J
josie_L
Guest
There’s still a couple more you have to delete.alright I’m going to watch some TV & hit the sack (I say exceedingly goofy stuff when I get tired … already had to delete two posts)
- Status
J
josie_L
Guest
Life starts at conception. I can’t understand how you do not see this.
A
authenticity
Guest
By “in the city” they mean with her consent. Not that she is a victim of rape and should be murdered for it.
The laws of Moses all have to do with maintaining the survival of the Hebrew people as a separate ethnic group. The survival of the group was more important than the survival of any one of its members, so it was important that those members hold their ethnicity above their personal wants and needs. That isn’t to excuse stoning people to death.
It may all sound like superstition, but the Hebrews were careful observers of natural law. That is, they understood what leads to the successful survival of a people and what doesn’t. We aren’t that different. We regularly execute people who put their personal wants/needs/perversions above the common good. Murdering someone ‘humanely’ is an oxymoron.
Jesus didn’t preach that natural law no longer existed, though I think that is what the Jews believed he was doing. He taught that the Jews were punishing the result of sin rather than eliminating where sin originates: i.e. the human heart. Without dealing with where sin originates, sin perpetuates itself. Like someone commits adultery, so they stone the person to death. One crime (adultery) leads to another (murder). This problem had always threatened the continued existence of the Hebrews. It didn’t suddenly start when Christ pointed it out.
They (Christians) can and they did. The Church has asked forgiveness for not living the Gospel and currently teaches religious tolerance.
All of Christian morality promotes the value of human life and it’s perpetuation. That is what the Logos-- creative reason-- means. It goes back to how human beings can successfully survive in this world as a whole.
E
Eleve
Guest
You did not mean it, but you communicated. Just as I am refraining from language that demeans the humanity of unborn children, I am asking you to refrain from language that insults people who induce abortions.
L
latin_rite
Guest
No. we were talking about wether or not God is true. I find it interesting that you’re trying to interperate the bible when you can’t even undersatnd a simple post.
L
latin_rite
Guest
Yes i find this strange as well. Most atheist will in the defence of evolution tell us how when a virus or bateria mutates. Because hey viri’s and bateria are living things. But in the same breath they will say that embryo’s aren’t not actually living things.
E
Eleve
Guest
Ignoring latin for spelling, logic, but mostly for personal insults. C’est tout.
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
no … fetal viability (about the fourth or fifth month). Look this isn’t a definite statement. I have no idea whether a little fetus can think or not. I’m pretty sure they can’t though (I don’t remember my days spent in the womb … how about you). The reality is before Roe about 5 or 6,000 women per year were dying from botched abortions; and there were roughly the same number of abortions back then as there are today (actually more when you look at it proportionately). The only thing that’s changed today is women don’t die from botched abortions anymore.
Where’s your concern for those women? Where’s your concern for the usually very young and poor girls who have to face this difficult choice. What I see are Catholics who live and think in platitudes but don’t bother to at least try and empathize with these people. As far as I’m concerned my mind is made up. I don’t want to quibble about zygotes or what month the bump that will eventually form into an arm pops up. My mind is made up & I’m not changing it (and I don’t care what anyone thinks about my view). This thread is about atheism. I avoid threads about abortion for a reason
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
obviously everyone realizes that a fetus (at any stage) is life in a strict biological sense. The debate is over at what point a fetus develops into a “person” (frankly I think your statement was probably just semantics you put out there as a rouse, but anyway).
J
josie_L
Guest
Again you mistake me, what I meant by lower brain cell count is the inability for people to see that life begins at conception and so therefore that a developing human is in the process of forming. I basically refer to all people who try to do away with ths simple biological/scientific fact.
J
josie_L
Guest
Wow, you accuse him of semantics! A person is not a human, a human is not a person.
