Mississippi voters have a chance to eliminate women's rights

[Outer Chaosmosis]

http://www.suite101.com/content/what-is ... ing-a65446

Easily put it's having several stimuli and the brain turning it into something different.

*Pleads temporary insanity*

I see! I may just have to steal that one from you.

[UCUMAY]

http://www.suite101.com/content/what-is ... ing-a65446

Easily put it's having several stimuli and the brain turning it into something different.

*Pleads temporary insanity*

I see! I may just have to steal that one from you.

You're welcome.

[Acadzia]

I'd be permanently physically-limited without them, not so with child-bearing and -birthing. Also, you're a stranger, not my daughter. If my child/sibling/parent/best friend needed an organ that I could give, I would in a heartbeat; no deliberation needed on my part. Strangers can have whatever they need from this mortal coil when I'm dead, though; I'm a registered organ donor.

Finally, a wise woman once said, of analogies. "They are not even similar so I wont lump them together, because doing so clouds the line between biological facts and moral bias. The reason not to combine the two is so that we can actually discuss this in a manner that is true and factual." Can we talk about unborn babies and not my visceral organs? Or do you really need a kidney?

Some women suffer live long health impacts. The analogies aren't so different for some individuals. You are trying to generalize. Where as I attempt to see the shades of gray.

Some, but that is a deviation from the telos of childbirth, and not the entire telos itself. It's a bit like you coming at me with a knife and removing my liver, and then pleading that lots of people die in car accidents. "Well, yes..."

The funny thing is, a few women do, tragically, experience physical complications from bearing and birthing children. Yet many experience those complications from abortion too. (And, of course, the victims of abortion themselves, whom you have refused to discuss, are killed when abortion goes well.)

And yet you take childbirth like it is something changeable, like your hat or your trousers, and you take abortion like it is a law of nature... like.... childbirth.

[SpectacularSpectacular]

No, dependency is not universally similar. Social dependency is social dependency; dependent on people. A biomolecular/biochemical dependency is a dependence on a cellular(and in regards to genetic coding a molecular) level to just one other organism/cell/biochemical enviorment. Not the same.

I hate to speak for EVERYONE in this thread... but I don't think there is anyone here who doesn't understand what you're saying.

His question was, I think, not how is it different in form but how it is different when making moral considerations. A 9-year-old is arguably a bigger drain on a woman's (and, should be, a man's) autonomy and wallet than a fetus ever could be (a note to all in the thread; please don't write "foetus"; it's a hypercorrection with no real etymological basis in Latin.)

Your pro-abortion rhetoric falls apart if you can't apply it consistently. If you allow a woman to terminate the life of her child in utero on the basis of dependency, then you must be consistent and allow her to terminate her child after it has been born. The reasoning behind and form of the dependency might be different, but it is felt more acutely at this stage.

Im not arguing morality here, if I were I would point out that social dependency requires at least viability - so that the fetus may be brought into a social theatre as a reconizably seperate individual organism.

[UCUMAY]

Some women suffer live long health impacts. The analogies aren't so different for some individuals. You are trying to generalize. Where as I attempt to see the shades of gray.

Some, but that is a deviation from the telos of childbirth, and not the entire telos itself. It's a bit like you coming at me with a knife and removing my liver, and then pleading that lots of people die in car accidents. "Well, yes..."

The funny thing is, a few women do, tragically, experience physical complications from bearing and birthing children. Yet many experience those complications from abortion too. (And, of course, the victims of abortion themselves, whom you have refused to discuss, are killed when abortion goes well.)

And yet you take childbirth like it is something changeable, like your hat or your trousers, and you take abortion like it is a law of nature... like.... childbirth.

I have never pleaded that you get an abortion. (Which is much more akin to your analogy than what I said.)

Life is in a lot of ways replaceable as is the law of nature. If I do not survive my brother might... If my brother doesn't survive my cousin might... If they do not survive I have many 3 and 4 cousins... One of them will. So the genetics still exist.

