4 ms·

He's correcting your statement because the population "most" and "large majority" are drawn from is different. "Most people own a yacht" and "A large majority o

by HWR_14 3y ago

He's correcting your statement because the population "most" and "large majority" are drawn from is different. "Most people own a yacht" and "A large majority of billionaires own a yacht" are different statements, but not because of the semantic difference between "most" and "large majority". Or, to put it another way, he's saying a lot of people (maybe even most people who accidentally get pregnant) cannot afford the monetary/time/etc costs to go to another state to get an abortion.

whimsicalism 3y ago
1. Large majority of abortions will be unaffected: Unless we consider large majority 95%+, this is true. 2. Most people can afford to travel to another state: Trivially true. Sure, the population of the statements are different (abortions vs. people), but they are both true and do not need to be corrected. Moreover, they would still be true even if you switched which population the 'most' was for and which one the 'large majority' was for.
- HWR_14 3y ago
  Your first point is just reiterating your assertion that we're disputing. Your second point is not "clearly true" or "true at all". The average cost to travel for an abortion is in the thousands, given the need to stay multiple days and the fact that insurance may not cover it. Most Americans cannot afford an unexpected multi-thousand dollar expense. Half cannot afford a surprise $400 bill[1]. The majority of people in America are unable to cross state lines to get an abortion, financially or in the time off work. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-05-04/most-americans-lack-the-cash-to-cover-a-surprise-400-expense https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-05-04/most-amer...
  - sokoloff 3y ago
    If they can't afford $2K for an abortion and related travel, having the child obviously isn't exactly a cost-free alternative.
    - 0cf8612b2e1e 3y ago
      Can't squeeze blood from a stone. Not having the money today frequently means you have to make sub-optimal future decisions as well.
    - HWR_14 3y ago
      Of course it's not a cost free alternative. They probably know that it costs substantially more and that's why they want an abortion. But, it's the only alternative they can actually pay for because it's the only one that doesn't demand thousands of dollars up front (and $2k would be below average.) When I said they couldn't afford it, I mean it was something they would have to convince someone to loan them money to do. They likely don't have a credit card with that limit, and payday loans usually top out below $1,000 (according to Google). And all that is without addressing the fact that they need to suddenly take several days off work (because most states have waiting periods) and not get fired.

by HWR_14 3y ago

whimsicalism 3y ago

1. Large majority of abortions will be unaffected: Unless we consider large majority 95%+, this is true. 2. Most people can afford to travel to another state: Trivially true. Sure, the population of the statements are different (abortions vs. people), but they are both true and do not need to be corrected. Moreover, they would still be true even if you switched which population the 'most' was for and which one the 'large majority' was for.

HWR_14 3y ago
Your first point is just reiterating your assertion that we're disputing. Your second point is not "clearly true" or "true at all". The average cost to travel for an abortion is in the thousands, given the need to stay multiple days and the fact that insurance may not cover it. Most Americans cannot afford an unexpected multi-thousand dollar expense. Half cannot afford a surprise $400 bill[1]. The majority of people in America are unable to cross state lines to get an abortion, financially or in the time off work. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-05-04/most-americans-lack-the-cash-to-cover-a-surprise-400-expense https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-05-04/most-amer...
- sokoloff 3y ago
  If they can't afford $2K for an abortion and related travel, having the child obviously isn't exactly a cost-free alternative.
  - 0cf8612b2e1e 3y ago
    Can't squeeze blood from a stone. Not having the money today frequently means you have to make sub-optimal future decisions as well.
  - HWR_14 3y ago
    Of course it's not a cost free alternative. They probably know that it costs substantially more and that's why they want an abortion. But, it's the only alternative they can actually pay for because it's the only one that doesn't demand thousands of dollars up front (and $2k would be below average.) When I said they couldn't afford it, I mean it was something they would have to convince someone to loan them money to do. They likely don't have a credit card with that limit, and payday loans usually top out below $1,000 (according to Google). And all that is without addressing the fact that they need to suddenly take several days off work (because most states have waiting periods) and not get fired.