Stoneykins [any] @ Stoneykins @mander.xyz

Posts

0

Comments

320

Joined

2 yr. ago

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!

You said this:

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.

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.

There is historical precedent that your assumptions are not the case. Assumptions are deadly if you use them to ignore the world around you.

And it's not like there are great systems in place to support babies given up for adoption, even if that was what happened.

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.

Excuse me but this is clearly a Parasaurolophus mommy.

I think they could install android TV on that pi they have, make this solution free.

Idk, not something I've done, and based on 30 seconds of googling it it looks like it would be annoying, but I'll let OP decide what is worth doing.

I think it would depend on the individual. Some would admit it, once they see the whole globe through that glass it would be like trying to say apples don't exist in response to someone handing you an apple. Their senses would override the belief. They might not be very thrilled to admit it...

Then there would be the people that are fanatics about it... They would probably get hysterical, or check out mentally, or get violent, or some other sort of emotional break. I would also guess these people would be unwilling to go into space in the first place.

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".

Btw even if it wasn't intentional this is the funniest thing I've seen today, "damn building instincts" had me in tears.

I'm sorry if this is rude, I'm glad we had a pleasant exchange.

No figs for you

I know you meant the ones that you don't want to get stung by, but even those don't exist to sting you, they are important predators and scavengers of their environments, and their loss would still have negative effects.

Plus, the context of the post is discussing the possible negative impacts if certain animals just disappear, so I used your phrasing as an excuse to talk about something I think is interesting. I mean, without wasps, you don't have figs anymore, at all, and all sorts of other stuff. I think that is neat.

Huh. Do you live pretty far from where beavers do (not asking you to be specific)?

But yes, beavers are great. They are what is known as a "keystone species" because they create the wetland environments that many other species depend on to live in. They eat wood, and yes, the way they build dams is by piling debris/wood wherever they find/hear flowing water, until they've plugged it all up. Then they build a lodge with an underwater entrance in the pond they made, and stock it with sticks to eat through the winter. I think they are adorable.

Oooh that one is rough, especially since you just said generic "wasp". That would get rid of a monumental amount of pollinators, specialist ones. And scavengers and predators that help manage other pests. And a large number of wasps are smaller and don't sting, instead they have ovipositors. I won't get into detail what they do with em, but they are harmless to humans and often amazing at taking out populations of agricultural pests, like hornworms

I can't tell if this is a bit or someone who has only heard of beavers from a half overheard conversation they were eavesdropping on.