Roe v Wade is on deck

[bilby]

Have I been unclear about my desire to end abortion - the deliberate homicide of unborn humans?

Yes.

You appear to have a desire to criminalise abortion, which is observed to be directly counter to any desire to reduce, much less end, abortions.

Where abortion is lawful, it is less common than where it is unlawful.

Lots of human behaviours fit that pattern. Alcohol consumption in the USA rose when prohibition was enacted, for example.

People who desire a reduction in harm, need to grasp that making something illegal is not only ineffective in preventing that thing; But also can lead to more of that thing, as regulation becomes impossible.

What you have been clear about is your abject failure to grasp that your lobbying efforts are going to lead to more of what you claim not to want.

 

[abaddon]

Where abortion is lawful, it is less common than where it is unlawful.

Yes indeed.

I'm surprised there's over a million abortions in America per year.

The rate of abortions dropped from million/year in the 1980's to 90's, to the 600k range in the 2000's. (See link for the graph).

Until 2023... After SCOTUS overturned Roe v Wade and the states starting banning abortions, the number went up over a million again. (See this link for a graph).

 

[bilby]

Thirdly, 'the rate of abortion' isn't as meaningful as the absolute quantitative number of abortions. We are counting human lives, not rates of abortion. If a jurisdiction which bans abortion has numerically fewer abortions that's the measurement which matters if you are counting dead babies.

Wha??

Are you assuming that people will flee en-masse from places where abortion is illegal? That's not completely implausible, but it would make a (further) mockery of your crazy laws.

The rate is the absolute number, divided by the population size. If you want to lower the absolute number, without lowering the rate, the ONLY way to do that is to lower the population size.

If a jurisdiction which bans abortion has numerically fewer abortions, then either the abortion rate has fallen, or the population has fallen.

Are people fleeing, or are you engaged in genocide to lower the population size, so that the absolute number falls without a corresponding fall in the rate?

Or, just possibly, are you utterly incapable of thinking this through, and just posting daft talking points from your propaganda sources (who also failed to think things through)?

 

[Lion IRC]

If some women are unable to stop themselves from getting pregnant and having abortions they need mandatory controls.

So it's about control, then.

Well if they cant control themselves what other alternative is there?

They dont want to get pregnant and they certainly don't want to have an abortion - NOBODY wants to have an abortion. Right?

So who is going to help them if they can't stop themselves?

Well let's go down your list of questions. The answer to your first question is (apparently) that they must be subjugated to your will.

No. It's THEIR will not to get pregnant and have an abortion.

Second question. No, YOU don't want them to have an abortion.

I agree with their desire to avoid having an abortion.

In fact, you want complete control over their reproduction.

Nope. I want them to (learn how to) control their own bodies - which apparently they can't because they lack education.

Can you imagine how many abortions there would be in America if no woman understood how easy it is to avoid getting pregnant?

YOU tell them when to have a child, when to have sex, how to have it, and YOU decide what consequences a woman must suffer for daring to do so.

No. I actually believe the rhetoric about (most) women being equal to men in their ability to think rationally and their understanding of reproductive biology101.

Third question. Again, you've appointed yourself the final arbiter for all decisions that a woman might have the temerity to attempt to make for herself.

Nope. The woman who can't prevent herself from getting pregnant and having an UNWANTED abortion is putting others in charge.

We practically have a duty of care to such people if they cant control themselves.

What right do you have to make all these decisions for a woman? Are you trying to be more like Diddy?

The State has an obligation to protect the vulnerable in society.

Now, clearly there is an overwhelming majority of women who DONT need 'educating' about what is needed to avoid having an abortion.

Now, here's a few questions I'm interested in hearing how you would answer.

The majority of Americans disagree with the abortion lobby's (my-body-my-choice) position that abortion should be legal on-demand for any reason at any time during the pregnancy. Most Americans, strictly speaking, are not pro choice.

This makes me ask, which abortions should be banned. Opinions - anybody?

- Abortions coerced by an abusive, violent partner?

- Down Syndrome babies? Eugenics?

- Gender selection? Patriarchy?

- Abortions after 22 weeks?

- Abortions done without informed consent of both parents?

 

[Toni]

You mean avoiding having a fertile male ejaculate anywhere near their vagina? Unfortunately women are not always able to avoid rape.

OK. Lets ban all abortions except for rape pregnancy.


