PDA

View Full Version : Abortion: Disturbing Numbers



Servo
January 11th, 2004, 07:14 PM
Abortion: Disturbing Numbers
The Edge ^ | December 2003 | Cathy Cleaver Ruse


The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) published its latest survey on
abortion in the United States on the day after Thanksgiving. The
survey, reporting legal induced abortions obtained in the U.S. in the
year 2000, contains some eye-opening findings you will not likely
read in the mainstream press.

Keep in mind that the survey presents data which is voluntarily
reported by cities and states, the mechanisms by which cities and
states gather the data in the first place can vary widely, and some
states don't report at all. California, which in 1997 was responsible
for 23 percent of all abortions nationwide, decided in 1998 to remain
mum on abortion within its borders, as did New Hampshire and Alaska.

Since the CDC has no information from jurisdictions which together
account for nearly one-fourth of abortions nationwide, it is
impossible to have any real analysis of national trends. Still, the
publication gives a startling, if incomplete, picture of abortion in
the U.S. at the end of the last century, and is worth review. Some of
the findings include the following:

Women die from legal abortion. The survey reports that 14 women died
as a result of complications from known legal induced abortion in
1998 and 1999. Data on deaths from 2000 is not yet available. In
fact, from 1973 to 1999 at least 327 women have died from legal
induced abortion, according to the study.

Abortion rates change with race. In the areas for which race was
adequately reported, "the abortion rate for black women was 3.1 times
the rate for white women." In addition, "the abortion ratio for black
women (503 per 1,000 live births) was 3.0 times the ratio for white
women (167 per 1,000 live births)." This means that black babies are
aborted three times more frequently than white babies.

Multiple abortions are the norm, not the exception. According to the
survey, where the "number of previous abortions was adequately
reported," 53 percent of women had an abortion for the first time in
2000. That means 47 percent of women having abortions in 2000 were
not having their first abortion. How many abortions do women have?
The survey breaks it down by state, but stops counting at "three or
more previous legal induced abortions." In 2000, Maryland had the
highest percentage of women having their fourth (or more) abortion:
16.7 percent. New York City had the second highest ratio, with 14.7
percent of women having at least their fourth abortion in 2000.

The highest number of reported legal induced abortions in 2000
occurred in New York City: 94,466. Florida and Texas have the second
and third highest abortion numbers, 88,563 and 76,121 respectively.
California likely ranks among the top, but they won't tell.

What is lacking from the survey is any indication why these abortions
occurred. The report states simply that they were elective
procedures. The abortion lobby dismisses the question of why,
insisting that "who decides?" is all that matters. But "why" does
matter very much. Why did each of these women wake up one morning,
get into a car or a cab, and take that fateful drive? This is perhaps
the most important question of all.

Sozo
January 11th, 2004, 07:29 PM
Originally posted by Shimei

The survey reports that 14 women died as a result of complications from known legal induced abortion in
1998 and 1999. Data on deaths from 2000 is not yet available. In
fact, from 1973 to 1999 at least 327 women have died from legal
induced abortion, according to the study.



Yea... well, you reap what you sow.

Talib
January 14th, 2004, 12:37 PM
Originally posted by Shimei
Women die from legal abortion. The survey reports that 14 women died as a result of complications from known legal induced abortion in
1998 and 1999. Data on deaths from 2000 is not yet available. In
fact, from 1973 to 1999 at least 327 women have died from legal
induced abortion, according to the study.

You probably won't find the survey mentioned in mainstream press because stats like the above have no context...

It is important to note that women also die from pregnancy itself. The CDC also reports that during a study conducted from 1991-1999 maternal mortality was about 12 for every 100,000 women.

Anne
January 14th, 2004, 02:54 PM
Actually those statistics of abortion deaths are very conservative.

A former abortionist who operated several abortion clinics that prided themselves in performing so-called 'safe' abortions admitted that she realized that for about every 500 abortions they were killing or permanently maiming the mother.

As mentioned above the abortion death statistics are based on those from abortionists that volunteer the information. Many don't. Surely someone who kills babies (for profit) is less likely to be honest. They will put down a cause of death that doesn't seem related to the abortion.

A number of mothers have died from tubal pregnancies after having an 'abortion' on an empty uterus. Abortion clinics don't check for tubal pregnancies. Then the mother doesn't suspect that she is pregnant until it is too late. Then the mother's death ends up being included in the pregnancy deaths when it belongs in the abortion deaths statistics.

