The only demographic in America that reliably opposes abortion access is older men

I'm agnostic and I believe that saying there is no God is as dumb as saying there is. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

I can respect that.

Maybe someday if he's lucky, someone might try to explain to our deep-thinking OP the Greek origin and meaning of the word "agnostic":

AGNŌSTOS THEOS . The phrase agnōstōn theōn (nominative singular, agnōstos theos) was found inscribed on Greek altars dedicated "to the unknown gods." The inscription had no mystical or theosophical meaning, but arose out of a concern for cultic safety: no one wanted to incur the wrath of gods whose names were unknown but who just might exist and be vexed by the lack of honors.

I see you've degenerated into vacuous, one-word posts. Just like Yssup. Two peas in a (troll) pod.

So sad! Originally Posted by lustylad

Really working hard attacking another member. How many posts in a row is that ?


You left out portions of statements to twist meanings. Now you have left out an entire part of a post. How could you possibly miss that ?




Not a good look for you on any of the above.

And just for the record, perhaps the greatest scientist that ever lived, Einstein, believed in a Creator.


I'm agnostic and I believe that saying there is no God is as dumb as saying there is. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

I am also an agnostic.


If there is no God or creator, we're out of luck.

I can respect that.

Maybe someday if he's lucky, someone might try to explain to our deep-thinking OP the Greek origin and meaning of the word "agnostic":

AGNŌSTOS THEOS . The phrase agnōstōn theōn (nominative singular, agnōstos theos) was found inscribed on Greek altars dedicated "to the unknown gods." The inscription had no mystical or theosophical meaning, but arose out of a concern for cultic safety: no one wanted to incur the wrath of gods whose names were unknown but who just might exist and be vexed by the lack of honors. Originally Posted by lustylad

I am an agnostic.

You…….a basic troll and stalker is a good description.
I see why so many put you on ignore status.


When you hear thunder, do you still believe it is the gods bowling ? Wouldn’t be surprised.

I am also an agnostic.

If there is no God or creator, we're out of luck. Originally Posted by VitaMan

And if there is a God? Real agnostics hedge their bets.

And why would we be "out of luck"? A universe based on randomness experiences both good and bad luck.

Now you have left out an entire part of a post. How could you possibly miss that ? Originally Posted by VitaMan

Most posters don't hit the "submit" button until they've finished a thought longer than one word. Others use the 60-minute edit window to go back and cover their asses after reading the reply.

It appears you do both.

And if there is a God? Real agnostics hedge their bets.

And why would we be "out of luck"? A universe based on randomness experiences both good and bad luck. Originally Posted by lustylad

A relevant post from 2015:

https://eccie.net/showpost.php?p=105...5&postcount=93

Step right up and place your bets, gentlemen!

For the record, I am an "older man" (70+), am right-leaning (conservative/libertarian), and do not oppose abortion rights. It isn't that I think abortions are wonderful experiences and that every young woman should experience one; it's simply that the legislation of morality will not work and cannot work. It never has in the past.

For instance, how well did prohibition work in the 1920s? Does anyone seriously believe that it materially reduced alcohol abuse in the US?

And one big problem was that much of the illegal hooch was distilled in everything from salvaged truck radiators to rusty old barrels. Consequently, a lot of people died from poisoning.

Similarly, many women died in pre-Roe v. Wade days from butchered illegal abortions. Many more were rendered incapable of future child-bearing by crude, amateurish practitioners.

.

A relevant post from 2015:

https://eccie.net/showpost.php?p=105...5&postcount=93

Step right up and place your bets, gentlemen! Originally Posted by Texas Contrarian

Hey, I almost forgot about that 7-year-old thread! Thanks for bringing back fond memories of the good old days when we used to skewer & roast two-faced lying libtards like "WombRaider".

Unfortunately the links in your old post for Pascal's Wager don't open for me, so I am restoring them here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/


Because I don't want to receive an infraction for hijacking this thread, I will stop there and steer back to the original topic of abortion.

What I find striking is how many people are in the middle on such an agonizing and polarizing issue. The latest Gallup poll shows:

1. 67% of Americans think abortion should be LEGAL in the first trimester.