J
josie_L
Guest
I do empathize with them Francis but I cannot see how abortion can be the solution to their problems. Basically it’s a trap that will set in motion guilt and recriminations of the lasting sort because its unnatural for a mother to want to kill her unborn child. And I have read of many women who have regretted their abortions, some were even forced into doing it by boyfriends, husbands, parents . . . .etc. And so when you think that there are other options like adoption and/or pregnancy crisis centers that would help these young girls (because most of them are) why would anyone want to choose abortion?no … fetal viability (about the fourth or fifth month). Look this isn’t a definite statement. I have no idea whether a little fetus can think or not. I’m pretty sure they can’t though (I don’t remember my days spent in the womb … how about you). The reality is before Roe about 5 or 6,000 women per year were dying from botched abortions; and there were roughly the same number of abortions back then as there are today (actually more when you look at it proportionately). The only thing that’s changed today is women don’t die from botched abortions anymore.
Those numbers were rigged. And women (along with the millions of babies killed) in the west still die from botched abortions.
Where’s your concern for those women? Where’s your concern for the usually very young and poor girls who have to face this difficult choice. What I see are Catholics who live and think in platitudes but don’t bother to at least try and empathize with these people. As far as I’m concerned my mind is made up. I don’t want to quibble about zygotes or what month the bump that will eventually form into an arm pops up. My mind is made up & I’m not changing it (and I don’t care what anyone thinks about my view). This thread is about atheism. I avoid threads about abortion for a reason
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
In 1972 there were roughly 600,000 abortions, today there are roughly 800,000:
heartlink.org/pdf/abortion_laws_and_statistics.pdf
census.gov/population/www/pop-profile/natproj.html
While abortion did peak in 1990 (reaching 1.4 million); a comparison between 1972 (prior to Roe v. Wade) and today shows roughly the same number of abortions “proportionately speaking.”
In 1972 the US population was roughly 200 million, today it’s over 300 million. Simple math proves my point. The early 1990’s was the high point in the US for abortions; yet according to the CDC only 23 women died from botched abortions annually during that period. In contrast when looking at the numbers of deaths caused by unsafe abortions, a quick comparison of these deaths in Romania during the period the procedure was illegal and when it was finally legalized again is striking (See link here).
Globally about 70,000 deaths per year are attributed to unsafe abortions (see Id.). Here’s a link to a CDC report on this issue (who has been conducting abortion surveillance since 1969).
Indeed the ratio of abortions for every 1,000 live births have been in decline since 1972 (see Id.). Additionally, the number of deaths from complications related to abortion has steadily declined (it was only 10 in 1998, and by the following year the number was zero). Another report by WHO indicates that there is currently only 1 death per 100,000 abortions performed in the United States, while in countries where the procedure is illegal these deaths range from 100 to 1,000 for every 100,000 abortions performed. These are striking numbers.
At best deaths resulting from unsafe illegal abortions are 100 higher than deaths resulting from safe legal abortions; and these are current numbers (for which the CDC and WHO have very accurate data to support). So you guys can save the rhetoric; I choose to believe what I view as unbiased entities like the CDC and WHO over biased entities on either side of this issue (like the RCC or NOW). I cannot support restrictions on abortion (at least early term abortions) for adult women, period. You can post data you believe to be heart wrenching all day long if you’d like; but I can assure you it won’t matter to me. I will view any data you provide skeptically and check it against the empirical data provided by organizations like the CDC and WHO. Indeed I’ve already done that and discovered (to a degree I’m comfortable with) much of the data touted by pro-life advocates is sketchy at best (although I’d say the same about the data organizations like NOW provide, or at least provided in the past before good studies were done on this issue). It almost seems like NOW likes abortion (which quite frankly I’m not very comfortable with), while the position of the religious right in this country is equally untenable from my point of view.
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
I’m not even sure what you mean here or how your statement can make sense? Trying to emotionally charge this issue won’t work with me; it’s a common tactic used to sway public opinion (on a variety of issues); and many of us in this country understand this.
There are arguably three interests at stake in the abortion debate. The woman’s, the governments, and the potential child’s. These interests have to be balanced. If it were a situation where abortion was non-existent prior to Roe v. Wade I might find some credence in your argument. However, for me this issue even transcends privacy and constitutional problems. It’s about pragmatism from my perspective.
