"let the state legislatures decide"on abortion

I do not advocate "unnecessary and ineffective regulations on firearms."

What are the necessary and effective regulations you support to reduce the horrific level of firearm carnage in America?

 

I'd ask you to demonstrate the necessary relationship between Australia's lower rate of "slaughter" and their less permissive gun regulations, but we both know you can't.

 

You do. All the regulations you seek are unnecessary and ineffective.
Disgaree?
Demonstrate their necessity.
Demonstrate their efficacy.

 

You ARE joking yes? I mean it is so well documented there should be no one thinking it isnt. Don’t have time just now but will post later - if you like you can spend that time trying to prove me wrong

 

https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/12/6/365
https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/1996-national-firearms-agreement.html

Ho hum

 

Anti-abortion types have been apoplectic since Roe v. Wade.

Do you realize you're suggesting we take away women's rights because a former Virginia governor has supposedly taken a position that it's okay murder black babies? That doesn't make much sense.

Ginsburg wasn't saying we should pass laws banning abortion.

What does anyone killing black babies have to do with s woman's right to decide when or if to give birth?

That ship sailed when a federal anti-abortion law was passed and is still on the books.

No, the Constitution counted them as 3/5th of a person. I don't think you know how the 3/5ths of a person number came about.

"Localities" as you call them don't share power with anyone because they are 100% creatures of states. You attribute a position to federalists they did not hold, indeed could not have held.

Our Founders were anti-colonialists, not anti-fascist.

 

Ho hum indeed - nothing here demonstrates cause and effect.
Thank you for proving me correct about your inability to deliver.

 

You can pretend that I have offered unnecessary and ineffective regulations if you need to.

Again, please reveal the measures you would advocate to reduce the horrific firearm carnage inflicted upon the populace by gunsters in America.

Some wring their hands and plead impotence, but your recommendations for confronting the problem are welcome.

 

There's no need to pretend: You cannot demonstrate the necessity for or efficacy of any of the regulations you seek, support, or may offer.
Disgaree?
Demonstrate their necessity.
Demonstrate their efficacy.

 

Justice Ginsberg: ,,,, I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into abortions when they didn’t really want them.

In being apoplectic over Roe, you seem to be saying that Ruth Bader Ginsberg admitted she was an anti-abortion type ,,, who was relieved

,,, when the Court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.
/////
Do you realize you're suggesting we take away women's rights because a former Virginia governor has supposedly taken a position that it's okay murder black babies? That doesn't make much sense.

You missed this passage in my post: The entire genocide cult took the lead from Northam.
Translation for those with closer ties to Beijing than Washington, DC: The overreach went beyond Northam to the entire cult of abortion enthusiasts. As Sanger stated, abortion wasn't about women's health, but about cleaning up the gene pool. Ginsberg's initial perception, consistent with Sanger's eugenic goal, was to address the problem of too many people of the wrong variety being born.
The Dobbs decision was the correct decision. The SCOTUS overstepped in 1973 and Ginsberg knew it. Instead of ruling on a Texas law that was at issue, the SCOTUS made a universal proclamation that, as we have seen, was subject to abuse.
////
Ginsburg wasn't saying we should pass laws banning abortion.

Nobody passed a law banning abortion. In Dobbs, the SCOTUS simply returned the question to the states where it belonged in the first place.
////

What does anyone killing black babies have to do with s woman's right to decide when or if to give birth?

The abortion industry was founded with eugenic motivation and located adjacent to black neighborhoods for a reason.

////

That ship sailed when a federal anti-abortion law was passed and is still on the books.

I know of no anti-abortion law. What anti-abortion law are you referring to.
////
Our Founders were anti-colonialists, not anti-fascist.

From the Declaration of Independence
But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security. Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The History of the present King of Great-Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World.
From https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/despotism


Synonyms & Similar Words

• tyranny
• fascist

 

This doesn't mean Ginsberg favored passing legislation limiting abortion.

Ties to China? Have you lost your way?

Anyway, the point I made is the same--women should have the right to decide when, if ever, they bear children. No pro-choice people I know favor killing a baby.

It doesn't matter what Sanger thought. What matters is the principle that women should be able to decide when and if she gives birth.

No, it wasn't. Abortion should be seen as a right, not subject to state or federal legislation.

Yes, abuse by legislators banning abortion.

The is a federal law against abortion. Dobbs simply allowed states back in the game.

Calling abortion an "industry" is ridiculous.

Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003

Tyranny/Despotism are not limited to fascism.

As I said, the Founders were anti-colonialist, not anti-fascist.

 

Lols! Maybe I have to post a meme instead of actual research


https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/12/8/9870240/gun-ownership-deaths-homicides

https://psmag.com/.image/c_limit%2Ccs_srgb%2Cq_auto:good%2Cw_643/MTI3NTgxNjMzNjI0MDkxMjY3/firearmhomicide2.webp

 

It does not matter how many times you argue correlation proves causation:
It doesn't.
You choose to be wrong.
Lols!

 

I am not trying to “prove” causation but there is a ton of evidence showing correlation including

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

 

Yes you are.



And all you have is correlation.

 

Relationship = correlation not causation

Mind you that was a pretty neat goal post shift. Seems that my posts showing clear correlation were hard to dispute

 

I cannot help but note the irony of YOU talking about moving the goalposts

"....demonstrate the necessary relationship between Australia's lower rate of "slaughter" and their less permissive gun regulations..."

That is, demonstrate cause and effect.
Correlation does not cut it.

 

But there is a relationship in that there is a correlation I did not state there was clear researched causation although with the degree of correlation across multiple research findings it is difficult to ignore that fact one may cause the other. Look at the precipitous fall in Mass shootings in Australia post 1996 - there was no other identifiable influencing factor and no “substitution effect” found, however since this is not replicable at present we cannot definitively scientifically speaking, specify causation.

https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/concealed-carry/violent-crime.html

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301409

 

Neccessary relationship.
Cause and effect.
You cannot demonstrate cause and effect. as you were challenged to do.

You know this not true.

When you were challenged to demonstrate the necessary relationship - cause and effect - between Australia's lower rate of "slaughter" and their less permissive gun regulations, you claimed said necessary relationship "is so well documented there should be no one thinking it isn't"

So, yes, yes you did.
And you cannot.

 

I have shown very clearly that there is a correlation + it is robust and across multiple studies within the USA and globally including Australia
What you have failed to do is explain away that correlation by proving there is some other factor at work

 

Nope. Constitution is very specific about what the federal government can do, and abortion isn't on the last.

 

You're way out of date; Dems lead the pack in increasing size of government.

Wrong.

 

What makes you say that?

You do realize there have already been threads posted about this, about how jurisdiction and enforcement would work if some states made it illegal and others did not?

here's just one of them: You think abortion can't be prosecuted just because the woman crosses state lines?

 

Neither is allowing women to vote

 

Ok then - how are you going to prove that a woman has had an abortion?