2. 71% of Americans think it should be ILLEGAL in the third trimester.

That means a lot of people support BOTH of the above. They're not being inconsistent either. Making abortion legal, but only for the first 12-15 weeks of pregnancy, is supported by a significant majority of Americans, even as it fails to satisfy either the pro-life or pro-choice absolutists.

I tried to advance the conversation in this thread by pointing this out, but the OP wouldn't discuss it because he was stuck on some talking point about "older men".

Another thing that has changed radically since Roe v. Wade is the fact that over half of all abortions today are performed using pills rather than surgery. As a practical matter, this will make it a lot harder to limit abortions. I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this.

I posted somewhere? that a woman up to 12 weeks is given pills at the clinic/office and sent home. She aborts at home. The aborted pieces look like heavy menstrual matter.
No surgery or even an in patient procedure

Sorry WD, I guess I missed that. I don't read every thread lol.

I'm in the camp that believes that -- barring complications potentially creating serious risks to the mother -- late-stage abortions should be severely limited or prohibited, except in cases where serious health-compromising complications have developed. (If someone's personal circumstances warrant abortion, shouldn't she be able to figure that out during the first trimester?)

One thing I find rather alarming is that maximalist moralizers in some states plan to pressure lawmakers to prohibit traveling across state lines to seek an abortion. Further, I've read that some states may even try to find ways to expand surveillance of package delivery services, lest some unfortunate woman order the two-pill medical abortion package from an online pharmacy somewhere. (No doubt plenty of those will spring up, here and abroad, if it looks as though there will be truckloads of money in it.)

Additionally, what about counterfeit black-market abortion pills? If access to safe medical abortions is prohibited, you can bet the farm that a huge black market for this stuff will spring up overnight. Just like in Al Capone's day, criminal organizations are sure to appear on the scene if big-money opportunities suddenly arise.

The moralizing maximalists haven't thought through any of this. (Or just don't give a damn if they get all their "feelgood" legislation passed.)

.

I posted somewhere? that a woman up to 12 weeks is given pills at the clinic/office and sent home. She aborts at home. The aborted pieces look like heavy menstrual matter.
No surgery or even an in patient procedure Originally Posted by winn dixie

if those under-educated women knew of Benjamin Franklin's book on miscarriage remedies, they'd be a whole lot of less hurt over this.


P.S. papyrus was known to be able to induce miscarriage if you ate enough of it.

I'm in the camp that believes that -- barring complications potentially creating serious risks to the mother -- late-stage abortions should be severely limited or prohibited, except in cases where serious health-compromising complications have developed. (If someone's personal circumstances warrant abortion, shouldn't she be able to figure that out during the first trimester?)

One thing I find rather alarming is that maximalist moralizers in some states plan to pressure lawmakers to prohibit traveling across state lines to seek an abortion. Further, I've read that some states may even try to find ways to expand surveillance of package delivery services, lest some unfortunate woman order the two-pill medical abortion package from an online pharmacy somewhere. (No doubt plenty of those will spring up, here and abroad, if it looks as though there will be truckloads of money in it.)

Additionally, what about counterfeit black-market abortion pills? If access to safe medical abortions is prohibited, you can bet the farm that a huge black market for this stuff will spring up overnight. Just like in Al Capone's day, criminal organizations are sure to appear on the scene if big-money opportunities suddenly arise.

The moralizing maximalists haven't thought through any of this. (Or just don't give a damn if they get all their "feelgood" legislation passed.) Originally Posted by Texas Contrarian

Is it "maximalist moralizers" or "moralizing maximalists" lol?

I largely agree, except I don't share your alarm about nutty ideas such as prohibiting travel across state lines for an abortion or screening the mail for abortifacients. Both appear totally unenforceable, and likely unconstitutional, to me.

But yeah, I wish our lawmakers would shy away from "feelgood" or "virtue-signaling" legislation. As well as posturing for some kind of perceived moral high ground by sensationalizing the most extreme ideas put forth by the other side.

it's simply that the legislation of morality will not work and cannot work. It never has in the past. Originally Posted by Texas Contrarian

I’d disagree. Many, most, or even all laws are based on morality.