Even with that modification it's so general and subjective that without particulars it's impossible to discuss meaningfully.
Rather, about half that number are occurring each year, a number steadily declining over the years that in the 90s was at and even above a million. How low the number will drop is impossible to say, absent legal action to ban some or all of what remains from that Baby Boom sponsored inflation you proffer as though it was ongoing.
Actually, I said that there's no inherent linkage between abortion and our government, as there have been and may yet be times when abortion was illegal under it. So your first declaration, that democracy ends in genocide, was just stuff and nonsense.
Making light of the quality of your method is not in any part making light of the actual problem. So you're wrong, again.
The first part is flawed in premise, as I've noted. The second is just self-serving.
Yes. Your argument is as mistaken as believing that a single die is more likely to roll a six than several. Rather, it's better to have power shared among a wide range of people, many of whom are philosophically opposed to the other, where compromise is required and checks on the exercise of that power exist.
I didn't say that it didn't. In fact, I'd agree that it does. The Baby Boomers time in the generational limelight was remarkably violent on any number of levels. The why of that may be complicated, but the numbers are straight forward, as are the rates.
Relating to the structure of populations? Of course it is. How are you relating it in a way that would counter any particular observation I've made?
It might be impacted by the morning after pills, or by a proliferation of information coupled with readily available contraceptives. Or it could be there was something screwy going on with a generation that ran head on into a cultural revolution and the fallout. It's worth exploring, to be sure.
\
Proper is another subjective term you throw out without connecting to specifics that would make it meaningful.
Were that the case it would be easy to do what you've yet to do, challenge and defeat a point of it. But you do this (declaration in lieu) to beat the band.
I've quoted you directly and responded directly. At no point did your qualify your remarks when challenged on the point, instead going back to previously rebutted problems.
Dealt with in my response to JR. Anything else?
Stripe said our form of government led to genocide, then mass killing.
I quoted him every time I addressed a point he made. If you're interested, it's easy enough to find, but I've done my part. It's there. Go back to the beginning. I've already done that at least once, later in our ongoing. I'm not interested in doing it again because you've come in late or don't recall it. Not being indifferent to your interest, only the effort. If you want to know it's there.
True of violent crime too. Blacks are disproportionately poor. Violence of one form or another attends that disproportionate to any other economic group. The Guttmacher Institute looked at data relating to the reasons women gave for having an abortion. The inability to afford a baby was first or second across the decades. LINK
:yawn:
So your contention is that because a democracy once did not allow abortions, but now it does, that means it is wrong to say democracies produce an abortion epidemic?
lain:Yet you won't answer a simple question. :think:
I didn't. I gave reasons for the correlation that are far more likely than your latent animus.
Stamping your feet and demanding that things must be as you say they are is not a compelling argument.
I connected it to specific reasons that would explain the numbers far better than your hatred of a previous generation.
:yawn:
Repeating a charge without support in reason when met with reason is no answer.
It's not a non-issue because you want it to be anymore than your declaration is an argument.
You created the issue, I only answered on your errors.
First it was genocide, then mass killing. And you said it ends in that. I've answered on each particular point and pointed out the uselessness of the claim that can't be tested. You're just repeating your latest alteration.
A form of it. I set that out too.
No, it doesn't. I set out the error in your thinking on that point already.
That's one way to describe setting out error in premise and conclusion, but it's equally mistaken.
As I set out with appropriate attribution to authority. Right.
Rather, some people in our country do and your scale comment is without any supportive data to establish it. Do you know how many people there are in my country? Nearly three hundred and thirty million. How many of those, what percent of our citizens have an abortion? If one in 300 people in your country were Democrats and the rest Republicans would it be reasonable to describe your nation as a bunch of Democrats?
You continue to get quibble wrong, echoing JR's error, but I used Germany to distinguish between a state actively pursuing a course of genocide, and what we're actually talking about, which I suppose is why you switched to mass killing, and now an abortion epidemic. Who knows what you'll change it to next...
Not a point lost on anyone, and not a point sustainable in relation to our form of it as you set out the charge/illustration to make your point.
I quoted you verbitem when I answered.
All quotable evidence to the contrary, which is why you don't attempt to offer any.
Nothing I noted was the least bit false. Both the rates and numbers that you abused to make a more immediate statement were largely created by a generation that is in decline, along with their impact.
Well, you're substantively consistent. Can't take that away from you.
Rather, I've noted that your initial contention that democracies end in genocide, or mass killings, or now abortion epidemics, whatever you finally settle on that is remotely similar in scope, is mistaken, is logically countered by the indisputable fact that a democracy needn't favor or allow abortion at all, that in our history there is evidence of that very thing.
No, it wasn't. I even specifically said that I don't know the why of it, but that the generation produced higher, dramatically higher rates of violence and abortion than what followed it. That's empirically true.
You proffered a vague speculation without much particular. A guess with a term of art thrown in isn't much. And I don't have an animus. That's another of your inventions you'll likely repeat for flavor, but it's no more true than most of your declarations, which are largely indicative of what you're willing to believe and little else.
Everyone quotes piecemeal, a bit at at time. I take contentions, thoughts and address them. I leave a lot of the personal nonsense on the vine, because it's little more than a distraction.
This is only about me to you, you know.
My problem is with a form of government. You declare your governmental system to be absolved of the murder done on its watch because it's a democracy of the people and then you excuse the people saying they're in the minority.
And your answers ignore the point. :idunno:
Bully for you. I addressed that as you expressed it.
Rather, I've rejected your declarations about democracy leading inevitably to genocide, then mass killing, and now an epidemic of abortion, unless you mean it can for a time, but not for all time in which case you should try saying that. It would have some reasonable legs under it.
Here it's about half that number, for a variety of reasons, the largest being a form of birth control. It's tragic at one.
A lazy and imprecise use of language tends to issue from lazy and imprecise thinking.
It really does. Especially when you're using them to issue a judgment on a nation.
Not unless you forgot to set it out.
No, you declared that a number of times and now appear to confuse it with the truth.
Everyone thinks that, but proving it is another matter.
You actually can't attribute without data that supports it, so that's funny right there. But I said I don't know why you find the extraordinary levels/rates of violence and abortion within that generation, but you do. So whatever the variable or variables that are producing it, and whether they were unique in combination or singularity within that generation, or the next generations are simply better at impulse control is beyond our immediate ken.
Careful, your slip is showing.
I agree with taxation. No one likes to part with money they've earned, but I enjoy interstates and any number of institutions my tax dollars support. That I don't agree or like all of them is about as surprising as rain in April.
If you'd just quoted me and had a conversation about that I'd be fine with it. But you didn't. Here's what you did instead.
Two assertions, three if you count the inference.