Ohio voters have approved a constitutional amendment that guarantees the right to abortion and other forms of reproductive health care. The outcome of Tuesday’s intense, off-year election was the latest blow for abortion opponents.
More than half of young women are making living and work decisions based on abortion access. 44% are thinking of moving or have moved to a state where abortion is protected. 10% have already declined jobs in states where abortion would be illegal. Oh, and 57% of women and 48% of men said their companies and leaders weren’t doing enough to ensure abortion access.
Which has led to some towns having no obgyn clinics at all.
In short, the data sharply disagrees with your survey of the hundreds of women you know. Perhaps you should consider that the people you know aren’t terribly representative of the US as a whole, and you’re drawing terribly incorrect conclusions because of it. I think Ohio, the latest in a long list of Blue and Red states keeping abortion legal, suggests you’re completely incorrect on mainstream Americans. A commanding majority from Kansas to Ohio to Kentucky want to live somewhere where abortion is legal.
The only question left is if you’re going to continue to plug your ears or if you’re actually going to accept that being against abortion puts you outside of mainstream Americans. I’m strongly suspect it’s the former, so I’ll preemptively wish you a pleasant time in finding out just how wrong you are. Repeatedly.
The data is asking leading questions. The mere fact that one has declined a job in a certain state does not follow that the reason was specific to a single law.
Additionally you realise that Ob-Gyn services far more than abortion. If they are shutting down, it’s primarily due to aging populations in small communities, not abortion laws.
FYI if you want to throw around statistics it helps to have some formal education in statistics that way you atleast know what kind of conclusions the data actually supports. Hint, it’s rarely what uneducated journalists think.
I love that you brought up formal education regarding stats; you must be an expert since you kept track of the opinions and personal thoughts of “hundreds of women” you know.
You’ve been told of personal experiences, and you’ve also been given multiple studies above. Are you really so insecure that you cannot be wrong even when presented with clear, cut and dry evidence? Is that insecurity what’s causing you to belittle the pain and turmoil that women in red states experience every day?
I find it very interesting that you had no problem seeing the logic behind MJ legalization, but when women came into the picture you suddenly weren’t so sure.
By the way, your “I know literally hundreds of women” line has still got it. Makes me giggle every time I read it.
It’s simply a matter of selecting relevant statistics.
“Belittle the pain and turmoil”
Bit melodramatic aren’t we? People experience “pain and turmoil”, regardless of what state they live in. I love how pro-choice people have to portray abortion restrictions as modern-day Auschwitz, because they solely want to permit the active killing of human beings for any reason. That’s all this entire conversation is about, it’s not about accuracy it’s about the fact that it doesn’t endorse the narrative that abortion is critical to women’s lives. That’s the only reason anyone here has a problem with it.
“Makes me giggle everytime”
If you haven’t held personal conversations with hundreds of people in your lifetime, you’re just socially inept. This isn’t a difficult task, and nowhere did I claim this happened simultaneously. I was merely referencing the fact that out of hundreds of people I’ve interacted with, only a handful referenced marijuana laws (basically just hardcore potheads) and zero abortion laws as the primary reasons for moving. I even threw in gun laws, even though I’ve never actually known someone who primarily moved because of them.
Then where are your statistics? Besides, at the point where it is legal anywhere in the states to get an abortion, is before the infant has gained awareness, so it isn’t killing a human being, it is killing a being that isn’t alive yet. Also, abortion is quite critical to woman’s lives, it can in fact be a matter of life and death, or the ability to afford a home, or food, or it could be the matter of rape where the woman had no choice at all in the matter, and might even be a child.
The point about your line being funny, is about the way you put it, not it being strange to happen.
Excuse me, how do you kill something that isn’t alive yet? You are literally so stupid that you made a clear contradiction within a single sentence.
You realise that awareness is not the criteria for life? I would even argue (much more effectively than you, or most moral philosophers) that the wrongness of killing doesn’t come from possessing a temporary state of awareness, but being an entity that will possess this temporary state in the future. If the former was actually true, then killing anyone would be permissible so long as you did it fast enough that the total pattern of behaviour didn’t meet some definition of consciousness. But I’m running far ahead of myself, you didn’t even make any argument remotely as coherent as the one I just refuted.