Then many years after the mother's abortion/s she may die of cancer as a result of the abortion/s. (There are many studies showing a definite link between abortion and breast cancer)

So abortion is a killer: first of babies, then of mothers.

the Sibbie
January 14th, 2004, 03:02 PM
Originally posted by Shimei

Abortion rates change with race. In the areas for which race was adequately reported, "the abortion rate for black women was 3.1 times the rate for white women." In addition, "the abortion ratio for black women (503 per 1,000 live births) was 3.0 times the ratio for white women (167 per 1,000 live births)." This means that black babies are aborted three times more frequently than white babies. Hmmm...and my pastor made a claim a few months ago that white women have more abortions than black women. Then he went on to say "Black women love their babies more than us white people!" I wonder where he heard that. Maybe he was talking more specifically about our region.

Zakath
January 14th, 2004, 03:54 PM
Originally posted by Shimei

Abortion: Disturbing Numbers
The Edge ^ | December 2003 | Cathy Cleaver Ruse


The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) published its latest survey on abortion in the United States on the day after Thanksgiving. The survey, reporting legal induced abortions obtained in the U.S. in the year 2000, contains some eye-opening findings you will not likely read in the mainstream press.I think everyone should read the actual report: here (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5212a1.htm) and not depend on someone else's interpretation of the data.


Keep in mind that the survey presents data which is voluntarily reported by cities and states, the mechanisms by which cities and states gather the data in the first place can vary widely, and some states don't report at all. California, which in 1997 was responsible for 23 percent of all abortions nationwide, decided in 1998 to remain mum on abortion within its borders, as did New Hampshire and Alaska.I'm willing to be California did it for budgetary reasons.


Since the CDC has no information from jurisdictions which together account for nearly one-fourth of abortions nationwide, it is impossible to have any real analysis of national trends. Certainly it is. READ THE REPORT for yourselves!

Unless thousands upon thousands of pregnant women are flying to California, New Hampshire, or Alaska to have abortions, the trend is ABORTIONS ARE DECLINING. Both the numbers of abortions have been steadily declining since 1990 and the ratio of abortions to live births (called the abortion ratio) has steadily declined every year since 1983.

This presents a serious problem for pro-life groups since if they publish this information of declining abortions and abortion rates history shows that their contributions will drop off...


Women die from legal abortion.The survey reports that 14 women died as a result of complications from known legal induced abortion in 1998 and 1999. Data on deaths from 2000 is not yet available. Sadly enough, women die from pregnancy too. Even sadder, is that the death rate for women in childbirth is in the US is 1 in 10,000 that is compared to 1 death per 100,000 abortions.

In English, what that says is that birth is ten times riskier than abortion for the mother.

Again, not very good press for the anti-abortion movement. :think:

Zakath
January 14th, 2004, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by Sibbie

Hmmm...and my pastor made a claim a few months ago that white women have more abortions than black women. Then he went on to say "Black women love their babies more than us white people!" I wonder where he heard that. Maybe he was talking more specifically about our region. Pastors are merely human and frequently repeat something they hear from another pastor if they think it is a good illustration or bolsters their point. A lot of misinformation gets spread that way. I was embarrassed several times as a pastor by taking for truth what some fellow pastor said without checking the facts.

Turbo
January 14th, 2004, 04:06 PM
Originally posted by Sibbie

Hmmm...and my pastor made a claim a few months ago that white women have more abortions than black women. Then he went on to say "Black women love their babies more than us white people!" I wonder where he heard that. Maybe he was talking more specifically about our region. I doubt it. I figured he (or whoever he heard that from) was comparing raw numbers of abortions rather than abortion rates. They didn't divide by the the total populations or the total number of live births within the populations.

Anne
January 14th, 2004, 04:44 PM
Zakath

Have you heard the saying: "There are lies, damned lies and statistics.

The statistics are only as true and accurate as the reporting of the information. Abortionists often do not record that the death was abortion related. They may put something like "spontaneous hemorrhage" (i.e. trying to suggest that the mother hemorrhaged for no apparent reason when in reality it was due to the abortion). That statistic would then be excluded from abortion deaths and perhaps added to the pregnancy deaths. There is a lot of evidence that abortionists cover up deaths as related to abortion. A person who can kill babies must find it even easier to lie. It has happened many times that an organization knows the specifics of more abortion deaths than were reported in the statistics of the CDC (for example) for the same period and region.

Therefore your suggestion that killing unborn babies rather than giving birth is supposedly safer is absolute rubbish.

Zakath
January 14th, 2004, 04:49 PM
Originally posted by Anne

Zakath

Have you heard the saying: "There are lies, damned lies and statistics.Yes, I've heard the phrase. :)


The statistics are only as true and accurate as the reporting of the information.That much is correct, yes.


