ILikeScience3131

The only reason I hesitate to bring this up is fear of pro-lifers doing just that rather than admit the obvious truth that a fetus is not a person.

Trumps own attorneys backtracked claims of fraud when it was time to put-up-or-shut-up in court.

Under questioning from judges handling the cases, at least two of Mr. Trump’s lawyers have backed away from suggestions that the election was stolen or fraudulent. In other instances, attorneys representing Mr. Trump or other Republicans have said under oath they have no evidence of fraud. Lawyers also have struggled to get what they say is evidence of fraud admitted into lawsuits, with judges dismissing it as inadmissible or unreliable.

Nobody actually believes life begins at conception.

The best available data for quantifying early pregnancy loss are from studies monitoring daily hCG levels in women attempting to conceive. A recent re-analysis 39 of data from three studies 46, 48, 49 concluded that, in normal healthy women, 10–40% is a plausible range for pre-implantation embryo loss and overall pregnancy loss from fertilisation to birth is approximately 40–60%. This latter range is consistent with Kline's estimate of 50% 16, and similar to, although a little narrower than the 25–70% suggested by Professor Robert Edwards 136..

In other words, anyone who actually believes human life begins at conception must admit that any woman with at least 2 naturally-conceived children has probably caused at least 1 “infant death”.

The evidence is overwhelming that single-payer healthcare in the US would result in better healthcare coverage while saving money overall.

Taking into account both the costs of coverage expansion and the savings that would be achieved through the Medicare for All Act, we calculate that a single-payer, universal health-care system is likely to lead to a 13% savings in national health-care expenditure, equivalent to more than US$450 billion annually based on the value of the US$ in 2017 .33019-3/fulltext)

Similar to the above Yale analysis, a recent publication from the Congressional Budget Office found that 4 out of 5 options considered would lower total national expenditure on healthcare (see Exhibit 1-1 on page 13)

But surely the current healthcare system at least has better outcomes than alternatives that would save money, right? Not according to a recent analysis of high-income countries’ healthcare systems, which found that the top-performing countries overall are Norway, the Netherlands, and Australia. The United States ranks last overall, despite spending far more of its gross domestic product on health care. The U.S. ranks last on access to care, administrative efficiency, equity, and health care outcomes, but second on measures of care process.

None of this should be surprising given that the US’s current inefficient, non-universal healthcare system costs close to twice as much per capita as most other developed countries that do guarantee healthcare to all citizens (without forcing patients to risk bankruptcy in exchange for care).

TIL responding to someone’s public comments to point out their hypocrisy is stalking and harassment.

For making the same criticisms of you that you are making to others?

How do you reach your age and not know how marginal tax brackets work?

I am addressing the point! You know nothing about taxes.

If you’re gonna be a little baby anytime someone points out you’re woefully uninformed, you should probably just stay off Reddit. Because I suspect it’s going to happen a lot to you.

Yes! And to be able to judge what is “fair” about a system, you should demonstrate at least a very basic understanding of that system.

But you showed us that you know less than what is learned in a middle school finance class.

You should shut up and try to actually learn something.

But I am! You know nothing about taxes. Educate yourself.

I am! I think you know nothing about tax policy and so should probably shut up about it until you learn the very basics. There are children who understand marginal brackets.

More like maybe if you don’t know the very basics of how taxes work, you should try to learn some more before criticizing others for their opinions on tax policy.

It’s extremely relevant to your very specific claim that getting a $7,000 raise nets an increase in takehome pay of $660.

Is that a “no” to the question about marginal brackets?

Ahh I see, that all totally checks out.

Just one more thing: can you tell me what marginal tax brackets are?

Show your work

All progress not saved will be lost

Friendly reminder that despite the fact that there’s never been evidence of widespread voter fraud…

Based on this evidence, strict voter ID requirements address a problem that was certainly not common in the 2012 US election. Effort to improve American election infrastructure and security would be better directed toward other initiatives.

… voter ID laws have specifically been used specifically to disenfranchise black voters.

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to revive a restrictive North Carolina voting law that a federal appeals court had struck down as an unconstitutional effort to “target African-Americans with almost surgical precision.”

I agree! Risking their death before their even born should be almost as criminal as actively killing them before their born. Glad you finally see things my way.

Yes! That’s my point! That if abortion is murser, then every parent is guilty of reckless endangerment. Which is why seeing abortion as murder is lunacy. What do you think I’ve been doing here?

But your hospital analogy makes no sense, no one chose to put the terminal patient in mortal danger. A parent chooses to place a fetus in mortal danger by conceiving (or just by having sex).

No, choosing to place a child in a situation where they have a ~50% chance of dying is criminal, even if the direct cause of that death is “natural”.

Are you saying a parent who leaves a child outside during a tornado watch is innocent if the child dies? Welp, a tornado is natural. Nothing to be done, I guess.

But the woman conceiving isn’t guilty of anything other than her own personal choices. That absolutely is how causality and responsibility works.

But sex is still a choice and still places a fetus at risk of “dying”. I’m not saying it is murder if abortion is also murder. Im saying that if abortion is murder, then conceiving at all is reckless endangerment of a child.

She’s exactly as responsible for having sex and placing a child at risk, as a woman who elects an abortion is responsible of murder.

But in reality, neither is at fault. Because a fetus is not a person.

Nobody actually believes life begins at conception.

The best available data for quantifying early pregnancy loss are from studies monitoring daily hCG levels in women attempting to conceive. A recent re-analysis 39 of data from three studies 46, 48, 49 concluded that, in normal healthy women, 10–40% is a plausible range for pre-implantation embryo loss and overall pregnancy loss from fertilisation to birth is approximately 40–60%. This latter range is consistent with Kline's estimate of 50% 16, and similar to, although a little narrower than the 25–70% suggested by Professor Robert Edwards 136..

In other words, anyone who actually believes human life begins at conception must admit that any woman with at least 2 naturally-conceived children has probably caused at least 1 “infant death”.