Your law of nature argument is moot in my opinion because most people do not wish to make laws based from what is natural. (Let's outlaw anything unnatural.) Besides it's natural for humans to expose unwanted children. It's not uncommon in ancient societies to commit infanticide. Do not argue natural with me.

[Outer Chaosmosis]

Some, but that is a deviation from the telos of childbirth, and not the entire telos itself.
And yet you take childbirth like it is something changeable, like your hat or your trousers, and you take abortion like it is a law of nature... like.... childbirth.

So, are you a Thomist or an Aristotelian?

[Acadzia]

Some, but that is a deviation from the telos of childbirth, and not the entire telos itself. It's a bit like you coming at me with a knife and removing my liver, and then pleading that lots of people die in car accidents. "Well, yes..."

The funny thing is, a few women do, tragically, experience physical complications from bearing and birthing children. Yet many experience those complications from abortion too. (And, of course, the victims of abortion themselves, whom you have refused to discuss, are killed when abortion goes well.)

And yet you take childbirth like it is something changeable, like your hat or your trousers, and you take abortion like it is a law of nature... like.... childbirth.

I have never pleaded that you get an abortion. (Which is much more akin to your analogy than what I said.)

Life is in a lot of ways replaceable as is the law of nature. If I do not survive my brother might... If my brother doesn't survive my cousin might... If they do not survive I have many 3 and 4 cousins... One of them will. So the genetics still exist.

Your law of nature argument is moot in my opinion because most people do not wish to make laws based from what is natural. (Let's outlaw anything unnatural.) Besides it's natural for humans to expose unwanted children. It's not uncommon in ancient societies to commit infanticide. Do not argue natural with me.

I think you missed my point, if you think I was "arguing" natural. I'm not a Luddite. Hell, I'm a pro-lifer, the more medical technology we've got, the easier childbirth goes for women, the easier diseases can be cured, the less arable land required to make food. Broadly-speaking, I love technology!

My point was you can't disparage childbirth on the basis of it sometimes going wrong. At least not without a great deal of cognitive dissonance.

[Sanguinthium]

why?

This damned inconvenient thing called Scientific knowledge.

Correct. a fetus is not a child; its a baby. that you for clearing up this nomenclatural issue

[Acadzia]

Some, but that is a deviation from the telos of childbirth, and not the entire telos itself.
And yet you take childbirth like it is something changeable, like your hat or your trousers, and you take abortion like it is a law of nature... like.... childbirth.

So, are you a Thomist or an Aristotelian?

A Thomist, more or less... but my interest in philosophy is pretty amateur.

[UCUMAY]

I have never pleaded that you get an abortion. (Which is much more akin to your analogy than what I said.)

Life is in a lot of ways replaceable as is the law of nature. If I do not survive my brother might... If my brother doesn't survive my cousin might... If they do not survive I have many 3 and 4 cousins... One of them will. So the genetics still exist.

Your law of nature argument is moot in my opinion because most people do not wish to make laws based from what is natural. (Let's outlaw anything unnatural.) Besides it's natural for humans to expose unwanted children. It's not uncommon in ancient societies to commit infanticide. Do not argue natural with me.

I think you missed my point, if you think I was "arguing" natural. I'm not a Luddite. Hell, I'm a pro-lifer, the more medical technology we've got, the easier childbirth goes for women, the easier diseases can be cured, the less arable land required to make food. Broadly-speaking, I love technology!

My point was you can't disparage childbirth on the basis of it sometimes going wrong. At least not without a great deal of cognitive dissonance.

Yes you can. Child birth is more life threatening than abortion.

[Acadzia]

I think you missed my point, if you think I was "arguing" natural. I'm not a Luddite. Hell, I'm a pro-lifer, the more medical technology we've got, the easier childbirth goes for women, the easier diseases can be cured, the less arable land required to make food. Broadly-speaking, I love technology!

My point was you can't disparage childbirth on the basis of it sometimes going wrong. At least not without a great deal of cognitive dissonance.