YAY! Smiley face.
That will eliminate 99% of abortions.

Sad face.
Unfortunate that there will still be two victims of rape. The mother and the baby who will never get to know their mother and have a chance at life.

Nor are they able to with 100% accuracy avoid pregnancy by utilizing any of the current forms of birth control.

If birth control is 100% effective for 99% of women I'm surprised there's over a million abortions in America per year.

Well, the fact is that birth control is not 100% effective. The fact is that birth control failure does result in unintended pregnancies, some of which, if allowed to continue, will cause serious negative medical complications for the woman and sometimes, too often, death. This is a consequence that no man must ever face, no matter how much unprotected sex he has. His fertility is not compromised. His health is not compromised. His reputation is not compromised and in fact, may be enhanced.

Unfortunately, sometimes a pregnancy dies not grow where it should and the embryo cannot develop into a child but will die without being born and without medical intervention , so will the mother.

Sometimes, fetal development does not occur in a way that will result in a viable fetus. There are too many and/or too serious defects to allow survival outside the womb. Or only a very abbreviated life, filled with pain and suffering.

Sometimes a woman finds herself pregnant but without the means to carry that pregnancy and still raise the children she already has. Or to care for the sick child she has. Or the sick husband or a million things.

Who is anybody else to decide what she must bear? Not you. Not me. Not the government.

 

[Ford]

Now, here's a few questions I'm interested in hearing how you would answer.

The majority of Americans disagree with the abortion lobby's (my-body-my-choice) position that abortion should be legal on-demand for any reason at any time during the pregnancy. Most Americans, strictly speaking, are not pro choice.

This makes me ask, which abortions should be banned. Opinions - anybody?

- Abortions coerced by an abusive, violent partner?

- Down Syndrome babies? Eugenics?

- Gender selection? Patriarchy?

- Abortions after 22 weeks?

- Abortions done without informed consent of both parents?

How charitable you are for thinking about letting "most" women off the leash for a moment. Are you following this whole Diddy situation where he was caught on video beating his girlfriend as she was trying to escape? He's been making a lot of excuses. Because...you know...she tried to escape his control.

He is the man, after all. Right?

As for your list of bullshit questions (and we've been over the first one), it's pretty simple. It's not up to you to decide. You've already explained (mansplained?) that you should be able to do anything to stop a woman from making reproductive choices, but let's pick one of those questions from your list right now.

- Abortions coerced by an abusive, violent partner?

You want - essentially - a woman to be coerced by an abusive, violent partner (the state) to submit to mandatory contraception or forced birth. You want the state to be the abusive, violent partner.


If some abusive man (call him...Diddy if you like) beats his woman into having an abortion, that's wrong in your eyes. But if he beats her into submission (condoned by the state) to carry his "seed" to term?


That's okay by you. He's gonna be a great dad, right?

Right?

 

[Lion IRC]

You mean avoiding having a fertile male ejaculate anywhere near their vagina? Unfortunately women are not always able to avoid rape.

OK. Lets ban all abortions except for rape pregnancy.


YAY! Smiley face.
That will eliminate 99% of abortions.

Sad face.
Unfortunate that there will still be two victims of rape. The mother and the baby who will never get to know their mother and have a chance at life.

Nor are they able to with 100% accuracy avoid pregnancy by utilizing any of the current forms of birth control.

If birth control is 100% effective for 99% of women I'm surprised there's over a million abortions in America per year.

Well, the fact is that birth control is not 100% effective.

Sure. An uncontroversial issue.

But what percentage of abortions involve women who were using contraceptives according to the manufacturer's instructions and got pregnant as part of the statistically probable failure rate.

I dont think the very low, and reliably understood failure rates of these products accounts for the HUGE number of unwanted pregnancy abortions.

In fact I would guess the majority of unwanted pregnancy abortions arise where no contraceptives were used.

The fact is that birth control failure does result in unintended pregnancies, some of which, if allowed to continue, will cause serious negative medical complications for the woman and sometimes, too often, death.

Im already on record here in this thread affirming that life saving abortions where either only the mother or only the unborn baby can be saved are morally neutral.

Its better to save two lives than one.
Its better to save one life than none.
And if youre forced into a situation where only one life can be saved, then you arent the one deciding that only one life can be saved.

This is a consequence that no man must ever face, no matter how much unprotected sex he has.