“At the point where it is legal anywhere”
This is actually false, the majority of jurisdictions in the US and worldwide do ban 3rd trimester abortions, but you claimed that all of them don’t allow abortion past a point of awareness. So I would like to point you to New Mexico’s criminal code, where abortion up to birth for any reason is not classified as a crime(aka it’s legal in case you are too stupid to realize that).
“Also abortion is quite critical to women’s lives”
You are confusing edge cases where it may be critical to someone’s life and asserting it to be the norm when it simply isn’t. Chemotherapy is critical to some people’s lives, it would be false to assert that the everyday individual makes decisions based upon obtaining it.
You either are severely intoxicated or have actual brain damage. Your statements are dumber and less coherent than the standard propaganda that you should have just copy-pasted.
Umm… No? The logical error you made was asserting the existence of an object. This specific object is highly improbable to exist, and since the purpose of your comment was to seem intelligent and witty it would have been better to assert the existence of a more probable object whose connection to neurological damage would be less obvious without specific knowledge.
It’s really sad when the people you interact with are so stupid they can’t even insult properly.
Thats why I said it was a bad idea for you to replace your cups with lead, there, dumbass.
Because safe drinking pewter exists, and only a moron would make a lead drinking mug.
Im glad I could hold your hand and walk you slowly through such a mind numbingly simple sentence. Next time, should I get you some crayons? You can draw a picture to help you understand.
Trust, you’re the only one looking like a moron in this thread. What, all of those women you know not coming to your defense? Do you have any data backing up what you’re saying? I highly doubt it.
But I’ll wait for you to post three more meaningless, empty paragraphs because your insecurity can’t just leave it be.
“How dare people criticise me! Why can’t they just ignore it? I really really want these people to ignore all the insane shit I say. So I can keep saying it with no resistance.” -GlitzyArmrest
Little did poor Glitzy know that, correcting empirical claims does not confer information on the individuals personality.
https://fortune.com/2023/08/09/healthcare-reproductive-rights-male-employees-companies-abortion-access-job-application-polarization-workplace/
+8% in interest for a company if they offer abortion access.
https://msmagazine.com/2023/01/23/employer-benefits-state-abortion-laws-young-women-employees/
More than half of young women are making living and work decisions based on abortion access. 44% are thinking of moving or have moved to a state where abortion is protected. 10% have already declined jobs in states where abortion would be illegal. Oh, and 57% of women and 48% of men said their companies and leaders weren’t doing enough to ensure abortion access.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2023/04/21/abortion-ban-states-obgyn-residency-applications/
10.5% drop in applications.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/22/abortion-idaho-women-rights-healthcare
Which has led to some towns having no obgyn clinics at all.
In short, the data sharply disagrees with your survey of the hundreds of women you know. Perhaps you should consider that the people you know aren’t terribly representative of the US as a whole, and you’re drawing terribly incorrect conclusions because of it. I think Ohio, the latest in a long list of Blue and Red states keeping abortion legal, suggests you’re completely incorrect on mainstream Americans. A commanding majority from Kansas to Ohio to Kentucky want to live somewhere where abortion is legal.
The only question left is if you’re going to continue to plug your ears or if you’re actually going to accept that being against abortion puts you outside of mainstream Americans. I’m strongly suspect it’s the former, so I’ll preemptively wish you a pleasant time in finding out just how wrong you are. Repeatedly.
The data is asking leading questions. The mere fact that one has declined a job in a certain state does not follow that the reason was specific to a single law.
Additionally you realise that Ob-Gyn services far more than abortion. If they are shutting down, it’s primarily due to aging populations in small communities, not abortion laws.
FYI if you want to throw around statistics it helps to have some formal education in statistics that way you atleast know what kind of conclusions the data actually supports. Hint, it’s rarely what uneducated journalists think.
I love that you brought up formal education regarding stats; you must be an expert since you kept track of the opinions and personal thoughts of “hundreds of women” you know.
You’ve been told of personal experiences, and you’ve also been given multiple studies above. Are you really so insecure that you cannot be wrong even when presented with clear, cut and dry evidence? Is that insecurity what’s causing you to belittle the pain and turmoil that women in red states experience every day?
I find it very interesting that you had no problem seeing the logic behind MJ legalization, but when women came into the picture you suddenly weren’t so sure.
By the way, your “I know literally hundreds of women” line has still got it. Makes me giggle every time I read it.
It’s simply a matter of selecting relevant statistics.