Yes you can. Child birth is more life threatening than abortion.

Who told you that? The Guttmacher Institute?

The assertion is dubious at best. In Finland, (where there is socialized medicine and better records) they've found the opposite. I generally hesitate to post links, simply because research can be done independently whereas dialogue cannot, and all too often online discussions can degenerate to quoting huge portions of text and link after link. But I think the American Center for Law and Justice has done a good job on debunking the myth by going into more depth on the sources of that data in an Amicus Brief filed to the US Supreme Court. Pay special attention to the addenda, where the CDC responds the the ACLJ's criticisms. If I may quote briefly: "These measures [of maternal mortality rate and abortion death rate] are conceptually different and are used by CDC for different public health purposes." To sum it up, the ACLJ says that the two stats cannot be compared; the CDC responds and says, essentially: "they aren't meant to be."

http://www.priestsforlife.org/pba/pba-brief-aclj.pdf

Both Finland and Chile (the latter does not have legal abortion) have found evidences to the contrary against the myth that abortion is safer than childbirth.

http://www.illinoisrighttolife.org/2004 ... hSafer.htm
http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/02/28/if-a ... ain-chile/

[Acadzia]

I hate to speak for EVERYONE in this thread... but I don't think there is anyone here who doesn't understand what you're saying.

His question was, I think, not how is it different in form but how it is different when making moral considerations. A 9-year-old is arguably a bigger drain on a woman's (and, should be, a man's) autonomy and wallet than a fetus ever could be (a note to all in the thread; please don't write "foetus"; it's a hypercorrection with no real etymological basis in Latin.)

Your pro-abortion rhetoric falls apart if you can't apply it consistently. If you allow a woman to terminate the life of her child in utero on the basis of dependency, then you must be consistent and allow her to terminate her child after it has been born. The reasoning behind and form of the dependency might be different, but it is felt more acutely at this stage.

Im not arguing morality here, if I were I would point out that social dependency requires at least viability - so that the fetus may be brought into a social theatre as a reconizably seperate individual organism.

What, then, is your point in even discussing viability and dependence?

[Italiani a Roma]

This is not a bill about women's rights good sir. This is a bill about human rights... the right for every human to be born.

[Acadzia]

This is not a bill about women's rights good sir. This is a bill about human rights... the right for every human to be born.

That's the crux of it, yes.

The only question that matters is: "Is the fetus a human being?"
If no, then no justification for abortion is necessary.
If yes, then no justification for abortion is possible.

[UCUMAY]

Yes you can. Child birth is more life threatening than abortion.

Who told you that? The Guttmacher Institute?

The assertion is dubious at best. In Finland, (where there is socialized medicine and better records) they've found the opposite. I generally hesitate to post links, simply because research can be done independently whereas dialogue cannot, and all too often online discussions can degenerate to quoting huge portions of text and link after link. But I think the American Center for Law and Justice has done a good job on debunking the myth by going into more depth on the sources of that data in an Amicus Brief filed to the US Supreme Court. Pay special attention to the addenda, where the CDC responds the the ACLJ's criticisms. If I may quote briefly: "These measures [of maternal mortality rate and abortion death rate] are conceptually different and are used by CDC for different public health purposes." To sum it up, the ACLJ says that the two stats cannot be compared; the CDC responds and says, essentially: "they aren't meant to be."

http://www.priestsforlife.org/pba/pba-brief-aclj.pdf

Both Finland and Chile (the latter does not have legal abortion) have found evidences to the contrary against the myth that abortion is safer than childbirth.

http://www.illinoisrighttolife.org/2004 ... hSafer.htm
http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/02/28/if-a ... ain-chile/

I'm talking about the states, and I'm right. Educate yourself.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20427256/ns ... hildbirth/

The following link has an article from the CDC in it.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_fact.htm

[UCUMAY]

This is not a bill about women's rights good sir. This is a bill about human rights... the right for every human to be born.

That's the crux of it, yes.