Abortionists often do not record that the death was abortion related. They may put something like "spontaneous hemorrhage" (i.e. trying to suggest that the mother hemorrhaged for no apparent reason when in reality it was due to the abortion). That statistic would then be excluded from abortion deaths and perhaps added to the pregnancy deaths. There is a lot of evidence that abortionists cover up deaths as related to abortion.Oh really? Perhaps you can post some of those "statistics" for us...


A person who can kill babies must find it even easier to lie. That is merely an ad hominem, trying to demonize your opponent. Tsk. Tsk.


It has happened many times that an organization knows the specifics of more abortion deaths than were reported in the statistics of the CDC (for example) for the same period and region.So if it has happened "many times", perhaps you have "statistics" to back up this claim, as well?


Therefore your suggestion that killing unborn babies rather than giving birth is supposedly safer is absolute rubbish. I merely used published figures, let's see you do the same. :think:


I forgot to mention another kind of lie: lying by innuendo. That's where you imply that something is so, based on vague or anecdotal information... kind of what you're doing. :D

Anne
January 15th, 2004, 01:57 AM
OK, here are some actual examples:

When the Chicago Sun-Times investigated Chicago area abortion clinics in 1978, it uncovered the cases of twelve women who died of legal abortion but whose deaths had not been reported as abortion-related. Twelve unreported deaths from abortion in one small part of the country is a revealing number when the 'official' statistics indicated twenty-one deaths from abortion in the entire country during the same period.

Statistics on death by abortion are dependent on the voluntary reporting of abortion clinics who have much to lose and nothing to gain by doing so. What makes abortion related deaths hard to trace is that the majority of the deaths do not occur during the surgery but afterward. Hence, any number of secondary reasons are routinely identified as the cause of death: e.g. A perforated uterus leads to pelvic abscess, sepsis and then death. The official report of the cause of death would list pelvic sepsis and septicemia. Abortion would not be listed but the death was actually abortion related.

Writing in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Dr Dennis Cavanaugh stated that since abortion has been legalized, "there has been no major impact on the number of women dying from abortion in the U.S. After all it makes no difference whether a woman dies from legal or illegal abortion, she is dead nonetheless. I find no comfort in the fact that legal abortion is now the leading cause of maternal death in the U.S."

Turbo
January 15th, 2004, 06:15 AM
Anne, welcome to TOL. :thumb: Good post!

Zakath
January 15th, 2004, 08:27 AM
Originally posted by Anne

OK, here are some actual examples:

When the Chicago Sun-Times investigated Chicago area abortion clinics in 1978, it uncovered the cases of twelve women who died of legal abortion but whose deaths had not been reported as abortion-related. Twelve unreported deaths from abortion in one small part of the country is a revealing number when the 'official' statistics indicated twenty-one deaths from abortion in the entire country during the same period.Let me say first, that it was a tragedy that people died, probably unecessarily. I hope those involved were prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

On to your "numbers"... OK, so 25 years ago something was reported incorrectly in Chicago. This raises several questions:
1. Was this an error or an intended mis-recording of information, i.e., something illegal?

2. If this was wrong or illegal, did the facility that was doing this get charged?

3. Is the facility that was doing this even still in existence 25 years later?

4. Is it any more reasonable to extrapolate this kind of problem to the entire country than it would be to extrapolate clergy child abuse to the entire Church based on cases at a few churches? If we were to apply this principle to religious groups we could extrapolate out to millions of children being abused by clergy. I think that is a little ridiculous, don't you?


Statistics on death by abortion are dependent on the voluntary reporting of abortion clinics who have much to lose and nothing to gain by doing so. What makes abortion related deaths hard to trace is that the majority of the deaths do not occur during the surgery but afterward. I recognize this quote. You are citing someone else's work here without attribution. That is a form of stealing. Please give the sources for the text you cut and paste.

I understand the principle, it's the same issue that makes any post-surgical death difficult to track and relate back to the surgery.


Hence, any number of secondary reasons are routinely identified as the cause of death: e.g. A perforated uterus leads to pelvic abscess, sepsis and then death. The official report of the cause of death would list pelvic sepsis and septicemia. Abortion would not be listed but the death was actually abortion related.People seldom die from pelvic abscesses and sepsis at home or on the job. These deaths would most likely have occured at hospitals, wouldn't they? All hospitals in the U.S. are required to report mortality statistics including cause of death. So that would be a simple matter for pro-lifers to research wouldn't it? Has anyone done so?