First many states were already on track to legalize abortion prior to Roe (and many already had). Secondly there were as many abortions in 1972 (prior to Roe) as compared to today as a percentage of the population. The only difference is women seeking an abortion don’t have to face a life threatening choice (as I’ve already explained & provided more than adequate “credible” data to support above). Therefore as far as I’m concerned the ethical arguments are a side show to the realities involved. Do I want my government wasting my valuable tax dollars enforcing a new set of laws I already know they can’t enforce? Moreover, do I want my tax dollars supporting a regulatory scheme that I know will produce no benefit besides the death of thousands of women who otherwise wouldn’t die? The answers to all these questions are emphatically NO!
Therefore, as for me the CASE IS CLOSED.
J
jam070406
Guest
There is concern. That is why Catholics and The Church are proponents of chastity. To AVOID these situations all together. There comes responsibilty and consequence with your actions. Those that engage is sex must know that there is a reality that pregnancy is possible. To just say or think, hey go ahead have as much sex with whoever you want because there is always that last safety net of abortion to solve your pregnancy “problem” is immoral and irresponsible. I think deep down people like you know this yet are unwilling to admit because pride clouds your logic. Rather then admit that you are wrong you have to jump through hoops to justify it and appease your own conscience.
J
jam070406
Guest
The woman (and man) had the choice of NOT having sex if they were not ready to face the consequence that there was a chance of bringing new life into the world. Period!
Apparantly, without grace, lust is extremely hard to overcome.
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
You’re whole line of reasoning here is illogical. First, it necessarily assumes I find some personal use for abortion, which of course I don’t (I’m smart enough to have safe sex, to avoid unplanned pregnancy and obviously for a variety of other reasons). As for the church and chastity … don’t even get me started. Suffice it to say I view sex as a wonderful attribute of life & I’m wholly unaffected by how any church couches the issue.
Moreover, I don’t view premarital sex as aberrant or immoral. As long as both parties are adults and mutually consent (and are under no false pretenses) there’s no abrogation of integrity or personal character. In addition, although I’m personally heterosexual I don’t have a problem with homosexuals (albeit I can’t relate with it … but that’s just because I’m biologically predisposed to liking women).
Furthermore, I’m not the one who has to jump through hoops to prove anything. The data I’ve provided is clear and indisputable. It comes from sources like the CDC and WHO (and I trust those sources far more than religious entities or biased advocacy groups like NOW). I have clarity on this issue & it’s very black and white for me. You can think pride clouds my reasoning (or whatever) if it helps you justify your stance; obviously there’s nothing I can do to affect your thoughts here (regardless of how irrational I believe they may be).
J
josie_L
Guest
Dr. Nathanson’s observation is borne out in the best official statistical studies available. According to the U.S. Bureau of Vital Statistics, there were a mere 39 women who died from illegal abortions in 1972, the year before Roe v. Wade.[4] Dr. Andre Hellegers, the late Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Georgetown University Hospital, pointed out that there has been a steady decrease of abortion-related deaths since 1942. That year there were 1,231 deaths. Due to improved medical care and the use of penicillin, this number fell to 133 by 1968.[5] The year before the first state-legalized abortion, 1966, there were about 120 abortion-related deaths.[6]
We persuaded the media that the cause of permissive abortion was a liberal, enlightened, sophisticated one," recalls the movement’s co-founder. “Knowing that if a true poll were taken, we would be soundly defeated, we simply fabricated the results of fictional polls. We announced to the media that we had taken polls and that 60 percent of Americans were in favor of permissive abortion. This is the tactic of the self-fulfilling lie. Few people care to be in the minority. We aroused enough sympathy to sell our program of permissive abortion by fabricating the number of illegal abortions done annually in the U.S. The actual figure was approaching 100,000, but the figure we gave to the media repeatedly was 1,000,000.”
"Repeating the big lie often enough convinces the public. The number of women dying from illegal abortions was around 200-250 annually. The figure we constantly fed to the media was 10,000. These false figures took root in the consciousness of Americans, convincing many that we needed to crack the abortion law.
Nathanson says he began to question abortion in the 1970’s when ultrasounds were available. He made the documentary The Silent Scream, and Eclipse of Reason which dealt with late-term abortions. He is the author of two books, Aborting America and The Hand of God.