The only question that matters is: "Is the fetus a human being?"
If no, then no justification for abortion is necessary.
If yes, then no justification for abortion is possible.

And the above is why the argument will never die.

[Outer Chaosmosis]

The only question that matters is: "Is the fetus a human being?"
If no, then no justification for abortion is necessary.
If yes, then no justification for abortion is possible.

Neither necessarily follows. Even if the fetus is not a human being, abortions might still need some justification (albeit of a different character). Likewise, if the fetus is a human being it might still be possible to justify abortion (for instance by claiming, as some on this forum are wont to, that the fetus is a person that does violence to another person).

[Acadzia]

Who told you that? The Guttmacher Institute?

The assertion is dubious at best. In Finland, (where there is socialized medicine and better records) they've found the opposite. I generally hesitate to post links, simply because research can be done independently whereas dialogue cannot, and all too often online discussions can degenerate to quoting huge portions of text and link after link. But I think the American Center for Law and Justice has done a good job on debunking the myth by going into more depth on the sources of that data in an Amicus Brief filed to the US Supreme Court. Pay special attention to the addenda, where the CDC responds the the ACLJ's criticisms. If I may quote briefly: "These measures [of maternal mortality rate and abortion death rate] are conceptually different and are used by CDC for different public health purposes." To sum it up, the ACLJ says that the two stats cannot be compared; the CDC responds and says, essentially: "they aren't meant to be."

http://www.priestsforlife.org/pba/pba-brief-aclj.pdf

Both Finland and Chile (the latter does not have legal abortion) have found evidences to the contrary against the myth that abortion is safer than childbirth.

http://www.illinoisrighttolife.org/2004 ... hSafer.htm
http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/02/28/if-a ... ain-chile/

I'm talking about the states, and I'm right. Educate yourself.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20427256/ns ... hildbirth/

The following link has an article from the CDC in it.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_fact.htm

You're not right. You're wrong, and what's worse, you're probably not even an honest, genuine thinker who has sought the truth earnestly and failed. You're just wrong because you let the pro-abortion MSM think for you. MSNBC? Really?

Anyway, included in maternal mortality, are all deaths from induced abortions and ectopic pregnancies. Included also in maternal mortality are all women who die while pregnant from almost any cause that is in any way related to pregnancy. Different states require longer or shorter lengths of post-partum time, but, typically, maternal mortality also includes any related death within one year after delivery. Now there isn't inherently wrong with this methodology; so long as it is applied consistently. In the case of CDC data, it isn't. In the case of Finland, it was, which is why the Finnish stats are just plain better and more authoritative.

Regarding your second link (from Religious Tolerance.) Did you even read the Amicus brief that I provided? The CDC specifically states that their maternal mortality stats aren't supposed to be compared to abortion death stats, because the methodologies for collecting data are too different. If the very organization responsible for collecting the data says the two sets aren't meant to be compared, you've got a problem when you begin comparing them, no?

Even if your assertion were true, (and it isn't) it's the Bush doctrine of preemptive strikes, only applied to children in the womb than nations. Which is a pretty disgusting state of affairs.

[Acadzia]

The only question that matters is: "Is the fetus a human being?"
If no, then no justification for abortion is necessary.
If yes, then no justification for abortion is possible.

Neither necessarily follows. Even if the fetus is not a human being, abortions might still need some justification (albeit of a different character). Likewise, if the fetus is a human being it might still be possible to justify abortion (for instance by claiming, as some on this forum are wont to, that the fetus is a person that does violence to another person).

This is the fundamental question, at least. "Only" might be a poor choice of words. But I believe that it is from here where the abortion discussion should generally begin.

[UCUMAY]

I'm talking about the states, and I'm right. Educate yourself.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20427256/ns ... hildbirth/

The following link has an article from the CDC in it.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_fact.htm

You're not right. You're wrong, and what's worse, you're probably not even an honest, genuine thinker who has sought the truth earnestly and failed. You're just wrong because you let the pro-abortion MSM think for you. MSNBC? Really?

