The Coronavirus is exploding almost exclusively in red states

Not really. The consciousness is pretty much exactly like a sperm. Real brain activity, like the kind we see even in insects, doesn't begin until week eight. So if it's immoral to kill a fetus seconds after conception, it doesn't make any sense to say it's not immoral to cum.

Anyway, this is beside the topic because it doesn't have anything to do with Social Darwinism.

What point in development would you draw the line regarding abortion? (in terms of months/weeks)
 
Generally no, but I think some exceptions can be made. If a baby has a health condition so bad that they're going to have a very short and painful life, abortion would be more humane. But other than those extreme cases, I think abortion should be illegal after 8 weeks.

That seems fair enough. Granted, I actually am ok with it in most cases up through the first 2 trimesters. By the last trimester, it really should only be for emergencies or extenuating circumstances like what you mentioned.
 
New York took care of it. Reds are not going to do that. Deaths are the cost of purity.

When the fall comes, the rates will probably trail off again.

In hindsight, New York was lucky that they got it early, because most people are only reliable for isolating up to about a month or two. By the time that COVID really reached the South, we'd been isolating for multiple months, and the weather had warmed up. People understandably were ready to get out again.
 
And *that* is what makes what the (R) governors and their Covidiot-in-Chief totally culpable in the morbidity and mortality in the last two months. They KNEW -- and did nothing.

I'm sure various measures would have been really effective once the riots and protests started....
 
While I am pro-choice, this is incorrect. At conception, you have a fertilized egg, which is quite different from a sperm. Now, you could say that both a sperm and an unfertilized egg are living matter.

The fertilized egg is physically different like a chair is physically different from a table. But like the sperm, there is no consciousness, no self-awareness, no thoughts, no feelings. So if someone is going to say that fertilized egg is alive, I don't get what the logic is that says the sperm isn't also alive.
 
The fertilized egg is physically different like a chair is physically different from a table. But like the sperm, there is no consciousness, no self-awareness, no thoughts, no feelings. So if someone is going to say that fertilized egg is alive, I don't get what the logic is that says the sperm isn't also alive.

Usually, the argument has to do with what AHZ mentioned about haploid cells. Biologically, there is a pretty big difference between sperm and a zygote.

Now, I'm not saying that I personally believe this is a good basis for legally defining the beginning of a life, but biologically, the definition is sound.
 
That seems fair enough. Granted, I actually am ok with it in most cases up through the first 2 trimesters. By the last trimester, it really should only be for emergencies or extenuating circumstances like what you mentioned.

And thankfully, around 1% of abortions are late term. Which makes sense, if a woman wants an abortion, she's not going to wait until month 9. By that point, she's already committed to having the baby. Which means on those rare occasions that a month 9 abortion happens, it's probably for health-related reasons.
 
No, it's about making sure that people don't become dependent on the state. Plenty of conservatives are fine with having some entitlements, but the concern is with regard to people who only want to live off of the system.

Yeah, that's the official narrative. But like I said, the more you listen to them talk about this, the clearer it becomes that they don't care about poor people dying, they see that as the weak dying out. This happens all over this forum. It starts with "Socialism doesn't work!" and eventually devolves into "well it's not my problem" and then finally "they should have just worked harder."
In the words of Todd Wilemon: "If you're poor, stop being poor!"
 
And thankfully, around 1% of abortions are late term. Which makes sense, if a woman wants an abortion, she's not going to wait until month 9. By that point, she's already committed to having the baby. Which means on those rare occasions that a month 9 abortion happens, it's probably for health-related reasons.

That wouldn't surprise me, although it does make me wonder why NY decided to loosen up laws regarding last trimester abortions. If they only happen 1% of the time and are usually only emergencies, then the previous abortion laws there should have sufficed. NY had already long allowed emergency abortions during that period.
 
Yeah, that's the official narrative. But like I said, the more you listen to them talk about this, the clearer it becomes that they don't care about poor people dying, they see that as the weak dying out. This happens all over this forum. It starts with "Socialism doesn't work!" and eventually devolves into "well it's not my problem" and then finally "they should have just worked harder."
In the words of Todd Wilemon: "If you're poor, stop being poor!"

That might fit some people, but speaking for myself, I don't like socialism specifically because of the cycle of dependency it encourages and the usual rise in taxation.

Politicians on the left here often try to sell more social programs with the idea that the rich should pay more in taxes to pay for it. What they fail to mention is that most countries that implement wide ranging social programs like NHS's tax everyone more, not just the rich.

If Democrats actually sold socialized medicine on the premise that everyone would pay more in taxes, it would be more honest and reflective of how these other countries operate. Granted, they don't usually mention that, because it wouldn't win votes.
 
There aren't many social darwinists in the South, or really anywhere in the U.S. Neither party is serious about shrinking entitlements, and neither party's base refrains from using them.

Oh, I know that when Conservatives are suffering, they'll quickly take whatever handouts are available. One of my favorite conservatard quotes is "I've been on food stamps and welfare. Anybody help me out? No." - Craig Nelson.
And yeah, Republicans aren't trying to shrink entitlements because we've already gotten used to them. It's the reasons European Conservatives don't try to eliminate their health care systems. Doing that now would be super unpopular. But Republicans are trying to keep us from getting any more entitlements. And if you can't afford health care, well, you're weak and deserve to die.
 
Point of Order: I live in Thurston Co Wa....our Bug Counts are far worse now than they have ever been before.
 
Oh, I know that when Conservatives are suffering, they'll quickly take whatever handouts are available. One of my favorite conservatard quotes is "I've been on food stamps and welfare. Anybody help me out? No." - Craig Nelson.
And yeah, Republicans aren't trying to shrink entitlements because we've already gotten used to them. It's the reasons European Conservatives don't try to eliminate their health care systems. Doing that now would be super unpopular. But Republicans are trying to keep us from getting any more entitlements. And if you can't afford health care, well, you're weak and deserve to die.

The reason our healthcare system is a mess is because of the insurance industry. As soon as they hijacked the market and made it very difficult for doctors or healthcare networks to set up their own payment methods, the results were bound to be bad.

If there's any industry I'd be ok with nationalizing, it would be insurance. It's the only industry where the supplier makes more money from denial of service than providing it. So I guess that's one of the few socialist views I hold.
 
A much stronger correlation is with regard to climate. Almost all of the states with rising rates are warmer in climate. The cooler states have lower rates.

Another correlation has to do with when each state first started getting significant numbers of cases. In the beginning, the Northeast was hit hardest by COVID, particularly in New York and New Jersey. After a few months, the virus spread southward.

Originally, the assumption was that warmer weather would contribute to a lessening of the spread, but it seems like the opposite might be true.

COVID doesn't care about your politics, but something that is likely contributing to the spread is people gathering outside more. Generally speaking, the hotter it gets outside, the more people get out and congregate. Also, the early period of isolation that was started throughout the country during spring has probably lead to a lot of people taking more risks by now, because they're sick of isolating. This probably wasn't as much of a problem for the cooler states, since COVID hit them hardest earlier, while people didn't yet have isolation fatigue.

Since the spread really hit the South later, this coincides with increased activity due to warmer weather.

This would be funny if you were joking. Sadly you aren’t. There is absolutely zero correlation between warmer temperature and increased cases. Zero.
 
This would be funny if you were joking. Sadly you aren’t. There is absolutely zero correlation between warmer temperature and increased cases. Zero.

Your reading comprehension must be lacking. The last sentence of the post is key: Since the spread really hit the South later, this coincides with increased activity due to warmer weather.

Also, you must have glossed over the isolation fatigue I mentioned.
 
Back
Top