Better late than never. For 1972, the last full year before Roe, the federal Centers for Disease Control reported that 39 women died due to illegal abortion. (The death total for all abortions, including legal ones, was 88.) That figure is low, thanks to underreporting, but in any case the number of deaths had been dropping sharply for the previous few years. A statistic perhaps more typical of the pre-Roe era was reported in a 1969 Scientific American article cowritten by Christopher Tietze, a senior fellow with the Population Council: “The National Center for Health Statistics listed 235 deaths from abortion in 1965. Total mortality from illegal abortions was undoubtedly larger than that figure, but in all likelihood it was under 1,000.”
Had the number been higher in still earlier years? Yes. Tietze comments in his article that “some 30 years ago *, it was judged that such deaths might number 5,000 to 10,000 per year.” He gives no source, but if we turn to W. Cates et al (“Trends in national abortion mortality, United States, 1940-1974,” Advances in Planned Parenthood, 1976), we find that 1,682 abortion-related deaths were officially reported in 1940. If we guess that this figure represents roughly a quarter of actual mortality due to illegal abortion, we get 6,800 deaths — somewhere below the middle of the range given by Tietze, whereas Ellen Goodman’s number is at the very top. But that was in 1940, remember. I didn’t Google Ms. Goodman to determine when she was born; I’ll just say that if she’s pushing 80, as her statement “those of us who remember … when 10,000 American women a year died from illegal abortions” would imply, she’s remarkably well preserved.
None of this argues for or against abortion, but the claim that legalization has prevented the deaths of thousands upon thousands of women doesn’t hold up. Roe v. Wade saved some lives, but the numbers were small — reported deaths due to illegal abortion declined from 39 in 1972 to 5 in 1974. The biggest factor in reducing abortion mortality was undoubtedly the overall improvement in prenatal and obstetrical care after World War II. The rate of pregnancy-related deaths from causes other than abortion dropped at roughly the same pace as the abortion death rate from 1940 through 1974 (though abortion-related deaths did decline faster after 1965, which Cates attributes largely to advances in contraception and the state-by-state relaxation or repeal of abortion laws).
Self-induced and back-alley abortions were becoming a thing of the past long before Roe: sex researcher Alfred Kinsey estimated in the 1950s that around 85 percent of illegal abortions were performed by physicians, even if the physicians weren’t all in good standing. The fact is that prior to legalization abortion had become relatively safe and easy to obtain — for those who could afford it. Studies done at the time show that the risks were borne disproportionately by those who couldn’t, mostly minorities. Were abortion to be recriminalized, that would likely be the case again.
straightdope.com/columns/read/2510/before-em-roe-em-v-em-wade-em-did-10-000-women-a-year-die-from-illegal-abortions*
J
josie_L
Guest
Originally posted by Tezza:
Just a little info from “nonreligious” sites:
From the CDC: A total of 820,151 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC for 2005 from 49 reporting areas, the abortion ratio (number of abortions per 1,000 live births) was 233, and the abortion rate was 15 per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years
cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5713a1.htm
From the Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of Planned Parenthood: In 2005, 1.21 million abortions were performed, down from 1.31 million in 2000. From 1973 through 2005more than 45 million legal abortions occurred.
guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
That’s a bit of a discrepancy, don’t you think? It seems the people actually performing the abortions are doing a better job of keeping track of abortions than the government. Go figure.
J
jam070406
Guest
First, let me clue you in on something. Just because YOU claim something to be illogical does not make it so k?
Just because you tossed aside your Faith doesn’t mean that every immoral act you commit suddenly is no longer immoral.
Furthermore, you seem to think I care about your opinion. You are no authority and your OPINION means nothing. As a grown adult that proclaims to be as educated as you are you are either ignorant on this or dishonest. I couldn’t care less about your sex life or your desire to fullfill your lust. You as a grown adult should know that when two people engage in sex there a chance that pregnancy can occur. It is an abhorrent evil to suggest that killing the life that comes from the fullfillment of your lustful act is somehow justified just because you can toss out stats or by attempting to reason away when life begins.
The desire to fulfill your own passions has made your “reasoning” on these issues illogical.
- Status