If so, let us know about it.

If not, then your speculation remains just that - speculation.


Writing in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Dr Dennis Cavanaugh stated that since abortion has been legalized, "there has been no major impact on the number of women dying from abortion in the U.S. After all it makes no difference whether a woman dies from legal or illegal abortion, she is dead nonetheless. I find no comfort in the fact that legal abortion is now the leading cause of maternal death in the U.S." Do you know when this was this written? Have you actually read the primary source or are you relying on something you read in an article allegedly quoting Dr. Cavanaugh?

Just out of curiosity, how many abortion-related deaths of women annually do you think occur on an annual basis? Upon what do you base this number?

If you're going to use statistics, be prepared to explain how you derive your numbers. :)

Anne
January 15th, 2004, 04:22 PM
You seem to be assuming that abortion clinics are legally required to clearly state when a death is abortion related. As you say, one seldom dies at home of sepsis etc. but a call to 911 is made and then one is rushed to hospital, and dies in hospital. Unless the mother admits that she had recently had an abortion, the hospital staff would be reporting her cause of death to the best of their knowledge. Unless the case seems really suspicious and they do a thorough autopsy.

Statistics are public record, but I doubt pro-life organizations would be legally permitted to access individual death records, and insisting on thorough autopsys for all deaths of women of child-bearing age, to ascertain the exact cause of death, due to the right to privacy laws.

They guess-estimate that only 10% of rape victims report the crime therefore how can anyone be sure of the exact numbers. Even the 10% figure may not be accurate! In some areas more women may report the rape in others, less. Both the statistics of the number of women raped and number of women who die from abortion will never be accurate because they are based on voluntary reporting.

Unless they made it a legal requirement (and enforced it ruthlessly)
for abortion clinics to accurately report deaths related to abortion as well as that hospitals had to do thorough autopsys (without exception) of apparent natural deaths of woman of child-bearing age, the statistics are speculative.

Most abortion procedures are basically 'blind' procedures, i.e. the abortionist cannot see exactly what he is doing and then perforates the uterus with the aspirator, for example. Child-birth is a natural process, so that many mothers who don't have any complications associated with their pregnancy can opt to give birth to their new baby at home. I doubt that you would be touting home abortions.

So, based on the differences between abortion (which is unnatural) and child-birth (which is natural), I would think that the number of mothers dying from abortion is at least the same, probably more than those who die from child-birth.

I am closing off with the following quote (including the source:-):
"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don't know we don't know." —Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld

Zakath
January 15th, 2004, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by Anne

You seem to be assuming that abortion clinics are legally required to clearly state when a death is abortion related. As you say, one seldom dies at home of sepsis etc. but a call to 911 is made and then one is rushed to hospital, and dies in hospital. Unless the mother admits that she had recently had an abortion, the hospital staff would be reporting her cause of death to the best of their knowledge. Unless the case seems really suspicious and they do a thorough autopsy.

Statistics are public record, but I doubt pro-life organizations would be legally permitted to access individual death records, and insisting on thorough autopsys for all deaths of women of child-bearing age, to ascertain the exact cause of death, due to the right to privacy laws. Permit me to assure you, as a former project manager for several large scale national data collections, an organization can get access to the most amazing records if they merely go through channels. Death certificates, like birth certificates, are not medical records they are legal records and are frequently used as data sources in studies. Access does not require releases from the deceased or their families if the data derived are used in aggregate form so no individuals are singled out and no families are embarrassed.


They guess-estimate that only 10% of rape victims report the crime therefore how can anyone be sure of the exact numbers. Even the 10% figure may not be accurate! In some areas more women may report the rape in others, less. Both the statistics of the number of women raped and number of women who die from abortion will never be accurate because they are based on voluntary reporting. Of course we'll never be "absolutely sure". But is there a need to be? What is likely is that, over time, a similar percentage of people will continue to avoid reporting so the lack of reporting is consistent. This makes the figures more useful than they would appear at first glance.


Unless they made it a legal requirement (and enforced it ruthlessly)
for abortion clinics to accurately report deaths related to abortion as well as that hospitals had to do thorough autopsys (without exception) of apparent natural deaths of woman of child-bearing age, the statistics are speculative. What you are suggesting is infreasible for the following reasons:
1. Abortion is generally an elective, outpatient procedure. With a few rare exceptions, it is done during a single office visit as an outpatient. Once the patient has gone home, the clinic may never see that patient again. In some cases, that is the way the patient wants it to be. It would be similar to having a heart attack after a visit to the dentist's office. It happens, but the dental office usually doesn't find out until the person misses their six-month cleaning appointment...

