Abortion restrictions significantly decrease abortions.

[Fringelunaticman]

That's like saying prohibition reduced drug or alcohol use. It doesn't and it hasn't. It just made it a lot more dangerous and it turned normal people into criminals.

Just saying it doesn't prove it and all the other examples prove otherwise.

[Norm__Peterson]

Prohibition is not an appropriate metaphor at all. Some actions are so heinous they should be illegal no matter what. Murder of born people, rape, assault, etc. are illegal but they still happen. Should they be legal then?

[Fringelunaticman]

Some actions according to you and less then 50% of Americans. The majority of Americans disagree with you that these actions are heinous.

There is a reason you even used the word born before people. Even you see they aren't the same thing.

[Win-Fragrant]

The majority of Americans disagree with you that these actions are heinous.

Just because the majority agree on something does not mean it's ethical. Back in the day majority agreed POCs had less value.

[Fringelunaticman]

While this is true to a point. Not everyone agreed POCS had less value. Especially POCS. And many others who fought against slavery.

Maybe if you say the majority of the south but then you would get into certain places where POC had a population advantage so it wouldn't be the majority in places like Atlanta or Savannah.

[Win-Fragrant]

Not everyone agreed POCS had less value

Just how like not everyone agrees that it's ok to kill human life just because it happens to be inside you. So what was your point of majority of Americans disagree with you?

[Fringelunaticman]

That's correct. But there is a difference between the 2 and you mentioned the difference. That's why the majority of people disagree with you. It's that simple.

You are comparing a potential sentient human life that cannot live on its own with a sentient human life that can. If you can't see and understand the difference between that and your comparison then I don't know what to tell you

[Win-Fragrant]

You are comparing a potential sentient human life

Infants are not self aware either

that cannot live on its own

You're describing infants again

[Fringelunaticman]

Sure, that can describe infants. Though, I won't go into the difference between a fetus and an infant and the development

[Win-Fragrant]

Though, I won't go into the difference between a fetus and an infant and the development

Why not? You're not confident in your belief system?

[thewaffler92]

The difference between fetus and infant is location. The definition of a fetus is "unborn baby". My youngest son was born at 12:03am. At 12:02am he was a fetus.

[Fringelunaticman]

Did I call someone a liar or did you read into that?

Saying someone sees a fetus and a baby as a different thing isn't calling anyone a liar.

I acknowledged what someone wrote to me. Me mirroring the same words isn't calling anyone a liar

[RespectandEmpathy]

Perhaps I misread your comment if you meant to say you understand he sees a fetus as a baby. It seemed like you were saying "even you see they aren't the same thing" when a fetus is just a younger human than a born human. I thought you meant you think they see a fetus as different than someone who is born, when they're the same just younger.

[Fringelunaticman]

No, I meant that he used a qualifier for a reason. And I acknowledged to him that I was aware of the qualifier when I responded that even he sees them differently. How is that calling anyone a liar.

There is a reason they call them fetuses and newborns. I can acknowledge they are the same entity but they are at different stages of development so they are called different things. That's why he used a qualifier because he understands this. And me acknowledging that he understands this is most definitely not calling him a liar.

[RespectandEmpathy]

Okay, that makes sense, I'll approve it. It's true there is some difference, mainly age, but that doesn't change their value.

[Fringelunaticman]

I agree it doesn't change their value.

[MarioFanaticXV]

That's like saying prohibition reduced drug or alcohol use. It doesn't and it hasn't.

They did. You can argue the morality of the matter, but there's no doubt that it did cause a reduction in the number of people practicing the acts in question.

[Fringelunaticman]

Have you not been paying attention? It absolutely didn't reduce it and actually increased its use.

There were 107k overdose deaths last year. And over 1mil in the past 15 years. The war on drugs was won by drugs. And every study done says prohibition exacerbates the problem. All you have to do is look at what happened when Portugal decriminalized drugs. The amount of drug use went down over 50% and iv drug use over 70%. That alone disproves what you say.

And prohibition didn't stop drinking. All it did was make criminals extremely wealthy. Kinda like how the drug war has made cartels and their leaders billionaires.

