It is literally the highlighted quote in the article: “we actually have the substantiated proof of something we already knew—that abortion bans kill people.”
This is true as evidenced by the story, but what is also true is that abortions also kill people. So the question should be is it a net positive or a net negative? I don’t see this being examined in any objective and scientific way.
No, what I have a problem with is using a sample size of 1 as evidence of an epidemic and the perception that no women die from legal abortion procedures.
Also, from the report: “In 20 of the 108 cases, the abortion was performed as a result of a severe medical condition where continuation of the pregnancy threatened the woman’s life.”
I point this out because another misconception is that you can always save the woman’s life with an abortion if it is threatened by the pregnancy.
I don’t want anyone to interpret this to mean that I think it was in any way OK that this woman died, but I do want to point out what I see as an objective bias here.
According to the National Libary of Medicine: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4554338/
108 women died from complications related to legal abortions during a 12 year period between 1998 and 2010, for an average of 9 per year. Where are these stories on the front page?
This is a story that is posted to elicit an emotional reaction rather than a honest attempt to examine whether there is actual recorded medical evidence that more women are dying as a result of this policy.
Edit:
Says a lot about this community.
What you are describing is actually the simple truth that many worldviews and the beliefs and values that stem from them are incompatible and cannot coexist. This is the fundamental problem with the first ammendment. It assumes that people are exercising beliefs that are not diametrically opposed to each other.
Ironically, a bolt-action hunting rifle which is legal in all 50 states would be a much better choice for an assassination attempt than “assault rifles” like an AR-15 or the even less accurate AK-47. So not only can they not shoot, they apparently don’t know anything about rifles either.
I’m not sure how you interpret this story to represent this comment, but it appears to me that Robert’s sister likely invited him to her Bible study, not because he is a Christian but expressly because he is not. He was likely dragged there by his wife Corinna. This seems to be corraborated by the ABC story:
Members of both Woodhull’s and Castillo’s family urged her not to marry him.
“It’s a testament to the kind of person she was that she went through with it, thinking she could help him,” the prosecutor said. “I can’t believe that she knew her wedding vows would ultimately be her death sentence.”
So Corinna, against the advice of everyone who knows Robert, marries into an abusive relationship thinking she can help him, and brings him to his sister’s Bible study, where he stabs her in a supposed drug induced rage, and you interpret his actions as an accurate representation of Christian love? Robert doesn’t represent even Wordly love in this story, let alone Christ like love.
The thing people do no appreciate about professional and Olympic level sports is just how far the male athletes are beyond the athletic ability of the average man.
There seems to be a notion that just because someone is a male they get to compete at the highest level of sports. This is simply not the case. The vast majority of male athletes will never even come close to reaching a professional level. Even an above average male college athlete has a snowball’s chance in hell of making it in a league like the NFL.
When we are talking about women competing with these men, we aren’t talking about competing against men with average or even above average ability (professional female athletes would mop the floor with men in the 60% percentile) we are talking about competing against the top .000001% of male athletes.
Women not only have a biological disadvantage, they have a population size disadvantage. Far more boys and men compete in sports and games. I don’t care what game or sport you are competiting in, if you have population A containing 100 randomly selected competitors and population B containing 1000 competitors, you don’t have to be a statistician to figure out that your #1 competitor and probably your entire top 10 are going to come from population B.
This has not been my experience with my FW16. I also have an XPS for work, and had a Gigabyte Aero before that, but I would hands down take the the FW16 over the XPS 9510. While the XPS doesn’t have any major issues running Linux (though I am unhappy with the trackpad), I haven’t had any issues running Linux on the FW16 either, and I absolutely love having whatever ports I want available. I really missed the great port selection I had on the Aero, which made the XPS painful for me to use (I am so sick of dongles). I use my FW16 for a bunch of different requirements and have a ton of ports for it: ( 4x Ethernet, 3x USB-A, 3x USB-C, 2x HDMI, 2x DP, 2x MicroSD, 2x 3.5mm). Being able to reconfigure on the fly for whatever my workflow is for the day has been great.
Also, something that really galls me about working on the XPS series vs. the Latitude series, is that even though the XPS is supposed to be the premium line, the Latitudes are much nicer to work on. For example, Latitudes have captive screws on the back cover whereas the XPSes don’t, and they also have razor sharp un-polished edges on the covers (always great to have to clean the blood off your motherboard traces before you can power it back on. )
As for the display issues, I can’t speak to that because I use Hyprland and don’t have a DE, but don’t see any issues.
This is true, but it wouldn’t actually be the first time that an arbiter gave an unfavorable result to its employer: https://youtu.be/u9Jmi9BOBNA?si=mOEPKERF8Z8YFrOi&t=8m38s
In my fantasy timeline this is forced to go to arbitration but the arbiter actually is a human being who is so outraged at the circumstances that they award the entire net worth of the Disney corporation as damages in a legally binding non-appealable decision.
ATAK-Civ originally developed by the U.S. Military for tactical use on Android phones. It was open-sourced and released on the Play Store several years ago.
Simple solution to all this: We don’t have divisions based on gender. We simply measure testosterone and have a high-T and low-T division. Anyone can compete in the high-T but high-T can’t compete in the low-T division.
There is a very logical progression of basic human needs. Without oxygen, a human will die in less than an hour. We need clean breathable air. Without water, a human a will die in less than a month. We need clean drinkable water. Without food a human will die in less than a year. Shelter is trickier because people can die of exposure and hypothermia in a matter of hours, but may be able to survive without it.
Not to take anything anyway from the Olympic athletes who are incredibly talented at their sport, but their sport doesn’t resemble the practical shooting of real guns.
There are actual competitons for that, such as the International Practical Shooting Confederation (IPSC) world shoots. The U.S. is much better represented in these: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPSC_Handgun_World_Shoots
I’ll probably get down-voted to oblivion for asking, but continuing this train of thought: If a woman gives birth to a baby and simply walks away, should she be charged with a crime?
If not, why?
If so, why?
There are plenty of examples of this, so it really isn’t thoeretical.
This is like survivorship bias, but in reverse. Obviously almost everyone who killed themselves with a gun had access to a gun, but this doesn’t mean that they wouldn’t have committed suicide by some other means if they didn’t have access to a gun.
This is something that is impossible to determine scientifically. If everyone in this study group killed themselves with a gun, how many of them would have not killed themselves if they didn’t have a gun? They can’t un-kill themselves and let us take away their guns so we can determine the effect.
What this study shows is that a gun is likely the first choice of gun owners who are trying to kill themselves. It cannot determine how much less likely they would have been to kill themselves had they not owned a gun, if at all. Intuitively I do believe that it would be less, because other means are likely more difficult, slower, or less effective. Whether this would result in slightly fewer suicides or much fewer I do not know, but this study doesn’t prove either.
I can tell you they aren’t just banning IPs for abuse. I have run an OpenVPN server on Linode for years. I am the only one using that IP and it was blocked at some point. They are most likely blocking all known VPS IP blocks. OpenAI does the same thing with Cloudflare for ChatGPT.
Where does the Bible say life begins at first breath? I know that is says this, “13 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.” Psalm 139:13 NIV.
If I were to argue on premises, then I would start with a higher premise: Why is murder illegal? If it is my religious belief that murder is wrong, then by your argument doesn’t that make homicide laws a violation of the 1st Amendment and thus unconstitutional?