Anyway, included in maternal mortality, are all deaths from induced abortions and ectopic pregnancies. Included also in maternal mortality are all women who die while pregnant from almost any cause that is in any way related to pregnancy. Different states require longer or shorter lengths of post-partum time, but, typically, maternal mortality also includes any related death within one year after delivery. Now there isn't inherently wrong with this methodology; so long as it is applied consistently. In the case of CDC data, it isn't. In the case of Finland, it was, which is why the Finnish stats are just plain better and more authoritative.

Regarding your second link (from Religious Tolerance.) Did you even read the Amicus brief that I provided? The CDC specifically states that their maternal mortality stats aren't supposed to be compared to abortion death stats, because the methodology and data are too different. If the very organization responsible for collecting the data says the two sets aren't meant to be compared, you've got a problem when you begin comparing them, no?

Even if your assertion were true, (and it isn't) it's the Bush doctrine of preemptive strikes, only applied to children in the womb than nations. Which is a pretty disgusting state of affairs.

Please don't read sources.

Historical CDC data from 1970 to 1995:
Numbers of abortions: This is the total number of legal abortions reported in the U.S.: 1970 to 1980: The number of abortions increased every year.
1981 to 1982: The number stabilized, increasing by only about 0.2% a year.
1983 to 1990: Significant growth resumed, with increases of up to 5% per year
1990 to 1995: The number decreased every year.

Abortion ratio: This is the number of legal abortions per 1,000 live births. 1970 to 1984: The ratio increased, reaching a peak of 364 in 1984
1985 to 1995: The ratio decreased steadily to 311 in 1995

Abortion rate: This is the number of legal abortions per 1,000 women aged 15 to 44 years: 1970 to 1980: The rate increased from 5 to 25.
1981 to 1992: The rate remained stable at 23 to 24.
1993 to 1995: The rate steadily declined to 20.

Death rate as a result of abortion: "...deaths [from complications] related to legal induced abortions occurred rarely." There were fewer than one death due to complications per 100,000 legal abortions. From 1993 to 1997, the case-fatality rate was 0.6 deaths per 100,000 abortions. This is much lower than the rate of maternal deaths for completed pregnancies. Having a legal abortion is safer, on average, than completing the pregnancy. 1 Abortions that are performed early in pregnancy lead to far fewer complications than abortions done later.


Recent CDC data from 1995 to 1999:
Item 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Total abortions 1 1,211 1,222 900 884 6 862 6 857
Decrease in total abortions over previous year 4.5% -0.9% 5 3.3% 2% 6 2.5% 6 0.5%
% of abortions performed on women under 20 years of age 20.1 20.3% 20.1% 19.8% 19.2% 18.8%
% of abortions on women 20 to 24 years 32.5% 31.8% 31.7% 31.8 32.2 33%
Number of deaths 2 ? 10 10 4 -
% unmarried women 80.3% 80.4% 81.0% 81.1% 80.8 81%
Average abortion ratio 3 311 314 274 264 256 246
Abortion rate 4 20 20 17 17 17 16
% of abortions under 9 weeks gestation 54.0 54.6% 55.4% 55.7% 57.6% 58%
% of abortions under 13 weeks gestation 88% 87% 88.1 88.1% 88.0% 88%
% of abortions over 20 weeks gestation 1.4% 1.5% 1.4% 1.4% 1.5% 1.4
Date report issued ? 1999-JUL 2000-DEC 2002-JUN 2002-NOV 2003?

Notes for the above table:

In thousands.
This row gives the number of deaths due to complications from legal induced abortions.
Abortion ratio is the number of legal induced abortions per 1,000 live births.
Abortion rate is the number of abortions per 1,000 women aged 15 to 44 years.
The total number of legal abortions in the U.S. increased by 0.89% from 1995 to 1996. However, this number is deceptive, since the national population increased by about 0.92% from mid-1995 to mid-1996. 6 Thus, the number of abortions per-capita may have actually decreased slightly.
These values were heavily influenced by missing data from Alaska, California, New Hampshire and Oklahoma.
These values were heavily influenced by missing data from Alaska, California, and New Hampshire.
See references 1,2,3,4,7

[Outer Chaosmosis]

But I believe that it is from here where the abortion discussion should generally begin.

