you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

It's perfect - because we need to remind Texans and the Supreme Court OF THE FUCKING NECESSITY OF THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!

(Roe vs Wade should have protected women from "Christian" extremists.)

[–]Noam_Chomsky 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

Roe vs Wade should have protected women from "Christian" extremists.

Wrong again.

The legalization of abortion was an covert eugenic program.

Abortion clinics are often located in minority neighborhoods.

https://rtl.org/multicultural-outreach/black-abortion-statistics/

33.6% of all abortions in the U.S. in 2016 were performed on Black women, however, only about 13.4% of the total population is Black.

The most dangerous period of a black person's life is in the womb.

Edit:

For every 1,000 live births, non-Hispanic Black women had 335 abortions. Non-Hispanic White women had 110 abortions per 1,000 live births.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

covert eugenic program.

Any evidence of this from reliable sources? (I seriously doubt it.)

Abortion clinics are often located in minority neighborhoods

Poor and middle class people tend to live in these areas, where the clinics are needed most. (Numerous poor and middle-class people are not minorities.) Your reference is to blacks, which is only one of the minority groups.

For every 1,000 live births...

Is 'Right to Life of Michigan' heavily biased and devoted to spreading misinformation and propaganda because Church groups fund them to do just that? (An easy answer to this.)

I personally think abortions should not be permitted after the first trimester, because higher brain structures appear between weeks 12 and 16 (and consciousness by week 24). Texas and the Supreme Court are however playing politics with Roe v Wade (and with women's lives and rights), and there will be more attempts to overturn R v W with Supreme Court decisions that will reduce the rights of women beyond the points previously protected by R v W. It's sickening.

[–]Noam_Chomsky 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Good ol' youtube eh?

What a scholarly source.

Is any of this written down?

[–]Noam_Chomsky 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

What a scholarly source.

Attacking the source, and not the info?

A common shill tactic.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I realise that it's not a sound refutation.

But I'm still not watching YouTube videos for scholarly information. The signal to noise ratio is to low to expect it to be worthwhile.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thanks again for the sources. The problems /u/ActuallyNot addresses are the apparent biases and lack of broader assessments of the opinions discussed in those videos. Not that opinions and historical information used in those videos aren't useful or informative, but that there is balance of discussion, or careful survey of alternative information, or no peer review assessment of the source material by a broader selection of society. For example, the rights of the mother are rarely considered by some of these religious groups, and a peer discussion would help address that problem. I see that the sources for the videos are these:

https://www.liveaction.org/

http://www.maafa21.com/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_Dynamics_Inc.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCijDos-LUTh9RQvSCMQqN6Q

All of these are religious anti-abortion groups that are obviously biased, sourcing only the points of evidence that will support their causes, without a balanced assessment. That said, Maafa 21 is very interesting and and very helpful for a discussion about the background of Roe v Wade. One can however argue that - before Roe v Wade - poor and middle-class Americans were already injured and losing their lives with illegal and abusive back alley methods of abortion. I am not a Catholic, but I very much appreciate their approaches to saving lives, families &c. I also value the potential for the Church to help with today's moral problems. I would never support, however, legislation for everyone that would restrict their activities to the standards of Church dogma. Founding Fathers of the US Constitution and subsequent legal experts appreciated the problems that would arise from this kind of legislation, as they had seen these problems as the causes of European wars.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thanks for these sources. I'll have a look.