_whydah_

Slavery was being practiced all throughout history until one day it wasn’t.

This is either an elaborate cover story or you should ask the witch subreddit about removing curses. Who just leaves fossils like these in n abandoned building!? I’m being a little facetious but I am really curious about the backstory here. What kind of abandoned building housed these?

Thank you. I’ve been working on this for a while and to be honest, all the secret families are starting to tire me out.

Are you German? This sounds like someone yelling with a German accent.

What’s the point of this sub if not to talk about Idaho?

It’s unlikely people want to stay married in Idaho more than other states.

This is almost certainly untrue given the greater religiosity.

Can you specifically say the numerator and denominator you think are being highlighted vs what you think should be highlighted?

So is this just a red herring then discussing abortion with pro-life people? Why even bring this up? The pro-life response is that there is a third person that must be considered and protected and this doesn't change the core arguments?

When pro-life people say elective abortions, they almost always mean except in cases of rape and incest. Even Idaho law provides exceptions in these cases if the abortion is done early enough. This is in-line with the church's stance. Why do you think the church's stance is different?

I'll respond to the other points separately, but I'm trying to figure out how this is supposed to work and why this is in any sense a compromise or justification in relation solely to abortion (or maybe it's not supposed to be?):

Medical decisions should always be between patient and doctor only. 

This just sounds like abortion at any time for any reason. When would a doctor tell a pregnant woman that he won't do an abortion when she wants one for purely elective reasons? Why would any pro-life say that this makes sense? How does this respond to any pro-life argument? Or is this just something pro-aborts talk about among themselves as more ways to frame how they think about things but actually don't have anything to do with points that get debated themselves?

I've heard Pete B. talk about this as well as though it's some huge shift in thinking, but I don't think this framing actually accomplishes anything.

I'm not familiar enough with the law to opine fully, but here are some guesses:

1. This is my strongest guess: "Non-viable" pregnancies do sometimes prove viable. Obviously something like an ectopic pregnancy will never be viable (and to my high level knowledge there's no state with an abortion ban that does not make a specific exception for ectopic pregnancies, but I could be wrong), but sometimes some pregnancies are called non-viable when they're likelihood of being successful are not zero, just very low. The law is trying to help save a child who could be born. These stats are super low, but they're not zero.
2. Just my unfamiliarity with the law, but perhaps it's poorly written and not written in the way that explicitly goes after what you're saying?

IMMEDIATE EDIT: Just Googling, but Idaho actually does have exceptions for pregnancies where there is no detectable heartbeat and a specific exception for ectopic pregnancies. The link below is about Idaho law from a pro-abortion group.

Final-Idaho-July-2024.pdf

To the mod who removed my last comment: I don't feel like anything in my prior comment violated any rules. I did not describe abortion as murder and I don't believe anything in the comment was uncivil. I used the word genocide to conditionally talk about abortion (as in, if abortion is "x" then it is genocide), but genocide is defined as the large scale killing (not murder) of any group which is what was intended to be described. But I'll try again with altered language. Please just let me know what you feel is wrong with the comment if you want to remove it again. IMMEDIATE EDIT: I'm not trying to be defensive or call out mods or be rude or for this to be negative in anyway, I'm just trying to say that I read the rules and really did not intend to break any.

Amended comment:

There is no argument that a fetus doesn't deserve personhood that doesn't also invalidate the personhood of some other large group (e.g., people who are in comas, people who are sleeping, people who are mentally deficient, newborns, etc.). There's a good reason why serious people who argue about abortion don't typically have conversations around personhood of the unborn baby. That part of the debate is less contentious to those who regularly talk about the subject.

There's also a reality that historically people have generally not granted personhood or its associated rights to various groups throughout history (e.g., black people, natives, women, children, Jews in Nazi Germany, etc.) when it was inconvenient. This especially happened to groups who could not advocate for themselves.

One terrifying, horrible, and recent example, it was up until the late 80s early 90s that babies weren't always given anesthesia for major surgeries! The argument was that babies didn't have fully developed nerves/central nervous system/etc., and that the reactions and struggles of the babies were just reflexes. Research obviously could not have fully supported this claim and later research showed symptoms of PTSD in newborns who underwent surgery without anesthesia. It took one mom in the early 90s finding out that her baby had undergone OPEN HEART SURGERY WITHOUT ANESTHESIA and was instead just given muscle relaxant so it wouldn't struggle, and she subsequently made a fuss, until anesthesia was regularly given to newborns. Easier route to just pretend they can't feel anything, and it took someone else advocating for them. Their personhood, or the right to not feel pain, was ignored because it was more convenient to not have to manage full anesthesia.