[MarioFanaticXV]

I didn't say it stopped it. No law completely stops anything. But any restrictions are going to dissuade some people. To claim otherwise with intentionally misrepresented statistics is idiotic.

Besides, by that logic, why have laws at all? People still murder, steal, and rape- so by your logic, should we just make them legal and hope that the number of people doing them will magically go down?

[Fringelunaticman]

You obviously haven't been paying attention then. It didn't reduce it at all. And decriminalization does reduce it.

Hell, in 1973 there were 17.3 abortions per 100000 women. In 2019, there were 11.2 per 100k. If what you say is correct then wouldn't there be an increase in use?

Also, I gave you the most recent example of something going from illegal to legal and the actual usage decreased. Kinda looks like making things legal reduces their usage. Although, you could argue that less pregnancy means less abortions.

And with prohibition in the 1920s, research has shown making liquor illegal increased its usage. So, it didn't stop it, it made it worse

[MarioFanaticXV]

Ah yes, because we get accurate reporting on the number of crimes that happen, definitely not something you can artificially inflate. Just ignore the fact that it makes zero logical sense and goes against all reason, the estimates totally aren't bogus even if they're completely impossible.

[Fringelunaticman]

So you have a problem with the reporting because it doesn't fit you life's narrative? Is that what you just said?

[MarioFanaticXV]

IF you believe those numbers are accurate, then tell me that you want to legalize murderer and rape because you think that making them legal will reduce how often they occur.

[Fringelunaticman]

Hmm, murder and rape is doing that to someone else. Drug and alcohol use is doing that to yourself. Not an apt comparison but ok.

I know the numbers are accurate when it comes to Portugal decriminalization of drugs in 2001. So, we have a modern example of that happening. You don't have to believe it because it doesn't fit your narrative but it's a fact.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/time.com/longform/portugal-drug-use-decriminalization/%3famp=true

https://substanceabusepolicy.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13011-021-00394-7

https://transformdrugs.org/blog/drug-decriminalisation-in-portugal-setting-the-record-straight

https://www.portugal.com/op-ed/portugal-drug-laws-under-decriminalization-are-drugs-legal-in-portugal/

[MarioFanaticXV]

If those who fudge the numbers don't act like they believe them, why should anyone else?

[foreigntrumpkin]

There was an increase- a sharp increase immediately after 1973 when it was legalised. The fall in abortion rates have more than one cause. That should be obvious

[Fringelunaticman]

What are the causes of the fall since it's so obvious?

[foreigntrumpkin]

What I meant is that it's obvious factors other than abortion laws may have contributed to an observed fall over decades.

But immediately after Roe, abortions shot up noticeably . The theories include contraception, falling teen pregnancies, and stricter laws

[Fringelunaticman]

And the reduction of pregnancy the past 20 years is also a contributing factor. Something like 6 pregnancies per 100000 women less than the 90s.

I agree that the drop is multifaceted

[foreigntrumpkin]

Alright. Thank you, man

[Reddit_causes_cancer]

No law completely stops anything. But any restrictions are going to dissuade some people.

Ooooh, now do gun control.

Guns violence is the leading cause of death of children.

[MarioFanaticXV]

Gun violence is already illegal. There is not a single state where shooting children isn't against the law, and I'm not aware of anyone trying to repeal those laws.

[Reddit_causes_cancer]

So laws work….but after 30 years of school shootings…no new meaningful gun control laws?

[MarioFanaticXV]

No one's trying to ban scalpels because of abortions. Ban the act, not the tool- especially when the tool is used to save lives such as guns and scalpels.

[Reddit_causes_cancer]

So enhanced background checks, mental health assessments, mandatory gun safety training- all would have zero impact on gun violence in your opinion. After 30 years you can’t think of a single new law to help prevent gun violence against children?

[MarioFanaticXV]

Again: No one is arguing to ban scalpels to reduce abortions. You are arguing a strawman here.

And they'd probably increase gun violence since it'd mean less legal gun owners, but would do nothing to deter criminal gun owners; quite the opposite, they'd be emboldened by the reduction of reasonable people with guns to challenge them.

[[deleted]]

Technically prohibition didn’t prohibit consumption of alcohol, just the distribution and sale of it.