I just saw something that may have changed my mind. Don’t worry it wasn’t anything you wrote.
As an aside:
The research was published Thursday in the journal, Lancet.
Abortion rates were lowest in Western Europe ? 12 per 1,000 ? and highest in Eastern Europe ? 43 per 1,000. The rate in North America was 19 per 1,000. Sedgh said she and colleagues found a link between higher abortion rates and regions with more restrictive legislation, such as in Latin America and Africa. They also found that 95 to 97 percent of abortions in those regions were unsafe.[/quote]
Keep in mind that correlation does not necessarily equal causation. It could have more to do with access to socialized healthcare and simply by having more means to support newborns because of the greater wealth in those countries.
To draw conclusions either way, I would need to see more data and studies and if it isn’t there these types of studies need to be carried out.
A specific example is how latitude seems to be correlated to IQ. But upon further examination, there’s a much stronger correlation to rate of disease and IQ and is a much more likely cause. Especially dysentary (sp?).
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
most rape victims have spoken on how it took them longer to deal with the abortion than to heal from the rape itself.
[/quote]
This.[/quote]
Oh I don’t think he gets much real life interaction with women so don’t take that comment too seriously.[/quote]
Lol. Guess you must have given up on even trying to look like you could put forth a logical argument.[/quote]
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
most rape victims have spoken on how it took them longer to deal with the abortion than to heal from the rape itself.
[/quote]
This.[/quote]
Oh I don’t think he gets much real life interaction with women so don’t take that comment too seriously.[/quote]
Lol. Guess you must have given up on even trying to look like you could put forth a logical argument.[/quote]
So what changed you mind or how was it changed? I was totally caught off guard to learn something I could have guessed previously, but it is good to know that abortions in Africa and Latin America were unsafe because some of those areas have restricted access to modern medical care.
[quote]BrianHanson wrote: The research was published Thursday in the journal, Lancet.
Abortion rates were lowest in Western Europe ? 12 per 1,000 ? and highest in Eastern Europe ? 43 per 1,000. The rate in North America was 19 per 1,000. Sedgh said she and colleagues found a link between higher abortion rates and regions with more restrictive legislation, such as in Latin America and Africa. They also found that 95 to 97 percent of abortions in those regions were unsafe.[/quote]
Maybe.
But personhood is absolutely irrelevant here.
Again :
Personhood may be the basis of our right to sue and be sued in court, but it’s certainly not the basis of our right to life.
Our right to life is unconditionnal per definition.
You’re alive : you have a right to life.
If it was not the case, our right to life would not be a right to life at all, but only a “right to life as…[insert what you want here]”.
A person, for example.
Adding such a criterium only narrow the spectrum of ethics (and the number of beings we have to respect)
Problem is that narrowing the spectrum of ethics is the mean, the end and the very definition of evil.
[/quote]
by your same definition a tumor is alive and has the right to not be cut out[/quote]
In our universe, Tumors are not organisms.
An organism is a continuous and autonomous system made of biological tissue, “programmed” by an individual, specific DNA.
Moreover, even the simplest of organism are able to respond to some stimuli, and manifest some kind of homeostasis.
A tumor may be made of biological tissue, but it does not fit any of the other criteria.
Contrary to a fetus, a tumor really just a clump of cells.
This argument is even worst than the “if a fetus is an human being then masturbation is genocide” argument. And it says a lot.
[/quote]
Ummm…your original post doesnt mention the word organism in it once so why are you switching which words we are talking about? You only specified that if you are alive you have a right to life. A tumor is alive by just about every acceptable medical/biological definition.
Care to stay on topic?
[/quote]
You’re playing with words here, and it won’t do the trick.
When i said “you’re alive : you have a right to life”, i was obviously speaking about living BEINGS.
Not about biological tissue, or “living things”.
A tumor is not an organism, so it’s not a being at all. It’s not a “you”, and the proposition “you’re alive : you have a right to life” doesn’t apply to it.
A non-being can not have a right to anything, per definition.