2. It is generally against the law to secure people's medical records against their will. For a clinic to track their patients after the abortion procedure, they would have to institute voluntary medical records exchanges with hospitals and emergency clinics. But which hospitals and emergency facilities? If a person did not go to a hospital near the abortion clinic, how would the clinic know where to seek the records? Unless the patient volunteerd the information, how would the hospital know to notify a clinic so they could update their records?

These are examples of the types of difficulties faced when trying to follow patients and require medical record keeping for "former" patients.


Most abortion procedures are basically 'blind' procedures, i.e. the abortionist cannot see exactly what he is doing and then perforates the uterus with the aspirator, for example. Child-birth is a natural process, so that many mothers who don't have any complications associated with their pregnancy can opt to give birth to their new baby at home. I doubt that you would be touting home abortions.You are correct that I would not suggest non-chemical abortions outside of an appropriate medical facility.


So, based on the differences between abortion (which is unnatural) and child-birth (which is natural), I would think that the number of mothers dying from abortion is at least the same, probably more than those who die from child-birth. I will take issue with the idea that "abortion is unnatural." The estimates I've seen from the WHO is that approximately 20-25% of all pregancies end in miscarriage or resorption of the embryo. Miscarriages are medically known as "spontaneous abortions" and are natural occurences.

So you have no statistical information to back your presumption about numbers of women dying from abortion, merely your desire that the numbers are higher than childbirth because it fits your theological or philosophical viewpoint that "unnatural" practices must have higher mortality that "natural" ones.


I am closing off with the following quote (including the source:-):
"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don't know we don't know." —Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld I posted that quote in its entirety here (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=436007#post436007) yesterday, as an example of what a poor communicator Rumsfeld is. I'm glad someone appreciates his remarks. :chuckle:

Anne
January 15th, 2004, 05:58 PM
Actually pro-aborts are more hung up on the number of women who die from (induced) abortion. From the beginning of their campaign to de-criminalize (induced) abortion they lied and made claims that thousands of women were dying from backstreet abortions. (Hmm... I wonder where the abortionists hid all the women's bodies because they claimed more women died from backstreet abortions than the total number of women who died, including homicide etc.) Ever since pro-aborts have been harping on the number of women dying from (induced) abortion.

Pro-lifers know that every (induced) abortion kills at least one person. The same can't be said about child-birth. Most child-births result in both healthy mother and baby.

Perhaps pro-aborts are hoping women will buy into the lie that (induced) abortion is supposedly safer than child-birth and hardly any babies will be born.

Induced abortion is unnatural and some miscarriages are caused by previous induced abortions.

Zakath
January 16th, 2004, 06:50 AM
Originally posted by Anne

Actually pro-aborts are more hung up on the number of women who die from (induced) abortion. From the beginning of their campaign to de-criminalize (induced) abortion they lied and made claims that thousands of women were dying from backstreet abortions. So thousands of women were not dying from illegal abortions obtained in poor conditions by poorly trained practitioners, yet you claim that thousands are dying from just the opposite situation.

The primary argument against abortion, prior to Roe v. Wade, was not a relgious argument, it was a medical safety argument. Well, the medical safety argument has been addressed and the process is considered safe enough by the government and the public to be generally accepted.

So, anti-abortionists must now fall back on either a religious argument, which doesn't fly at all with many people, or a "hidden bodies" argument which has no statistical, factual basis.

Do you see the logical flaw in your position? What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, Anne. You cannot have it both ways because you can no more prove your point empirically than your predecessors could empirically prove that back street abortions were "killing thousands of women"...


(Hmm... I wonder where the abortionists hid all the women's bodies because they claimed more women died from backstreet abortions than the total number of women who died, including homicide etc.) Ever since pro-aborts have been harping on the number of women dying from (induced) abortion.It would seem they werre "hiding them" the same place you are trying to hide yours - in anecdotal data. :think:


Pro-lifers know that every (induced) abortion kills at least one person. The same can't be said about child-birth. Most child-births result in both healthy mother and baby.And most abortions result in a healthy mother, that's the intent of abortion. It wouldn't make much sense otherwise.


Perhaps pro-aborts are hoping women will buy into the lie that (induced) abortion is supposedly safer than child-birth and hardly any babies will be born.I'm certain there are some on the "lunatic fringe" of population control proponents that see it that way. Though, in my experience, they represent only a very small group of the total number of people who see abortion as a useful option for society.


