[Leonard D Neubache]

(06-29-2016 04:18 AM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  

(06-28-2016 11:25 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

(06-28-2016 07:38 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Always have backups. Copy/paste on posts is standard procedure for serious internet posting. Learn the keyboard shortcuts.

All good and well, but when you have a reasonably well thought out reply and it keeps getting bounced there's not much you can do except waste a lot of time selectively editing and reposting the text until you find the trigger words.

You can copy your reply to clipboard, delete it so it's just a single word, press the Post Reply button and then simply paste your whole reply back by using the "Quick Edit" function. For some reason, whatever safeguards are in place that block certain characters when creating a post are not there when editing posts.

Tried that. It didn't work. The window for the quick edit bounced the edited post, as detailed in Roosh's thread dealing with this issue.

Whatever it was in my post (nothing deliberately grotesque, I can assure you) the forum coding was all over it like white on rice.

p.s. while I could have been more specific (?) this thread is intended not as a debate over abortion but as a notification that even several Supreme Court Justices are now admitting that the rule of law is no longer in effect.

[Enoch]

(06-29-2016 05:50 AM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  

With all that said, I am actually a proponent of abortion. In the United States at least it tends to have a slightly eugenic effect.

Agree. The attractive & educated young women who waste their prime fertility usually do so with the help of the pill and other contraceptives, not abortion.

Abortion is contraception for people with low impulse control / future time preferences.

[The Beast1]

(06-29-2016 10:31 AM)Enoch Wrote:  

(06-29-2016 05:50 AM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  

With all that said, I am actually a proponent of abortion. In the United States at least it tends to have a slightly eugenic effect.

Agree. The attractive & educated young women who waste their prime fertility usually do so with the help of the pill and other contraceptives, not abortion.

Abortion is contraception for people with low impulse control / future time preferences.

Not really, most abortions done in the US are by white women. This graph while old, still shows that trend.



The only ones eugenically removing themselves the most are white women. Minorities don't care.

[Leonard D Neubache]

^What about adjusted per head of population. At 12 percent of the population, blacks accounting for 30% of abortions is epic.

[LeeEnfield303]

(06-29-2016 10:46 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

^What about adjusted per head of population. At 12 percent of the population, blacks accounting for 30% of abortions is epic.

Its a form of self-inflicted genocide. Essentially, black women have chosen abortion as their preferred form of birth control, whilst other races use it when conventional birth control methods fail.

[Fast Eddie]

(06-29-2016 10:40 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

(06-29-2016 10:31 AM)Enoch Wrote:  

(06-29-2016 05:50 AM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  

With all that said, I am actually a proponent of abortion. In the United States at least it tends to have a slightly eugenic effect.

Agree. The attractive & educated young women who waste their prime fertility usually do so with the help of the pill and other contraceptives, not abortion.

Abortion is contraception for people with low impulse control / future time preferences.

Not really, most abortions done in the US are by white women. This graph while old, still shows that trend.



The only ones eugenically removing themselves the most are white women. Minorities don't care.

That graph shows the exact opposite of what you claim. White women are two thirds of the female population but account for only one third of abortions. Or to put it another way, whites abort their babies at half the rate of minorities. For every baby aborted by an average white woman, an average minority woman aborts 2 babies. And so on...

[Sp5]

(06-29-2016 05:28 AM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  

(06-29-2016 04:30 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  

The analogy to that Texas law on abortion if something similar was done with regard to gun rights would be if a "gun control" jurisdiction required all gun shops to have four foot thick reinforced concrete walls with two inch steel lining and two armed guards posted 24/7.

Umm, well, not exactly:

Quote:

HB2 is a statute requiring abortion doctors in the Lone Star State to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of their abortion clinic. The state law also requires every abortion facility to meet the equipment and sanitation standards of an ambulatory surgical center.

None of this is arbitrary or unreasonable. You want the physician performing the abortion to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals so that if anything goes wrong with the abortion he is able to quickly coordinate a transfer to a higher acuity setting (the hospital).

Furthermore, abortion is a minor surgery with a very real risk of complication. Why should abortion clinics be allowed to have laxer sanitation and equipment standards than other medical facilities that carry out minor surgeries? This law is not creating punitive regulations against abortion clinics: it is merely trying to remove the singular privilege abortion clinics enjoy of being able to escape any and all standards that apply to other medical facilities. What justification is there for abortion clinics being able to have laxer standards than colonoscopy suites aside from ideological "muh body" hysteria?

