun 22, 2024 17:11:50 GMT -5
And you enjoy hyperbole. Saying that women's health rights are devastated gives the impression that they are devastated across the whole of the United States. You know this isn't the case. According to the link I mentioned I could have listed approximately another 33 states. That's hardly cherry picking. You're projecting, as you lament something that, so far, has affected 17 states. I think the argument "It's not devastating to women's health because it's not devastating to all women" is not a strong argument. Apply that same argument to say, slavery in the Southern states, and it obviously doesn't make much sense. The disparity in rights for women in different states is the fundamental problem with the Dodd decision. But there's the qualifier! Slavery in the S outhern states. Was slavery in the South as devastating to Blacks who lived in the North? I would say no. Is the overturning of Roe v Wade "devastating" to women in states where there has been no change? I would say no. IF square had been honest enough to say that the overturning is devastating in the states that made changes to their pre-existing abortion laws, I could say "Square has a point." Square didn't do that. As for the disparity of rights in different states... isn't that part of the fabric of the United States? That one state might decide to do something differently than another? NOW... whether abortion should've been regarded in this manner is a completely other debate.
|
|
|
Post by AmeriCanVBfan on Jun 22, 2024 17:13:30 GMT -5
Sorry, it was a 10 year old. Those are the strings of nonsense you do like to tug on. Nope these are the inaccuracies/dishonesties that you propagate. And I answered that one about the 10-year-old, or are you going to be dishonest and pretend I didn't?
|
|
|
Post by jsquare on Jun 22, 2024 17:13:30 GMT -5
I think the argument "It's not devastating to women's health because it's not devastating to all women" is not a strong argument. Apply that same argument to say, slavery in the Southern states, and it obviously doesn't make much sense. The disparity in rights for women in different states is the fundamental problem with the Dodd decision. But there's the qualifier! Slavery in the S outhern states. Was slavery in the South as devastating to Blacks who lived in the North? I would say no. Is the overturning of Roe v Wade "devastating" to women in states where there has been no change? I would say no. IF square had been honest enough to say that the overturning is devastating in the states that made changes to their pre-existing abortion laws, I could say "Square has a point." Square didn't do that. As for the disparity of rights in different states... isn't that part of the fabric of the United States? That one state might decide to do something differently than another? NOW... whether abortion should've been regarded in this manner is a completely other debate. and you keep pulling on the strings of nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jun 22, 2024 17:21:13 GMT -5
A 6-week ban is effectively a ban, as many women don't even know they are pregnant by that point.
And holy sh*t, it's hard to even conceive of someone arguing that slavery wasn't all that bad because at least some states didn't allow it, which is effectively what you are doing here.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jun 22, 2024 18:14:54 GMT -5
I think the argument "It's not devastating to women's health because it's not devastating to all women" is not a strong argument. Apply that same argument to say, slavery in the Southern states, and it obviously doesn't make much sense. The disparity in rights for women in different states is the fundamental problem with the Dodd decision. But there's the qualifier! Slavery in the S outhern states. Was slavery in the South as devastating to Blacks who lived in the North? I would say no. Is the overturning of Roe v Wade "devastating" to women in states where there has been no change? I would say no. IF square had been honest enough to say that the overturning is devastating in the states that made changes to their pre-existing abortion laws, I could say "Square has a point." Square didn't do that. As for the disparity of rights in different states... isn't that part of the fabric of the United States? That one state might decide to do something differently than another? NOW... whether abortion should've been regarded in this manner is a completely other debate. Part of the United States is that we are a republic with states rights, but we also have reciprocity, which ensures some types of freedoms are not invalidated by other states. That’s a different argument than the one you’re making it seems (which seems heavily dependent on “the qualifier”.)
|
|
|
Post by AmeriCanVBfan on Jun 22, 2024 20:59:41 GMT -5
A 6-week ban is effectively a ban, as many women don't even know they are pregnant by that point. And holy sh*t, it's hard to even conceive of someone arguing that slavery wasn't all that bad because at least some states didn't allow it, which is effectively what you are doing here. Geez mike, you're REALLY pulling off a great square impersonation. I'm saying that you can't say slavery was devastating to ALL African Americans in the SAME WAY, because there were Blacks who were free while others were not.
|
|
|
Post by AmeriCanVBfan on Jun 22, 2024 21:08:44 GMT -5
But there's the qualifier! Slavery in the S outhern states. Was slavery in the South as devastating to Blacks who lived in the North? I would say no. Is the overturning of Roe v Wade "devastating" to women in states where there has been no change? I would say no. IF square had been honest enough to say that the overturning is devastating in the states that made changes to their pre-existing abortion laws, I could say "Square has a point." Square didn't do that. As for the disparity of rights in different states... isn't that part of the fabric of the United States? That one state might decide to do something differently than another? NOW... whether abortion should've been regarded in this manner is a completely other debate. Part of the United States is that we are a republic with states rights, but we also have reciprocity, which ensures some types of freedoms are not invalidated by other states. That’s a different argument than the one you’re making it seems (which seems heavily dependent on “the qualifier”.) But, to the heart of the matter, you seem to be focused on a different part of the argument than I am. I was stating that square's comment was inaccurate because it doesn't hold true for most women in the United States. Their healthcare hasn't been affected so how could it be devastated? Your point was... The disparity in rights for women in different states is the fundamental problem with the Dodd decision.
To me, that's completely different than what I addressed.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jun 22, 2024 21:17:42 GMT -5
Part of the United States is that we are a republic with states rights, but we also have reciprocity, which ensures some types of freedoms are not invalidated by other states. That’s a different argument than the one you’re making it seems (which seems heavily dependent on “the qualifier”.) But, to the heart of the matter, you seem to be focused on a different part of the argument than I am. I was stating that square's comment was inaccurate because it doesn't hold true for most women in the United States. Their healthcare hasn't been affected so how could it be devastated? Your point was... The disparity in rights for women in different states is the fundamental problem with the Dodd decision.
To me, that's completely different than what I addressed. Well, its actually the response/counter-argument to your "qualified" argument. Your argument is basically that devastating doesn't apply because it didn't affect everyone. That's a very narrow, qualified argument. I guess the asteroid that landed on Earth in the age of dinosaurs really wasn't devastating because not every species was affected.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jun 22, 2024 21:26:57 GMT -5
This is all a self-inflicted wound by Canam. This thread was completely dormant until he brought it to life by trying to say that since not *all* women in the US have had the right to control their own body taken away by their state laws, that there is no problem.
And then he compounded that by saying slavery really wasn't a big problem either, because it also didn't apply to every black person in the country. (Although, in fact, after the Dred Scott Decision it did.)
I have no idea why he thought it would be a good idea for him to even bring this thread back to life, but it hasn't worked out that way. (In much the same way, it hasn't worked out politically for the Republicans that they managed to overturn Roe.)
|
|