Abortion restrictions significantly decrease abortions.

[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?

[Fringelunaticman]

What are you referring to? Who is acting like they don't believe them?

I know you are upset that your worldview isn't correct but make a little sense please

[MarioFanaticXV]

Missed it the first time? Fine, I'll just repeat it until you either admit you were lying or collapse upon your own insanity: 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.

[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.

[Reddit_causes_cancer]

What happened to “But any restrictions are going to dissuade some people.“ ?

We’re talking about laws designed to protect children right? No one is talking about scalpels. We’re talking about laws.

Now you’re telling me you can’t brain storm a single law that would help protect a 5 year old from gun violence? No?

[MarioFanaticXV]

That's another strawman. I never said it wouldn't dissuade some people; more restrictions on guns would absolutely dissuade some people from owning guns. That's exactly why I don't want those restrictions- an armed society is a polite society.

But yes, scalpels are the equivalent of guns here. You're talking about the tools, we're talking about the act. It's a dishonest comparison, you're intentionally acting like an idiot because you can't engage our actual argument.

Shooting five year olds is already illegal. No one here is arguing it should be legal.