[/quote]
Where does this right to life come from exactly?[/quote]
To understand this you would need to acknowledge the very existence of morality, as an absolute truth.
But even if you don’t, it’s the logical conclusion of a purely utilitarian reasoning.
Value is function of scarcity.
A being is unique. IE : infinitely scarce.
Therefore, a being has an infinite value.
Destroying it is an infinite waste.
Privacy laws make the data hard to find, but I still found some science.
[quote]countingbeans wrote: pAGE 9.
I don’t care what data any of you use, you are the one moving the goal posts in the span of 3 posts.
16 year old data was fine, then you used the “it’s over two decaded old” in a weak attempt to refute Raj’s data.
All I ask is there is an agreed upon acceptable time frame, from both sides.[/quote]
[/quote]
Dude, again: I don’t care about your souce, its age, bias or any of that. All I care about is dirty debate tactics when I’m trying to learn something here.
You should have posted those to refute Raj, not me, I have not taken a postion.
I swear you either ignore points I make on purpose when they force you to evaluate your postion or might prove you to be mistaken about something, or you need to stop the ad hominens you throw at others about “following along” etc. You consistantly ignore the substance of my posts.
I love the “I support abortion but I would never have one.” line of bullshit reasoning. [/quote]
Why is it bullshit reasoning?
Let me phrase it a different way:
Person X says, “I feel abortion is wrong and I would never have one or suggest anyone else does. But I don’t feel it is my place to tell anyone else what their stance should be on the subject, whether that be for moral reasons, legal reasons, or any reason. Who am I to be the moral compass for stangers?”
Is it selfish? Sure. But why is that “bullshit”.
Honest question here. I’m not attacking your opinion.
Privacy laws make the data hard to find, but I still found some science.
[quote]countingbeans wrote: pAGE 9.
I don’t care what data any of you use, you are the one moving the goal posts in the span of 3 posts.
16 year old data was fine, then you used the “it’s over two decaded old” in a weak attempt to refute Raj’s data.
All I ask is there is an agreed upon acceptable time frame, from both sides.[/quote]
[/quote]
Dude, again: I don’t care about your souce, its age, bias or any of that. All I care about is dirty debate tactics when I’m trying to learn something here.
You should have posted those to refute Raj, not me, I have not taken a postion.
I swear you either ignore points I make on purpose when they force you to evaluate your postion or might prove you to be mistaken about something, or you need to stop the ad hominens you throw at others about “following along” etc. You consistantly ignore the substance of my posts.[/quote]
You’re wasting your time. I’ve been exactly where you are and since then I’ve realized, he isn’t intentionally doing anything; He legitimately lacks the intelligence to comprehend a shift in conversational direction.
He’s much like a leaf-cutter ant caught in a forest fire. He can’t internalize the concept of anything other than cutting leaves, so he continues doing so as he burns to death.
Best case scenario, he’ll respond to you, but his response will have so many layers of fallacy that it will take several other impossible debates before he reaches a point where you can have this one.
Maybe.
But personhood is absolutely irrelevant here.
Again :
Personhood may be the basis of our right to sue and be sued in court, but it’s certainly not the basis of our right to life.
Our right to life is unconditionnal per definition.
You’re alive : you have a right to life.
If it was not the case, our right to life would not be a right to life at all, but only a “right to life as…[insert what you want here]”.
A person, for example.
Adding such a criterium only narrow the spectrum of ethics (and the number of beings we have to respect)
Problem is that narrowing the spectrum of ethics is the mean, the end and the very definition of evil.
[/quote]
by your same definition a tumor is alive and has the right to not be cut out[/quote]
In our universe, Tumors are not organisms.
An organism is a continuous and autonomous system made of biological tissue, “programmed” by an individual, specific DNA.
Moreover, even the simplest of organism are able to respond to some stimuli, and manifest some kind of homeostasis.
A tumor may be made of biological tissue, but it does not fit any of the other criteria.
Contrary to a fetus, a tumor really just a clump of cells.
This argument is even worst than the “if a fetus is an human being then masturbation is genocide” argument. And it says a lot.