Induced abortion is unnatural and some miscarriages are caused by previous induced abortions. "Some" is a bit vague. We could just as truthfully, from a relgious perspective, say that "some" abortions (spontaneous abortions) are caused by God, couldn't we?

Turbo
January 16th, 2004, 07:07 AM
Originally posted by Zakath

The primary argument against abortion, prior to Roe v. Wade, was not a relgious argument, it was a medical safety argument. Can you support that statement?


You cannot have it both ways because you can no more prove your point empirically than your predecessors could empirically prove that back street abortions were "killing thousands of women"...There is no question that abortion "kills millions of babies." But babies aren't that important, are they?


And most abortions result in a healthy mother, that's the intent of abortion. It wouldn't make much sense otherwise.Healthy mother? Her baby is dead. At least you acknowledge that unborn child are indeed children by calling a woman who has an abortion a "mother." The problem is, you defend the murder (yes, murder: immoral killing) of these babies.

So you're "pro-choice" after all, then?


"Some" is a bit vague. We could just as truthfully, from a relgious perspective, say that "some" abortions (spontaneous abortions) are caused by God, couldn't we? Absolutely not.

okinrus
January 16th, 2004, 07:16 AM
So, anti-abortionists must now fall back on either a religious argument, which doesn't fly at all with many people, or a "hidden bodies" argument which has no statistical, factual basis.

Or the living argument?



I'm certain there are some on the "lunatic fringe" of population control proponents that see it that way. Though, in my experience, they represent only a very small group of the total number of people who see abortion as a useful option for society.

It seems to me that most of the ultra-feminist pro-choicers have been abused by men somehow, most likely rape. Sadly, the women who are pushing for the rights to their own body are doing so because they have been violated in someway.




"Some" is a bit vague. We could just as truthfully, from a relgious perspective, say that "some" abortions (spontaneous abortions) are caused by God, couldn't we?

People die of natural causes everywhere. Death never justifies itself.

Zakath
January 16th, 2004, 07:46 AM
Originally posted by Turbo
Can you support that statement?At the time of the Roe decision, according to the U.S. Dept. of Health 17% of all deaths related to maternity were abortion-related. (Rebecca Benson Gold. Abortion and Women's Health - A Turning Point for America?) Additionally, I was an adult prior to 1973 and personally recall that was a primary argument in numerous heated debates over reproductive rights. This is also a primary argument being put forward in other countries including Mexico, and some African nations.


There is no question that abortion "kills millions of babies." But babies aren't that important, are they?Millions of babies die of starvation and disease each year around the world as well. Infant mortality is a reality of the life allegedly given to humans by your diety. Whatever else it is, abortion is a societal issue. You happen to live in a society that accepts that unborn children are of less societal value than an adult woman. Whether you find that valuation acceptable or not, I believe that valuation decision is part of the current driving force behind abortion.


Healthy mother? Her baby is dead. At least you acknowledge that unborn child are indeed children by calling a woman who has an abortion a "mother." The problem is, you defend the murder (yes, murder: immoral killing) of these babies.You are attempting to argue from a religious viewpoint. That is your privilege, but an argument I, as an atheist, will not engage.

Murder is "illegal killing". Abortion is not murder, in a legal sense, in the U.S.


So you're "pro-choice" after all, then?Not really, no. I am anti-shoddy arugments. I think anti-choice folks damage their credibility and weaken their argument when they mis-use statistics.


Absolutely not. According to your Creationist and Intelligent Design friends, your deity allegedly designed the system for human reproduction - a system that fails and results in spontaneous abortin approximately one out of five times.

You cannot have it both ways - either he built a defective system or he didn't...

Zakath
January 16th, 2004, 07:49 AM
Originally posted by okinrus
Or the living argument?Could you elaborate...


It seems to me that most of the ultra-feminist pro-choicers have been abused by men somehow, most likely rape. Sadly, the women who are pushing for the rights to their own body are doing so because they have been violated in someway.Oh? So now people are pro-abortion because they were abused by men? Now that's an argument I'd like to see some statisical backing for... :think:


People die of natural causes everywhere. Death never justifies itself. Death doesn't have to. Death is.

okinrus
January 16th, 2004, 08:22 AM
Oh? So now people are pro-abortion because they were abused by men? Now that's an argument I'd like to see some statisical backing for...

