Well ok, in what ways then? Got any examples?

Yes facts are objective, but when you decide to fact check or not fact check is completely subjective. Fact checking statements out of context can be misleading in themselves, and fact checking statements that were misinterpreted by the fact checkers is also influenced by bias.

Any attempt at fact checking will not be neutral. You can fact check obvious hyperbole, you can fact check because of slight misinterpretations, you can decide NOT to fact check. As soon as you decide to do it, you open the door for bias or accusations of bias.

Do you think the country is further to the right now than it was under Reagan?

I heard in a podcast that the main difference between a communist and a socialist is only the means of getting there. The end goal is the same, but communists think it can only happen through violent revolution.

It's not. But it certainly is a wet dream for extremists on either side.

You completely missed my point, let me clarify my example. Two guys got drunk and killed someone while they were driving. One of them was a rich guy with connections, the other was a poor black guy with a criminal record. The rich guy gets a very light sentence and the black guy gets a much more serious charge. In this example the laws were selectively, subjectively, enforced.

This can happen with any law, with every law. I can come up with different examples all day. Every law, and all laws can be selectively enforced.

Ok how about murder? Guy murders someone by hitting them when he is drunk. Rich guy with a good lawyer and connections in the community gets community service, but the poor, black man with a pot possession misdemeanor when he was 15 gets life in prison.

Unjust laws can and should be eliminated, but people using laws unjustly cannot. Speeding is a crime, but it is not perfectly enforced. Cops let family members go more often, good looking people, people they identify with, etc. Speeding is a just law that is not always enforced in a just way. This is always the case.

That may be so, but you can't just get rid of laws because they could be used unjustly. All laws could be used unjustly.

Yeah I suppose it opens the door for investigations in case of miscarriage since some of the methods for abortion can be hard to tell apart from natural miscarriage. And yeah it could be abused or selectively enforced, and that's the danger of any laws. We are always walking that line.

She got charged because she left the baby in the toilet, and even then they almost saved it. She was ultimately cleared of blame, but this story is nowhere near being representative of normal miscarriage. My cousin had a late term miscarriage, my mom had late miscarriage with twins, and two of my sister in laws did as well. None of those cases came even close to being treated as anything other than regular, normal (but sad) miscarriage. They had small funerals and buried or cremated the babies in each of those cases.

How many times has it happened? I would be astonished if it has happened even once without being very obviously abuse of some kind. Something like drinking heavily or doing drugs even though you know you are pregnant.

Also, what would be the motivation to do this? An excuse to lock women up in jail? This is one of the weirdest conspiracy theories that still somehow persists despite a complete lack of rationality.

How big is the risk of being jailed? Of all the women having miscarriages every single day, how many are being jailed? And for how many of those is there other circumstances? Do you think the end goal is to jail half of women? Seriously...

Miscarriages are insanely common, to the point where you are talking about jailing a majority of women. Do you actually believe that they want to do this? That's like cartoon-villian level of evil and so extreme that it's astonishing to me that people find this kind of hysteria so easy to believe. This place blows my mind sometimes with how much of an echo chamber it is.

That's usually the answer, but it also begs the question why aren't they as profitable as they used to be?

What changed so that hospitals are closing in the first place?

That's a really good use for bots, since new users haven't seen the best posts and may actually enjoy discussing them. Older users can simply move on, filter from their stream if they get bored of it.

I think there should be an additional distinction of targeting civilians in order for it to be terrorism, otherwise all acts of war could arguably be terrorism.

How do you define terrorist?