Alas, the lack of shared presuppositions tends to mean that even such a beginning is a non-starter. As in so many areas of the so-called "culture wars," the two sides are simply speaking at cross-purposes.

[Acadzia]

@UCUMAY

I did read your source... long before you posted it, actually.

Once again, you've ignored me and my link, and if you continue to, I'm going to cease the dialog. It's not fair that I'm actually using my brain and you are just CTRL+V-ing things I've already debunked.

Read this next paragraph slowly, please.

The CDC says that the two rates that they have produced, maternal mortality and post-abortion death rates cannot accurately be compared with one another because the methodologies are too different.

Do you understand? The very authority you're appealing to has explicitly stated that you shouldn't appeal to them in this particular way. And yet you just did... Thrice.

[UCUMAY]

@UCUMAY

I did read your source... long before you posted it, actually.

Once again, you've ignored me and my link, and if you continue to, I'm going to cease the dialog. It's not fair that I'm actually using my brain and you are just CTRL+V-ing things I've already debunked.

Read this next paragraph slowly, please.

The CDC says that the two rates that they have produced, maternal mortality and post-abortion death rates cannot accurately be compared with one another because the methodologies are too different.

Do you understand? The very authority you're appealing to has explicitly stated that you shouldn't appeal to them in this particular way. And yet you just did... Thrice.

It's simple math. You don't need some government pansy telling you the facts.

Who says between 11-30 women out of 100,000 live births die in the USA from child birth. Okay? I will even simplify it, and might it 1/10,000. In 2008 4.3 million women had live births. That means 430 mothers died from child birth. This is the conservative number.

Again I turn to the CDC which does say, and I quote.

Death rate as a result of abortion: "...deaths [from complications] related to legal induced abortions occurred rarely." There were fewer than one death due to complications per 100,000 legal abortions. From 1993 to 1997, the case-fatality rate was 0.6 deaths per 100,000 abortions. This is much lower than the rate of maternal deaths for completed pregnancies. Having a legal abortion is safer, on average, than completing the pregnancy. 1 Abortions that are performed early in pregnancy lead to far fewer complications than abortions done later.

0.6 deaths per 100,000 abortions. That's a lower rate of death.

Period the math says you're a liar. It doesn't take a rocket scienist to know that carrying a baby to term in the USA is more dangerous than an abortion. The CDC even says so in the underlined.

Ignore me if you don't like my truth telling. I don't have the time to waste on people who like to argue their delusions as fact.

[SpectacularSpectacular]

Im not arguing morality here, if I were I would point out that social dependency requires at least viability - so that the fetus may be brought into a social theatre as a reconizably seperate individual organism.

What, then, is your point in even discussing viability and dependence?

I was responding to a statement linking dependency for the fetus and dependency for a 5yo. The reason I brought up viability is answered there. It would be a criteria for social dependency. All my pots are on the forum, read back a bit if you are confused about my 'point.'

[Xsyne]

The CDC data presented quite explicitly refers to the mortality rate of childbirth. The ACLJ is conflating that with the mortality rate of pregnancy. The CDC quite clearly says that the latter uses different methodology than that which calculates the mortality rate of abortion. They do not say that the calculations of the mortality rate of childbirth use different methodology than the calculations of the mortality rate of abortion. They do not mention it at all.

Of course, this is assuming that all the information presented is accurate. Given how nonsensical and useless the calculations the ACLJ presents are, and how ridiculous it would be for any statistician to use them, I am guessing either mathematical illiteracy on the part of the ACLJ, or malice.

I'd normally go with the former, but I've learned that giving organizations created for the explicit reason of instituting a theocracy the benefit of the doubt is generally a waste of time.