[/quote]
Ummm…your original post doesnt mention the word organism in it once so why are you switching which words we are talking about? You only specified that if you are alive you have a right to life. A tumor is alive by just about every acceptable medical/biological definition.
Care to stay on topic?
[/quote]
You’re playing with words here, and it won’t do the trick.
When i said “you’re alive : you have a right to life”, i was obviously speaking about living BEINGS.
Not about biological tissue, or “living things”.
A tumor is not an organism, so it’s not a being at all. It’s not a “you”, and the proposition “you’re alive : you have a right to life” doesn’t apply to it.
A non-being can not have a right to anything, per definition.
[/quote]
Where does this right to life come from exactly?[/quote]
To understand this you would need to acknowledge the very existence of morality, as an absolute truth.
But even if you don’t, it’s the logical conclusion of a purely utilitarian reasoning.
Value is function of scarcity.
A being is unique. IE : infinitely scarce.
Therefore, a being has an infinite value.
Destroying it is an infinite waste.
[/quote]
it’s just rhetoric no different than people who push the “right to choose” crap.
[quote]Cortes wrote:“I support burning heretics at the stake, but would never burn one, myself?”
[/quote]I KNEW IT!!! I’m gonna have to walk around in wet clothes with a fire extinguisher now in case any of your honey’s show up.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
One last question before bed:
A woman decides she does not want the child she is pregnant with, but, at 20 weeks, it is possible the child already possesses the pesky quality of pain sensitivity. Could we then still ethically justify killing her by anesthetizing her before cutting her up and collapsing her skull and sucking the brains and leftover pieces of her body out of her mother’s womb?
What’s the difference, right? No big deal.
Same question for the child at 30 weeks.
Same question for the child at 40 weeks.[/quote]
I wouldn’t have a problem with that.[/quote]
Nice.
So let’s see where this takes us.
Let’s say the mother has just had the child, but upon hearing her screams for the first time, she finally realizes the enormity of her responsibility and decides that she is not ready. Again, keeping all other factors equal, the only element that has changed is that the baby happens to now be on the opposite side of the vagina.
In our hypothetical world you are the law, so if you think it’s okay, then go ahead and consider it 100% on-the-table legal, for the sake of our discussion. Now, to continue:
[quote]Cortes wrote:“I support burning heretics at the stake, but would never burn one, myself?”
[/quote]I KNEW IT!!! I’m gonna have to walk around in wet clothes with a fire extinguisher now in case any of your honey’s show up.
[/quote]
Hey man, I’m just saying, that’s a personal choice that only an individual Catholic can make.
Maybe.
But personhood is absolutely irrelevant here.
Again :
Personhood may be the basis of our right to sue and be sued in court, but it’s certainly not the basis of our right to life.
Our right to life is unconditionnal per definition.
You’re alive : you have a right to life.
If it was not the case, our right to life would not be a right to life at all, but only a “right to life as…[insert what you want here]”.
A person, for example.
Adding such a criterium only narrow the spectrum of ethics (and the number of beings we have to respect)
Problem is that narrowing the spectrum of ethics is the mean, the end and the very definition of evil.
[/quote]
by your same definition a tumor is alive and has the right to not be cut out[/quote]
In our universe, Tumors are not organisms.
An organism is a continuous and autonomous system made of biological tissue, “programmed” by an individual, specific DNA.
Moreover, even the simplest of organism are able to respond to some stimuli, and manifest some kind of homeostasis.
A tumor may be made of biological tissue, but it does not fit any of the other criteria.
Contrary to a fetus, a tumor really just a clump of cells.
This argument is even worst than the “if a fetus is an human being then masturbation is genocide” argument. And it says a lot.
[/quote]
Ummm…your original post doesnt mention the word organism in it once so why are you switching which words we are talking about? You only specified that if you are alive you have a right to life. A tumor is alive by just about every acceptable medical/biological definition.
Care to stay on topic?
[/quote]
You’re playing with words here, and it won’t do the trick.
When i said “you’re alive : you have a right to life”, i was obviously speaking about living BEINGS.