It's arguable that men are never traumatized by such scenarios or that the life or death dilemmas associated with pregnancy are the sole province of the mother. The death of a pregnant spouse could result in life-long trauma and emotional pain deserving of at least as much sympathy as we would extend to a woman who died giving birth.

His fertility is not compromised. His health is not compromised. His reputation is not compromised and in fact, may be enhanced.

Yes, in some cases thats possible.

Unfortunately, sometimes a pregnancy dies not grow where it should and the embryo cannot develop into a child but will die without being born and without medical intervention , so will the mother.

This is known.

Sometimes, fetal development does not occur in a way that will result in a viable fetus. There are too many and/or too serious defects to allow survival outside the womb. Or only a very abbreviated life, filled with pain and suffering.

This is known.

Sometimes a woman finds herself pregnant but without the means to carry that pregnancy and still raise the children she already has. Or to care for the sick child she has. Or the sick husband or a million things.

Yes, and?
I dont see the necessary inference to unavoidable abortion.

Who is anybody else to decide what she must bear? Not you. Not me. Not the government.

The State can, and does, and often should/must intervene in situations where the death of a human being is at stake.

 

[Shadowy Man]

It would seem you should support mandatory contraception for men too. Thats double the protection against potential abortions.

It would seem you’d like to see the government in total control of reproduction of the citizens, yes? I mean, if that’s the best way to prevent abortion, right?

Are you also against IVF? That kills many fetuses.

 

[Ford]

It would seem you should support mandatory contraception for men too.

Oh god, no!

It's all the woman's fault, don't you know?

 

[Rhea]

Yikes! What kind of person wants to force all women to have mandatory contraceptives!

Not all women.
Just the ones who are ignorant of biology101 and who say they don't want to get pregnant or have an abortion.

All kinds of people, with life pressures outside of understand how pregnancies occur, but quite honestly some with ignorance in that area, exist. They are both men and women. But only the women are getting pregnant.

You really don’t know this state of affairs? That’s an honest question. You really didn’t now that many many people don’t know, for example, that if you take antibiotics your birth control pills stop working? You think everyone, both men and women, know exactly how to use a condom or a diaphragm or a pill?

Are you truly not aware of how uninformed most people, both male and female, are about reproductive health?

....if that's the only way to prevent 1 million abortions per year in the US

It’s not, as was clearly shown in the unequivocal data you were shown.

I was told it is demonstrably one of the best ways to avoid and prevent abortion.

In deed. Demonstrably one of the best.
Not “the only way” as you switched the goal posts to.

Do you really not see the difference? You didn’t notice yourself moving the goal posts?

All it takes is removing the barriers to access; education, accessibility, affordability.

If some women are unable to stop themselves from getting pregnant and having abortions they need mandatory controls.

No. As the study shows, they need

1. Comprehensive sexuality education
2. Access to long acting (expensive) reversible birth control
3. Cost assistance on the (expensive) birth control.

The study shows that when you given them these things, the rates of pregnancy and abortion nosedive. Why are you determined to insult people and give them disdain for the truth of this study? When they made birth control available and explained how it worked, the abortions went down. And you take that information and laugh and point and call them stupid.

Wait, Lion, you are aware, aren’t you, that in America millions of people do not have regular access to doctors?
It’s shameful and wrong, but it is absolutely fact.

If there are that many women living in the 21st century, in the wealthiest country on earth, who for some reason are deliberately having unprotected sex, and are carelessly or foolishly unaware that they (biology101) might become pregnant,

I am happy for you that you live a life utterly unaware of the trials of being a woman on this planet.

Are you agreeing with me that there ARE huge numbers of women living in the 21st century, in the wealthiest country on earth, who for some reason are deliberately having unprotected sex, and are carelessly or foolishly unaware that they (biology101) might become pregnant?

No, I do not agree that they are careless or foolishly unaware. That is your dripping disdain for your fellow man, not mine.
Nor do I agree that they are deliberately having unprotected sex, even. They are having poorly protected sex. Or they are having unprotected sex because the protection is out of reach.

That poverty, poor parenting, lack of education, and yes, low intelligence are not things that cross your mind as life’s hurdles.

If there are women who are unable to stop themselves from getting pregnant and having abortions then, for their own benefit, they need mandatory controls on their behaviour.