Your analogy falls flat.

We do have gun shop robberies and burglaries, and a threat of terrorism, so it's not "arbitrary or unreasonable" to have gun shops seriously fortified, either.

The risk from a terrorist raid on a gun shop is substantially greater than from a single abortion gone wrong: 100s could be killed. I'm not arguing that they be so fortified, but . . . .

Somehow, the other 49 states had abortion clinics without these requirements. Neither Texas nor the friends of the statute were able to show deaths from the lack of the nearby admitting privileges or having the equipment for a surgical clinic.

Just goes to show, depends on who's speaking, whose rights are being interfered with.

[Fast Eddie]

(06-29-2016 12:47 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  

(06-29-2016 05:28 AM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  

Umm, well, not exactly:

Quote:

HB2 is a statute requiring abortion doctors in the Lone Star State to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of their abortion clinic. The state law also requires every abortion facility to meet the equipment and sanitation standards of an ambulatory surgical center.

None of this is arbitrary or unreasonable. You want the physician performing the abortion to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals so that if anything goes wrong with the abortion he is able to quickly coordinate a transfer to a higher acuity setting (the hospital).

Furthermore, abortion is a minor surgery with a very real risk of complication. Why should abortion clinics be allowed to have laxer sanitation and equipment standards than other medical facilities that carry out minor surgeries? This law is not creating punitive regulations against abortion clinics: it is merely trying to remove the singular privilege abortion clinics enjoy of being able to escape any and all standards that apply to other medical facilities. What justification is there for abortion clinics being able to have laxer standards than colonoscopy suites aside from ideological "muh body" hysteria?

Your analogy falls flat.

We do have gun shop robberies and burglaries, and a threat of terrorism, so it's not "arbitrary or unreasonable" to have gun shops seriously fortified, either.

The risk from a terrorist raid on a gun shop is substantially greater than from a single abortion gone wrong: 100s could be killed. I'm not arguing that they be so fortified, but . . . .

Somehow, the other 49 states had abortion clinics without these requirements. Neither Texas nor the friends of the statute were able to show deaths from the lack of the nearby admitting privileges or having the equipment for a surgical clinic.

Just goes to show, depends on who's speaking, whose rights are being interfered with.

You are completely ignoring the point that this legislation did not create arbitrary and unreasonable regulations on abortion clinics. There already exist regulations on facilities that carry out minor surgeries. Is abortion a minor surgery? Yes. Is it perfectly reasonable to ask for abortion clinics to comply with the same set of standards that already exist for other similar medical facilities? Yes.

Your analogy with gun shops is not remotely comparable, because it creates arbitrary standards out of thin air. Not only that, but it places an onus on gun shops to take precautions against the hypothetical actions of third parties. In contrast, medical regulations set standards on the day to day actions of the regulated party itself.

[Sp5]

(06-29-2016 01:23 PM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  

(06-29-2016 12:47 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  

(06-29-2016 05:28 AM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  

Umm, well, not exactly:

Quote:

HB2 is a statute requiring abortion doctors in the Lone Star State to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of their abortion clinic. The state law also requires every abortion facility to meet the equipment and sanitation standards of an ambulatory surgical center.

None of this is arbitrary or unreasonable. You want the physician performing the abortion to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals so that if anything goes wrong with the abortion he is able to quickly coordinate a transfer to a higher acuity setting (the hospital).

Furthermore, abortion is a minor surgery with a very real risk of complication. Why should abortion clinics be allowed to have laxer sanitation and equipment standards than other medical facilities that carry out minor surgeries? This law is not creating punitive regulations against abortion clinics: it is merely trying to remove the singular privilege abortion clinics enjoy of being able to escape any and all standards that apply to other medical facilities. What justification is there for abortion clinics being able to have laxer standards than colonoscopy suites aside from ideological "muh body" hysteria?

Your analogy falls flat.

We do have gun shop robberies and burglaries, and a threat of terrorism, so it's not "arbitrary or unreasonable" to have gun shops seriously fortified, either.

The risk from a terrorist raid on a gun shop is substantially greater than from a single abortion gone wrong: 100s could be killed. I'm not arguing that they be so fortified, but . . . .

Somehow, the other 49 states had abortion clinics without these requirements. Neither Texas nor the friends of the statute were able to show deaths from the lack of the nearby admitting privileges or having the equipment for a surgical clinic.

Just goes to show, depends on who's speaking, whose rights are being interfered with.