I doubt that I would be able to find statistical evidence because so many rapes go unreported; it's soley on intuition at the present moment. Many women whom have been raped want the security of being able to abort the possible child, and will seek this for other rape victims. Since the pro-life view is that all abortions, with exception to diseases that would kill the mother anyway, are wrong, the rape victim will likely support pro-choice. Furthermore, because the rape victim has suffered emotional damage, it is unlikely that latter relationships will develop properly. Now, if you've read the reasons for abortions, most of them do not even apply in a stable marriage, or for that matter any stable relationship.



Death doesn't have to. Death is.

Death is caused.

Zakath
January 16th, 2004, 08:34 AM
Originally posted by okinrus
I doubt that I would be able to find statistical evidence because so many rapes go unreported; it's soely on intuition at the present moment. Thank you for your honesty. It's refreshing. :)


Many women whom have been raped want the security of being able to abort the possible child, and will seek this for other rape victims. Since the pro-life view is that all abortions, aside from a few diseases, are wrong, the rape victim will likely support pro-choice. I could see this point, yet the number of pregnancies resulting from rape is actually fairly low, around 5% according to Starke and Blackie in their paper "The relationship between serial monogamy and rape in the United States (1960-1995)". Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 267, 1259 - 1263 (2000)." Though the researchers admit that since it's likely that not all rapes are reported that the pregnancy rate may actually be much lower.


... Now, if you've read the reasons for abortions, most of them do not even apply in a stable marriage, or for that matter any stable relationship.Yet a considerable number of legal abortions in the U.S. are obtained by married women. In the report under discussion, 22% of abortions were obtained by married women, that's over 1 in 5.



Death is caused. Sometimes. Other times it's merely the ending of a long and fruitful life.

Zakath
January 16th, 2004, 08:40 AM
I'd like to clarify a few points before we go any further...
1. READ THE REPORT FOR YOURSELF.
Do not rely on other people to tell you what to think. Get the information and make your own informed decisions on topics.

2. Both the number of abortions and the rate of abortions are going down and have not leveled off yet.
In a sense, the pro-choice side is winning, albeit slowly. That should be good news.

3. Don't try to make statistical arguments without being able to back up your figures
It unecessarily damages the credibility of your position and weakens your argument. Your opponents assume that you do not have accurate information to support your position and are either appealing to emotion, or outright misstating the truth, to try to win your argument.


The numbers are on your side, seemingly. Use them to your advantage!

okinrus
January 16th, 2004, 08:47 AM
I could see this point, yet the number of pregnancies resulting from rape is actually fairly low, around 5% according to Starke and Blackie in their paper "The relationship between serial monogamy and rape in the United States (1960-1995)". Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 267, 1259 - 1263 (2000)." Though the researchers admit that since it's likely that not all rapes are reported that the pregnancy rate may actually be much lower.

The possibility is still there, and abortionist are all to often to bring up unlikely hypothetical cases.



Yet a considerable number of legal abortions in the U.S. are obtained by married women. In the report under discussion, 22% of abortions were obtained by married women, that's over 1 in 5.

I would presume that some rape victims are married. Any analysis would have to include the state of the mariage and whether the couple was happy or not. But I'm sure that you could find a correlation between mental health and abortion because women who commit abortion are ten times more likely to commit suicide than a similar women who goes through with the pregnancy. http://www.afterabortion.org/suicide.html

Zakath
January 16th, 2004, 09:47 AM
Originally posted by okinrus

The possibility is still there, and abortionist are all to often to bring up unlikely hypothetical cases.
Both statements you made are quantitative and neither one is useful in proving your point.

The possibility is also still there that someone will find the Loch Ness monster before tomorrow too, but I'll bet you money it doesn't happen...

Terms like "all to (sic) often" and "possibility" are very vague and while they imply that you possess some empirical information regarding the point, I'd be willing to bet you don't, or you would have presented it to us.


I would presume that some rape victims are married. Any analysis would have to include the state of the mariage and whether the couple was happy or not. I"ve never seen such a study - trying to define "happiness" of rape victims. Perhaps you could apply for a grant to fund one, though I'm not sure what being happily married has with bearing a child from a non-marital partner implanted through rape...


But I'm sure that you could find a correlation between mental health and abortion because women who commit abortion are ten times likely to commit suicide than a similar women who goes through with the pregnancy. [/url]

Did you read the link? The reference is based solely on a study by Dr. Barry D. Garfinkel. This study is widely cited on anti-abortion websites, yet is mysteriously unavailable from the university that allegedly published it. The fact is that it appears it was never published in a peer-reviewed journal, it was merely presented internally at the University of Minnesota.