No, that’s disgusting. They don’t need that. They need education and access to LARCs. When they have the proper access to choose for themselves, they choose, generally, a path that prevents unwanted pregnancy.

But you do know, don’t you, that entities like the Catholic church do their very best to undermine this? Campaigns about how condoms are bad, and will even harm you, and that hormonal birthn control equals abortion somehow. They and others like evangelicals do everything they can, they spend BILLIONS of dollars a year trying to make sure misinformation gets out to make sex as risky as possible. They do this on purpose.

Im assuming the my-body-my-choice dogma is founded on the notion that women understand biology.

Most people don’t, actually. Did you not know that?
And many more undertstand but don’t have the life circumstances to act on that knowledge. But you keep trying to make sure we know that you don’t understand poverty or actual life circumstances. Nor have any empathy for lives not like yours. We get it, you don’t need to tell us again.

If they don't, then there's a strong case for mandatory preventive measures. Measures which are "demonstrably" the best way to prevent abortion.


If they arent able to prevent themselves getting pregnant theres a strong case for mandatory interventions on their behalf and in their own interest.

It sounds a lot like you are saying you get to decide that certain people should be forced to have medical intervention.
I’m curious, though, why you only talk about women. Wouldn’t it be a lot more effective to make mandatory sterilizations of men?

I’m curious why that option has not crossed your mind? Don’t the men getting people pregnant demonstrate that they can’t be trusted to have sperm? Shouldn’t we get them all vasectomies asap? For their own good?

Serious question. Why are modern, independent, educated women the only women that you consider helping?

I dont think that.

They’re the only ones you mentioned so it is reasonable to infer that you are only talking about them.

You must have read the part of the study that providing sexuality education was a necessary part of the reduction in abortions!

Sure.
If theres uneducated women who aren't aware of how to avoid pregnancy and abortion then theres a strong case for mandatory interventions on their behalf and in their own interest. (But I repeat myself.)

First. Only you are saying they are “not aware how to avoid pregnancy”. So that’s your straw man, not the facts of the case. Some do not know, some are not in a position to execute the avoidances.

Second, Nope, that is absoluttely not a case for mandatory interventions without ther consent.
That would be monstrous.
America has a shameful history of doing exactly that, and it was wrong when they did it and it’s wrong when you suggest repeating it.

Saying....I dont feel like you read the study isn't exactly pinpointing where you think I'm not getting the message that there's lots of things women can do to avoid getting pregnant and having an UNWANTED abortion.

IF they have access
IF it is affordable
IF they are given information on how the different methods work for given situations.

A nickel says that YOU do not understand how all the different methods work.

I have spent the last few decades being indoctrinated by the received wisdom that women are equal to men and don't need old-fashioned patriarchal care and nurturing. I take it as an article of faith that women DO know how to avoid pregnancy and abortion.

Oh, sweetie, you thought men understand this any better than women? Darlin’. Women *are* equal to men. Men are just as much in need of

1. Comprehensive sexuality education
2. Access to long acting (expensive) reversible birth control
3. Cost assistance on the (expensive) birth control.

But if there's a case for mandatory interventions to protect women unable to grasp or manage the basics of becoming pregnant, I'm open-minded.

That’s not open-minded. That’s gross.
And I’ll notice again you don’t include men in your mandatory birth control. Because you think… what… women are getting themselves pregnant?

What does it say about you that you never once thought about applying your mandatory “solution” to men?
What does that say?

You think that knowing biology is a substitute for knowing psychiatry, developmental psychology, and anthropology.

I wasn't aware that these were necessary/sufficient requirements to avoid unwanted abortions or that men were the only people who had such an educational advantage in theses fields.

Still laughing at you thinking men have an educational advantage in this field. Are you saying that men are knowingly and deliberately getting women pregnant without their knowledge?

What ARE you saying here?

but let's just start with women who confuse and conflate the words abortion and contraception.

Who is doing that?

 

[Rhea]

I dont think the very low, and reliably understood failure rates of these products accounts for the HUGE number of unwanted pregnancy abortions.

In fact I would guess the majority of unwanted pregnancy abortions arise where no contraceptives were used.

Wait. You ***GUESS*** you know what women are doing and you want to punish them for what you ***GUESS*** they are doing?

That’s pretty…. Ummm… what’s the word….

 

[Lion IRC]

How charitable you are for thinking about letting "most" women off the leash for a moment.