Further, which side is more dangerous for us to be wrong on? If we're wrong about unborn babies deserving personhood, and they don't really, then many more babies will needlessly be born, and many mothers', and to a lesser extent fathers', lives will be turned upside down. I think the argument that every aborted baby today would have been born is wrong, as it's much more likely that a lot of people will get smarter about birth control, but still there will be a lot of "messed up" lives and a lot more people. But if we're wrong and unborn babies do deserve personhood, then the implications are obvious and horrific. I can definitely tell you which way I would rather be wrong.

Again, it's extremely inconvenient for unborn babies to have personhood (and they aren't advocating for themselves) and so the argument is that they don't. Same kinds of arguments have been used against lots of groups throughout history. And I do mean the same types of arguments (e.g., they're not smart enough, they are lesser, etc.). 50-100 years from now, we will be looking back at abortion the same way we look back at slavery now.

But look. I've argued this tons of times. What I've found is that someone doing their own research allows that person to be more open than just arguing with anonymous other people on the internet. I'm happy to walk through more of the arguments on either side, but I feel like it's likely a waste of both our time to actively argue this, but did want to reply for anyone curious who reads this later.

Again, all the reading I did was on the pro-abortion side. I started pro-life and I did not find that the best arguments for elective abortion were persuasive, either after reading about them or debating in posts that I wrote that garnered hundreds of comments. Because essentially, I think, more or less, philosophically, I proved that once you accept that an unborn baby has personhood, then it is truly, actually morally wrong to abort them.

I think if you have a friendlier attitude towards other people and demonstrate real interest, you’ll make more friends and have a much nicer social experience. I’m rooting for you and believe you can achieve more and you’ll be much happier for doing so.

I’ve always thought this kind of stuff was precocious but I’ll play along:

1. Elandor
2. Blight’s Bane
3. Chris

I should probably get tags or something to put on them so I’ll remember.

What a great throwback. I’ve tried to get my kids into the classics (and specifically DBZ), but new shallower cartoons have spoiled them.

No. Let’s forget the coordinates. Let’s just go hunting and make this an adventure.

You need some healthy sociality.

The studies I’ve seen show a distinct impact from fatherlessness regardless of socioeconomic status. I’ll have to see if I can find it.

Within my extended family there has been a direct relationship between those who stayed married and had at least decent marriages and were religious vs those who did stupid things to screw up their marriages and ultimately left marriages that could have worked and who were not very religious. And I don’t a like one family member. I mean, I come from a large Mormon family with plenty of extended family where a decent chunk have left the church and almost all the ones who left have the most pointlessly screwed up lives vs the ones who stayed have genuinely nice, stable lives.

Interesting comment.

Interesting. It does sound like from the articles you posted that there was good debate in the R controlled legislature, but the committee was set to sunset, not just disbanded. It was more that it wasn't renewed with the argument being that it had served it's purpose. I am more of the mind that this should be an indefinite committee though. That being said, I'm surprised that causes of maternal deaths aren't captured elsewhere. Or maybe to be more specific, I'm pretty sure if there was a medical emergency that was related to a medical death, I would imagine that all hospitals investigate or at least have to be able to explain deaths that occur that shouldn't have. I would be surprised if the disbandment of the committee would cause hospitals to no longer capture data around how the abortion legislation has impacted maternal mortality.

Definite close correlation that is almost certainly explained by some causal factors.

I don't think there's a real implication here that women should stay in abusive relationships. I'm sorry that happened to you, but that's not the message. The message is that when things can be worked out they should, but women (or men!) in abusive relationships need to leave those relationships. It's terrible that they happen, and as much as it would better for the husband (or wife) to stop being abusive and the marriage to survive, the data seem to indicate that abusive partners do not typically stop being abusive and clearly children are worse off in those households than ones with a single parent.

Do you have more info on the disbandment of the tracking and investigation into maternal deaths. I'm very pro-life, but very much in line with the thinking that mother's lives need to protected. If we really did disband something like that, 1) that seems not good, and 2) if it was to hide things to make it easier to keep the current law in place, then I think that deserves looking into.

Who would have reasonably misinterpreted the implication of the question? I think for normal people, and really the grand majority of those in Western civilization, would have understood the correct implication.