“Belittle the pain and turmoil”
Bit melodramatic aren’t we? People experience “pain and turmoil”, regardless of what state they live in. I love how pro-choice people have to portray abortion restrictions as modern-day Auschwitz, because they solely want to permit the active killing of human beings for any reason. That’s all this entire conversation is about, it’s not about accuracy it’s about the fact that it doesn’t endorse the narrative that abortion is critical to women’s lives. That’s the only reason anyone here has a problem with it.
“Makes me giggle everytime”
If you haven’t held personal conversations with hundreds of people in your lifetime, you’re just socially inept. This isn’t a difficult task, and nowhere did I claim this happened simultaneously. I was merely referencing the fact that out of hundreds of people I’ve interacted with, only a handful referenced marijuana laws (basically just hardcore potheads) and zero abortion laws as the primary reasons for moving. I even threw in gun laws, even though I’ve never actually known someone who primarily moved because of them.
Then where are your statistics? Besides, at the point where it is legal anywhere in the states to get an abortion, is before the infant has gained awareness, so it isn’t killing a human being, it is killing a being that isn’t alive yet. Also, abortion is quite critical to woman’s lives, it can in fact be a matter of life and death, or the ability to afford a home, or food, or it could be the matter of rape where the woman had no choice at all in the matter, and might even be a child. The point about your line being funny, is about the way you put it, not it being strange to happen.
“It is killing a being that isn’t alive yet”
Excuse me, how do you kill something that isn’t alive yet? You are literally so stupid that you made a clear contradiction within a single sentence.
You realise that awareness is not the criteria for life? I would even argue (much more effectively than you, or most moral philosophers) that the wrongness of killing doesn’t come from possessing a temporary state of awareness, but being an entity that will possess this temporary state in the future. If the former was actually true, then killing anyone would be permissible so long as you did it fast enough that the total pattern of behaviour didn’t meet some definition of consciousness. But I’m running far ahead of myself, you didn’t even make any argument remotely as coherent as the one I just refuted.
“At the point where it is legal anywhere”
This is actually false, the majority of jurisdictions in the US and worldwide do ban 3rd trimester abortions, but you claimed that all of them don’t allow abortion past a point of awareness. So I would like to point you to New Mexico’s criminal code, where abortion up to birth for any reason is not classified as a crime(aka it’s legal in case you are too stupid to realize that).
“Also abortion is quite critical to women’s lives”
You are confusing edge cases where it may be critical to someone’s life and asserting it to be the norm when it simply isn’t. Chemotherapy is critical to some people’s lives, it would be false to assert that the everyday individual makes decisions based upon obtaining it.
You either are severely intoxicated or have actual brain damage. Your statements are dumber and less coherent than the standard propaganda that you should have just copy-pasted.
The lead drinking mug was a bad idea bud
It’s called pewter dipshit. If you’re going to try to insult someone it helps to not look the bigger moron.
Pewter is a lead alloy. (And, actually, pewter doesnt always contain lead. Many modern pewter alloys are lead free.)
I did not say you were using an alloy.
If youre correcting me on the materials of your drinking mug, a mug I dont actually know if you own, thats more a self own than a rebuttal. No?
Umm… No? The logical error you made was asserting the existence of an object. This specific object is highly improbable to exist, and since the purpose of your comment was to seem intelligent and witty it would have been better to assert the existence of a more probable object whose connection to neurological damage would be less obvious without specific knowledge.
It’s really sad when the people you interact with are so stupid they can’t even insult properly.
Thats why I said it was a bad idea for you to replace your cups with lead, there, dumbass.
Because safe drinking pewter exists, and only a moron would make a lead drinking mug.
Im glad I could hold your hand and walk you slowly through such a mind numbingly simple sentence. Next time, should I get you some crayons? You can draw a picture to help you understand.
Trust, you’re the only one looking like a moron in this thread. What, all of those women you know not coming to your defense? Do you have any data backing up what you’re saying? I highly doubt it.
But I’ll wait for you to post three more meaningless, empty paragraphs because your insecurity can’t just leave it be.
“How dare people criticise me! Why can’t they just ignore it? I really really want these people to ignore all the insane shit I say. So I can keep saying it with no resistance.” -GlitzyArmrest
Little did poor Glitzy know that, correcting empirical claims does not confer information on the individuals personality.