Help finding "non-biased" abortion info

  • Thread starter Thread starter mfinnegan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mfinnegan

Guest
I’ve been challenged by someone on facebook to provide statistics on abortion in this country from “non-biased” sources. So priests for life website wont work. Maybe a goverment resource or something that provides info on the number of regular and late term abortions. If anyone has info I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks for your help.
 
mfinnegan said:
I’ve been challenged by someone on facebook to provide statistics on abortion in this country from “non-biased” sources. So priests for life website wont work. Maybe a goverment resource or something that provides info on the number of regular and late term abortions. If anyone has info I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks for your help.
Click to expand...
google.com/search?q=abortion+site%3A.gov

google is awesome when you take full advantage of it! 🙂
 
The government keeps stats, also Planned Parenthood - google the Guttmacher Institute.
 
I would also remind him that we can be less biased (by considering additional perspectives), but we cannot be not biased. Our life experiences and what we regard to be true always influence what we do: he, for example, has a bias against Priests for Life. To be not biased is to not think.
 
Thank you everyone for your help. I have found some great resources(actually really sad resources). And you are right, ethereality, everyone has some sort of a bias. I love that you said “To be not biased is to not think.” I’ll use that if bias comes up again.

Cheers.
 
mfinnegan said:
I love that you said “To be not biased is to not think.” I’ll use that if bias comes up again.

Cheers.
Click to expand...
You’ve reminded me of Sotomayor’s response when asked the question, something to the effect of, “Should modern health care that allows premature babies to be born and live successfully have any impact on current abortion laws?” Her response was, “I am unable to answer that question in the abstract; I would have to see a legal case in the context as it is brought before me and consider what the law says.”

In other words: “The baby can live after x weeks – should it be killed?” “I refuse to answer.”

See cspan.org/Supreme-Court-Sotomayor-Senate-Confirmation-Hearings.aspx, specifically c-span.org/Watch/watch.aspx?MediaId=HP-A-20859 and c-span.org/Watch/watch.aspx?MediaId=HP-A-20858.

Personally, I found her response revolting and pathetic: in refusing to address the question, she gave preference to her career over that of her community – it’s servile cowardice.
 
ethereality said:
I would also remind him that we can be less biased (by considering additional perspectives), but we cannot be not biased. Our life experiences and what we regard to be true always influence what we do: he, for example, has a bias against Priests for Life. To be not biased is to not think.
Click to expand...
This is correct, but you can find unbiased statistics. A bias in a statistic is different than a bias in a world-view. It is actually a mathematical term to indicate improper interpolation or extrapolation of available data.
 
ethereality said:
You’ve reminded me of Sotomayor’s response when asked the question, something to the effect of, “Should modern health care that allows premature babies to be born and live successfully have any impact on current abortion laws?” Her response was, “I am unable to answer that question in the abstract; I would have to see a legal case in the context as it is brought before me and consider what the law says.”

In other words: “The baby can live after x weeks – should it be killed?” “I refuse to answer.”
Click to expand...
I would like to state three facts here:
  1. I HATE Sotomayor
  2. Sotomayor has, repeatedly, proven herself to be a racist and should not be a SCJ.
  3. In this instance she was right not to answer, as a judge she cannot offer legal opinions like that on abstract cases because of the authority her position gives her – she is legally and ethically barred from such statements.
 
Drawmack said:
  1. In this instance she was right not to answer, as a judge she cannot offer legal opinions like that on abstract cases because of the authority her position gives her – she is legally and ethically barred from such statements.
Click to expand...
I don’t understand: How could someone be ethically barred from saying that children should be allowed to live?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top