Not about biological tissue, or “living things”.
A tumor is not an organism, so it’s not a being at all. It’s not a “you”, and the proposition “you’re alive : you have a right to life” doesn’t apply to it.
A non-being can not have a right to anything, per definition.
[/quote]
Where does this right to life come from exactly?[/quote]
To understand this you would need to acknowledge the very existence of morality, as an absolute truth.
But even if you don’t, it’s the logical conclusion of a purely utilitarian reasoning.
Value is function of scarcity.
A being is unique. IE : infinitely scarce.
Therefore, a being has an infinite value.
Destroying it is an infinite waste.
[/quote]
it’s just rhetoric no different than people who push the “right to choose” crap.
Every “being” human or non-human is unique.
[/quote]
Well now its settled, both sides for this argument are equally valid.
Maybe.
But personhood is absolutely irrelevant here.
Again :
Personhood may be the basis of our right to sue and be sued in court, but it’s certainly not the basis of our right to life.
Our right to life is unconditionnal per definition.
You’re alive : you have a right to life.
If it was not the case, our right to life would not be a right to life at all, but only a “right to life as…[insert what you want here]”.
A person, for example.
Adding such a criterium only narrow the spectrum of ethics (and the number of beings we have to respect)
Problem is that narrowing the spectrum of ethics is the mean, the end and the very definition of evil.
[/quote]
by your same definition a tumor is alive and has the right to not be cut out[/quote]
In our universe, Tumors are not organisms.
An organism is a continuous and autonomous system made of biological tissue, “programmed” by an individual, specific DNA.
Moreover, even the simplest of organism are able to respond to some stimuli, and manifest some kind of homeostasis.
A tumor may be made of biological tissue, but it does not fit any of the other criteria.
Contrary to a fetus, a tumor really just a clump of cells.
This argument is even worst than the “if a fetus is an human being then masturbation is genocide” argument. And it says a lot.
[/quote]
Ummm…your original post doesnt mention the word organism in it once so why are you switching which words we are talking about? You only specified that if you are alive you have a right to life. A tumor is alive by just about every acceptable medical/biological definition.
Care to stay on topic?
[/quote]
You’re playing with words here, and it won’t do the trick.
When i said “you’re alive : you have a right to life”, i was obviously speaking about living BEINGS.
Not about biological tissue, or “living things”.
A tumor is not an organism, so it’s not a being at all. It’s not a “you”, and the proposition “you’re alive : you have a right to life” doesn’t apply to it.
A non-being can not have a right to anything, per definition.
[/quote]
Where does this right to life come from exactly?[/quote]
To understand this you would need to acknowledge the very existence of morality, as an absolute truth.
But even if you don’t, it’s the logical conclusion of a purely utilitarian reasoning.
Value is function of scarcity.
A being is unique. IE : infinitely scarce.
Therefore, a being has an infinite value.
Destroying it is an infinite waste.
[/quote]
it’s just rhetoric no different than people who push the “right to choose” crap.
Every “being” human or non-human is unique.
[/quote]
Regarding the bolded part :
I absolutely agree, but how does this contradict what i said earlier ?
[quote]Cortes wrote:“I support burning heretics at the stake, but would never burn one, myself?”
[/quote]I KNEW IT!!! I’m gonna have to walk around in wet clothes with a fire extinguisher now in case any of your honey’s show up.
[/quote]
Hey man, I’m just saying, that’s a personal choice that only an individual Catholic can make. [/quote]
I get what you are trying to say, but, how is it not?
Lets extend the hypothetical to intercity gangs. You or I can go to every street corner in America, and attend every anti-gang rally all we want. It won’t do a damn bit of difference until each individual chooses to not join the gang.
Does it offer education and a veiw point different than the one they hold? Sure. Just like this thread. But until the government steps in and enforces anti-gang legislation, it is an individual choice.
I doesn’t matter if I think the person’s choice is horrible, it is still their choice.
Seems the numbers are dropping, and it is older woman making up the bulk of abortions…