I dont understand what youre asserting.
Snarkasm needs to be a little bit clearer if its supposed to bite.

Are you following this whole Diddy situation where he was caught on video beating his girlfriend as she was trying to escape?

Nope. Which probably accounts for my disinterest in the parts of your post mention her/him/them

He's been making a lot of excuses. Because...you know...she tried to escape his control.

He is the man, after all. Right?

If you say so.

As for your list of bullshit questions (and we've been over the first one), it's pretty simple. It's not up to you to decide. You've already explained (mansplained?) that you should be able to do anything to stop a woman from making reproductive choices, but let's pick one of those questions from your list right now.

Thanks for clarifying your position.

- Abortions coerced by an abusive, violent partner?

You want - essentially - a woman to be coerced by an abusive, violent partner (the state) to submit to mandatory contraception or forced birth. You want the state to be the abusive, violent partner.

I'm arguing that abortion should NOT be an available menu option for people who want to select the gender of their baby. (Designer babies)

It should not be an available menu option for people who have a personal (yuck factor) dislike of Down Syndrome children.

It should definitely not be a no-questions-asked available menu option for deadbeat dads who blackmail the woman into having an abortion

If some abusive man (call him...Diddy if you like) beats his woman into having an abortion, that's wrong in your eyes. But if he beats her into submission (condoned by the state) to carry his "seed" to term?

No.

On my argument the former is coerced.

The latter is a case of saying to someone that abortion is not a contraceptive device.

In BOTH cases the parents are being told, you dont get to procreate disposable human beings and shirk your responsibility to that human.

That's okay by you. He's gonna be a great dad, right?

Right?

I don't know who Diddy is.
And I'm happy to remain ignorant
You can be the Diddy expert.

 

[Lion IRC]

I dont think the very low, and reliably understood failure rates of these products accounts for the HUGE number of unwanted pregnancy abortions.

In fact I would guess the majority of unwanted pregnancy abortions arise where no contraceptives were used.

Wait. You ***GUESS*** you know what women are doing and you want to punish them for what you ***GUESS*** they are doing?

That’s pretty…. Ummm… what’s the word….

I'm happy to consider alternative guesses if you have a more plausible one.

 

[Ford]

And I'm happy to remain ignorant

That's kind of a perfect summation of your entire argument here. You've had multiple people explain in detail the problems with your position, but remain stubbornly unwilling to accept that you might be wrong.

 

[ZiprHead]

OK. Lets ban all abortions except for rape pregnancy.

So you're okay with killing fetuses that come from rape. Are those fetuses less human than the others?

No. I'm opposed to all abortion but I'm willing to make a deal if it eliminates 99% of abortions.

Are you authorized by the abortion lobby to negotiate that deal.

So you are willing to compromise on other human life.

What makes those lives so special they deserve death but the others not?

 

[bilby]

In fact I would guess the majority of unwanted pregnancy abortions arise where no contraceptives were used.

For a pleasant change, you guess right!

Now, I presume that you will lobby vigourously and vociferously for the maximum possible use of contraceptives, as an obvious and effective part of your strategy to achieve your objective of fewer abortions, right?

Making contraception freely and readily available; And giving everyone a comprehensive education on how to effectively use it in the prevention of unwanted pregnancies, are key parts of your platform, right? They are your main focus, and arguing for them is something you do whenever the opportunity arises, right? Right?

 

[Ford]

In fact I would guess the majority of unwanted pregnancy abortions arise where no contraceptives were used.

For a pleasant change, you guess right!

Now, I presume that you will lobby vigourously and vociferously for the maximum possible use of contraceptives, as an obvious and effective part of your strategy to achieve your objective of fewer abortions, right?

Making contraception freely and readily available; And giving everyone a comprehensive education on how to effectively use it in the prevention of unwanted pregnancies, are key parts of your platform, right? They are your main focus, and arguing for them is something you do whenever the opportunity arises, right? Right?

As I read things, Lion wants to make contraception mandatory for those women who want to engage in sexual activity, but aren't doing so for purely procreative purposes. Because - apparently - such women can't be trusted to be responsible on their own account, and must be compelled by some sort of authority to be protected from unwanted pregnancies.

