Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sam who wrote (235922)	5/11/2022 3:46:04 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 356539

The idea, douche, is to transition away from the barbarism to the extent possible. That is, to allow states to set time limits to something more consistent with world norms rather than for the US to be among the most barbaric of countries in the world allowing abortions at the last minute as some Democratically-controlled states would have it. While Democrats may be barbaric, you don't have to advertise it quite so loudlly. So, let's take it down to 12 or 14 weeks for a while, as in other civilized nations, and get people acclimated to that. They are growups, they can learn it, and we can transition to using modern techniques to deal with pregnancies that are not desired. You just have to decide at an earlier date. This is what adults do. That it bothers you to have reasonable deadlines on this is inexplicable other than maybe you have a difficult time with decision making. Most girls and women who are old enough to get pregnant can understand the issue and act accordingly.

To: Sam who wrote (235922)	5/11/2022 5:26:37 PM
From: Lane3	1 Recommendation Recommended By bentway Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 356539

He is just being an asshat jerk. As usual. I took his comments as him having vaguely recalled his old conservative foundations and is asserting the Daddy State to counteract what he sees, mistakenly, as a manifestation of the Nanny State. But what you said, too. I particularly liked this bit: " few people want women to be forced to have children they can't or won't take care of. " Yeah, then why are so many so hot to create just that scenario, duh?

To: Sam who wrote (235922)	5/12/2022 12:28:28 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 356539

>> It was always "widely available" for people with money. Node knows that. He is just being an asshat jerk. As usual. This is what we [those who are knowledgeable about data analysis] refer to as spurious correlation. You think they're related but there really is no evidence of a relationship. There are significant other potential causes (ignorant, perverse incentives, lack of self-respect, moral inconsideration, general lack of responsibility, etc.) that are the more likely causes. If a poor woman wants to have sex but truly "cannot afford" protection against pregnancy, she could tell her boyfriend if he wants to have sex he needs to come up with money for protection first. Period. And be grown up about it. Even a condom provides reasonable safety for a one-off. The painting of poverty as a cause of abortion is abject racism. And you are as racist as anyone I know of. You impute stupidity on people who were raised on federal money, had no example of responsibility in their lives, and they are replicating the behavior they learned from their momma and if they had one, their daddy. The pill is available for as little as 33c/day. Less than the cost of 1 cigarette, a bottle of water or soft drink, each day. Let's not act as though poverty is a factor. It isn't.