You are completely ignoring the point that this legislation did not create arbitrary and unreasonable regulations on abortion clinics. There already exist regulations on facilities that carry out minor surgeries. Is abortion a minor surgery? Yes. Is it perfectly reasonable to ask for abortion clinics to comply with the same set of standards that already exist for other similar medical facilities? Yes.

Your analogy with gun shops is not remotely comparable, because it creates arbitrary standards out of thin air. Not only that, but it places an onus on gun shops to take precautions against the hypothetical actions of third parties. In contrast, medical regulations set standards on the day to day actions of the regulated party itself.

In other words, you arbitrarily say that your standards are reasonable, and my standards are arbitrary. OK.

The District Court and the Supreme Court disagree with you. They found that the law created an undue burden on the exercise of a constitutional right. That was after extensive testimony and other evidence.

Did you read the opinion? First there was evidence showing the low rate of complications and the infintesimally small amounts of complications requiring hospital care. Second, there was evidence that local hospitals in small town Bible-beating areas would not give abortion doctors admitting privileges.

The admitting privileges rule was a clever idea to keep abortion clinics out of small towns and cities in Texas. First, the hospitals would not give admitting privileges for reasons unrelated to competence of the doctors. Second, even if they did, the local churches would rally members to picket/harass the doctors and their families.

Like with the Brock Turner thread, this thread is full of non-lawyers getting their opinions on law from inflammatory political sites instead of the rulings and evidence. The doctrine of undue burden goes back many years, and has been applied to the First Amendment as well.

[Leonard D Neubache]

^ Or... an ancient event where the SCOTUS wizarded a bullshit ruling about an "inferred" constitutional right has created a Federal tyranny where none ought to have existed in the first place and now people are trying to find work-arounds to bring back the America that apparently no longer exists.

The point the dissenting judges are making is that the supreme court case law that has butchered the constitution has rendered the laws of the land inconsequential.

Again, this has nothing to do with abortion and everything to do with progressive justices quite deliberately making progressive rulings. Whisking up an "inferred federally protected right to abortion" one week and then claiming the second ammendment doesn't apply to select fire weapons the next is the same as saying "fuck your precious Constitution, we're going to do whatever the fuck we like".

Law is a contract between the governors and the governed. If one of those two breaks the contract then the contract is by definition broken. The second needn't bother honouring it if the first doesn't.

[Phoenix]

So, to be clear, this thread now contains "abortion's good because it's eugenic", juxtaposed with an explanation that "it's mostly blacks doing it".

Sorry, but that shit just looks disgustingly racist.

[Leonard D Neubache]

I think you're getting a bit worked up over nothing, or you're being sarcastic. Not sure.

Comments went: Abortion is eugenic=>Mostly for whites=>No, your stats show mostly for blacks.

You might need to take a deep breath or two.

[Fast Eddie]

(06-30-2016 04:36 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

So, to be clear, this thread now contains "abortion's good because it's eugenic", juxtaposed with an explanation that "it's mostly blacks doing it".

Sorry, but that shit just looks disgustingly racist.

I think you got a bit too eager to virtue signal and twisted what was said in this thread to give yourself an opportunity. Nobody claimed abortion is eugenic specifically because it targets blacks. Abortion is eugenic by default. If the United States were 100% white, abortion would still be eugenic. On average, people who have abortions are just less dialed in than people who don't, regardless of race.

It's a tautology: the very fact you ended up in an abortion clinic is reason enough to believe society is probably better off without having to endure the existence of your offspring.

[Samseau]

(06-30-2016 11:47 AM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  

(06-30-2016 04:36 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

So, to be clear, this thread now contains "abortion's good because it's eugenic", juxtaposed with an explanation that "it's mostly blacks doing it".

Sorry, but that shit just looks disgustingly racist.

I think you got a bit too eager to virtue signal and twisted what was said in this thread to give yourself an opportunity. Nobody claimed abortion is eugenic specifically because it targets blacks. Abortion is eugenic by default. If the United States were 100% white, abortion would still be eugenic. On average, people who have abortions are just less dialed in than people who don't, regardless of race.

It's a tautology: the very fact you ended up in an abortion clinic is reason enough to believe society is probably better off without having to endure the existence of your offspring.

The fact is, long before abortions were around people were still killing unwanted children. Infanticide has been around forever, abortion is just a way of white-washing the practice.

I agree that women who think it's good to kill their children are fucked in the head and aren't suitable mother material.