If such measures fail (and they sometimes do), then they must be compelled to carry the results of that failure to term. Was that the outcome they wanted? Were they voluntarily responsible or were they compelled by the state? Who fucking cares? Strap 'em down to a table in a jail cell for 9 months...we've got a baby to welcome into the world!

 

[Shadowy Man]

Given the kinds and frequencies of side effects for women’s birth control it would seem to make more sense for men to carry the majority of the burden for contraception. So, mandatory Reversible vasectomies would be the best approach for Lion’s argument. That would seem to be the best overall reduction of abortions with the least harm overall.

 

[Toni]

You mean avoiding having a fertile male ejaculate anywhere near their vagina? Unfortunately women are not always able to avoid rape.

OK. Lets ban all abortions except for rape pregnancy.


YAY! Smiley face.
That will eliminate 99% of abortions.

Sad face.
Unfortunate that there will still be two victims of rape. The mother and the baby who will never get to know their mother and have a chance at life.

Nor are they able to with 100% accuracy avoid pregnancy by utilizing any of the current forms of birth control.

If birth control is 100% effective for 99% of women I'm surprised there's over a million abortions in America per year.

Well, the fact is that birth control is not 100% effective.

Sure. An uncontroversial issue.

But what percentage of abortions involve women who were using contraceptives according to the manufacturer's instructions and got pregnant as part of the statistically probable failure rate.

I dont think the very low, and reliably understood failure rates of these products accounts for the HUGE number of unwanted pregnancy abortions.

In fact I would guess the majority of unwanted pregnancy abortions arise where no contraceptives were used.

The fact is that birth control failure does result in unintended pregnancies, some of which, if allowed to continue, will cause serious negative medical complications for the woman and sometimes, too often, death.

Im already on record here in this thread affirming that life saving abortions where either only the mother or only the unborn baby can be saved are morally neutral.

Its better to save two lives than one.
Its better to save one life than none.
And if youre forced into a situation where only one life can be saved, then you arent the one deciding that only one life can be saved.

This is a consequence that no man must ever face, no matter how much unprotected sex he has.

It's arguable that men are never traumatized by such scenarios or that the life or death dilemmas associated with pregnancy are the sole province of the mother. The death of a pregnant spouse could result in life-long trauma and emotional pain deserving of at least as much sympathy as we would extend to a woman who died giving birth.

His fertility is not compromised. His health is not compromised. His reputation is not compromised and in fact, may be enhanced.

Yes, in some cases thats possible.

Unfortunately, sometimes a pregnancy dies not grow where it should and the embryo cannot develop into a child but will die without being born and without medical intervention , so will the mother.

This is known.

Sometimes, fetal development does not occur in a way that will result in a viable fetus. There are too many and/or too serious defects to allow survival outside the womb. Or only a very abbreviated life, filled with pain and suffering.

This is known.

Sometimes a woman finds herself pregnant but without the means to carry that pregnancy and still raise the children she already has. Or to care for the sick child she has. Or the sick husband or a million things.

Yes, and?
I dont see the necessary inference to unavoidable abortion.

Who is anybody else to decide what she must bear? Not you. Not me. Not the government.

The State can, and does, and often should/must intervene in situations where the death of a human being is at stake.

But what about the woman’s life? Every single day that she is pregnant represents an increased risk to her life and health.


The State does often but not always have the means to save lives. But it often decides that it has more important priorities. Some of which include neglect of basic human needs such as decent and sufficient t food and housing, education, health care, clean water and air. Among a few.

But this is the US. The state is us. Not you or your bizarre interpretation of the Bible. In fact, this nation was founded on some basic principles including freedom of and from religion.

There are a number of theocracies which much better support your world views. Iran and Saudi Arabia leap to mind. I don’t think you could manage Afghanistan. You are t tolerant enough. And neither are they. But I’m certain you could find some place more aligned with your ideology. But it’s not here.

 

[Lion IRC]

And I'm happy to remain ignorant

That's kind of a perfect summation of your entire argument here. You've had multiple people explain in detail the problems with your position, but remain stubbornly unwilling to accept that you might be wrong.

See pood?

I know exactly which specific ignorance Ford is referring to here. My honest, undisguised admission of ignorance is right there in the quoted post.

And theres no CAPS LOCK outrage meltdown about my plainly visible statement being taken out of context. You can't take it out of context. It's in plain sight.

If someone does or doesn't think it's a summation of my "entire" argument they're entitled to that opinion. No tantrum required.