Don't quote your latin forum-argument-speak at me. I did not attack you.
what you did was commit the logical fallacy i asserted. you made a statement that attempted to undermine my personal credibility/posting habits, rather than addressing the arguments made in the thread. that's what ad hominem means.
even if you get a hug box for it, ad hominem is still ad hominem and is
normally considered inappropriate to rd threads per cfc rules. i would appreciate if posters did not resort to it.
It would really be appreciated it you would not lecture me on the rights and constitutional matters of Canada because you don't live under this system
? i made a statement about rights generally, and that statement extends to any country which asserts they have "rights". the concept of having rights implies they are different from privileges or other things. words have meaning in the english language, and unless canada has a very strange dictionary, "rights" are not something the government should be arbitrarily ignoring.
and I really doubt you're part of the demographic who would even be affected when the government shrugs at the times when they're violating their own rules.
do you even know "my demographic", fully, when making this statement? lots of data points go into "demographics", so i strongly doubt that you do or could. for some violations of the us constitution, my "demographic" is the most likely to endure constitutional violations, including those of due process, equal protections, and 2a off hand. depending what you mean by "demographic". in the context of abortion, my "demographic" would represent approximately half of fetuses killed, depending on when you establish legal personhood. or even more, if you want to be selective with demographic choices!
side note: you ask that others not to "splain" your life, i ask for similar
. my "demographic" is not and can't possibly be relevant to policy discussion about abortion.
even right to this moment, you have still not addressed the concept of legal personhood despite its relevance to the mandate vs abortion policy comparison, and despite that i have made this connection several times. the whole reason i brought that up was to demonstrate inconsistently applied rationale for law.
if you want to refute that position, it is not possible to do so w/o addressing what i've actually argued. if you don't want to refute that position, why are you quoting it and saying things about it in a way that appears to represent disagreement?
So while you might be obsessing about 2 people, I'm not. It would be great if you'd stop harping on this.
it's a fundamental question when it comes to abortion. there is no (functional) law wrt abortion without the legal rights of a 2nd person being in question.
i never said they were equivalent, and that doesn't matter to my argument at all.
what i did point out is that the standards/reasoning for "rights" evoked in one case vs the other are not consistent.
(kids as young as 9 have been known to get pregnant).
iirc the record is significantly younger, but i'm not among the crowd who is advocating against abortions in such a draconian fashion that i consider it legitimate policy to deny abortions in these cases (or even more generally)
Just stop this. Honestly, you are trying to compare unrelated things. I've given my well-reasoned explanation already and pretending to misunderstand isn't doing you favors.
actually, you have once again multi-quoted me without addressing important points of my argument, including internal consistency of laws and "for whom" rights count and why, despite that i have illustrated the importance of those points to my argumentative position.
i have no intention to tell people what they can or can't post, but it's odd to repeatedly quote posts in a discussion and not address what they say. i don't have much i can do with that other than pointing out that no, you really haven't engaged with my argument yet. it's awkward but w/e
Firstly, obviously it's bad momentum in general
i don't think we've established anything whereby this follows in this thread?
But, the most important risk (imo) is that a tight timepoint allows institutional delays to become a key strategic battleground - and that is one we have a lot less insight or control over. So, it shifts the battlelines on a much harder fight.
i don't think this is true, at least not per cdc data when i checked. median time to go from suspecting pregnancy to confirming it was something like 4d, and median time to make arrangements for abortion after choosing to do so was 2d. by far the greatest contributing factors to abortion delays per that article were not knowing about pregnancy yet + being undecided on abortion.
i wonder what % of people/outliers would make it to weeks 13-14 w/o knowing about pregnancy yet.
this might be "technically harder", but we're talking very marginally "harder" in nearly every case, not "much" in the context of florida law.
I know a person here that missed local deadlines and then couldn't access distant services due to resources, and the spread between 15 weeks and 24 weeks would have mattered. In two different timelines, she shows up in your statistics as someone who made use of services before 15 weeks but didn't afterwards.
this is probably a little too personal to go into details about it. i do wonder to what extent behaviors change when knowing different rules though.
But here in the ACT, where it's been decriminalised for longer (the crimes act sections were removed in 2002) and officially there's no listed "gestational limits" on big comparative maps and charts... it's still had accessibility issues because there's no specialist closer than Sydney that performs complex surgical abortions. So at a practical level, even though there was long officially more of a "right" to abortion, it was less accessible than places where it was officially (unenforcably) criminalised until 2019.
imo "this isn't illegal" and "right to" should be distinguished. if it were actually a right, one would expect resource allocation to reflect that.
That said, I think it's pretty easy to suggest that official early limits are necessarily going to make it harder to get later abortions than official late limits, all else being equal.
while true, i suspect the difference between these two things to be minimal.
I still was surprised by germany! I know that we care about the United States, because of meme toxicity. There is still low hanging fruit elsewhere if the actual goal is to help women.
to what extent is current policy in germany a problem in practice? is this a context where women actually need...or even want help? i'm not saying it isn't per se', just that it's not clear. i don't know what german political sphere/popularity of this topic have to say, or even their precise current law.