Further research shows why: "Dr Barry D. Garfinkel, psychiatrist, (was) convicted of a criminal offense related to fraud, theft, embezzlement, breach of fiduciary responsibility, or other financial misconduct. "

The crime was a federal felony. [url=http://www.ktb.net/~psycrime/pc-181.htm] Source. ( http://www.afterabortion.org/suicide.html) Read the case documents, you'll see that his fraud was related to research studies he conducted...

On June 8, 1993, Petitioner was convicted of three counts of making false statements in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001 and two counts of mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1341. I.G. Exhibit (Ex.) 1; Petitioner's Brief (P. Br.) at 1, 3 - 4. At the time he committed these criminal offenses, Petitioner, a psychiatrist , was the Director of the Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry at the University of Minnesota. P. Ex. 1 at 3; United States v. Garfinkel, 29 F.3d 1253, 1254 (8th Cir. 1994). In this position, Petitioner was responsible for teaching, research, and patient care. Transcript at (Tr.) 71. Petitioner's convictions were based on criminal offenses he committed as the chief investigator of a drug study funded by the pharmaceutical company CIBA-GEIGY Corporation (CIBA-GEIGY). I.G. Exs. 1, 2; Garfinkel, 29 F.3d at 1254.

In 1997, Dr. Garfinkel was permanently debarred "from providing services in any capacity to a person that has an approved or pending drug product application. FDA bases this order on its finding that Dr. Garfinkel was convicted of a felony under Federal law for conduct relating to the development or approval of a drug product and for conduct relating to the regulation of a drug product under the act." Source: U.S. Federal Register, April 2, 1997 page 15713 (http://www.fda.gov/ora/compliance_ref/debar/dbarfedreg/garfin97.txt) For those who may not know, the Federal Register is the official publication record of the U.S. government. All official government actions by any federal agency or the Congress are published publically in this document. (The exception are those which are classified for national security reasons.)

This means that no pharmaceutical company desiring FDA approval for any product can hire Dr. Garfinkel or a team of which he is a member. Dr. Garfinkel is no longer employed by the University of Minnesota and I could locate no more recent references to him after the Federal Register reference.

Does this cast a shadow on the credibilty of his other work? Certainly it does. Before I'd use him as a source I'd check the original study out very carefully. That is, if you can find a copy somewhere.

.

okinrus
January 16th, 2004, 02:25 PM
Both statements you made are quantitative and neither one is useful in proving your point.

Human beings naturally see the most unlikely cases. It doesn't matter that only 5% of rape victims gets pregnant because these cases do happen. Naturally, someone who is a rape victim is more likely to support views that they think are in favor of rape victims. That is, more time will be spent on the consideration of the pregnant rape victims who might want that choice. Now, not every rape victim who has a child will abort the child. Only like 50% will.


I"ve never seen such a study - trying to define "happiness" of rape victims. Perhaps you could apply for a grant to fund one, though I'm not sure what being happily married has with bearing a child from a non-marital partner implanted through rape...

No, I would think rape victims would be rather unhappy. What I meant was couples in marriage who have had one or more abortions.



Did you read the link? The reference is based solely on a study by Dr. Barry D. Garfinkel. This study is widely cited on anti-abortion websites, yet is mysteriously unavailable from the university that allegedly published it. The fact is that it appears it was never published in a peer-reviewed journal, it was merely presented internally at the University of Minnesota.

Yes, I posted it because I saw it appear on another site.



Does this cast a shadow on the credibilty of his other work? Certainly it does. Before I'd use him as a source I'd check the original study out very carefully. That is, if you can find a copy somewhere.

It would be difficult for me to get original studies because I'm not a member of any medical database.

okinrus
January 16th, 2004, 02:57 PM
In 1997, Dr. Garfinkel was permanently debarred "from providing services in any capacity to a person that has an approved or pending drug product application. FDA bases this order on its finding that Dr. Garfinkel was convicted of a felony under Federal law for conduct relating to the development or approval of a drug product and for conduct relating to the regulation of a drug product under the act." Source: U.S. Federal Register, April 2, 1997 page 15713 For those who may not know, the Federal Register is the official publication record of the U.S. government. All official government actions by any federal agency or the Congress are published publically in this document. (The exception are those which are classified for national security reasons.)

Are you sure this is the right guy? In the year of 1986, "Drs. Barry Garfinkel and Harry Hoberman (University of Minnesota Medical School), for outstanding cooperative efforts with Extension in implementing "Teens in Distress" programs statewide and nationally. Garfinkel and Hoberman were director and staff psychologist respectively in the child and adolescent psychiatry division of the UM Medical School."
http://www.extension.umn.edu/administrative/information/components/teamnonexten1.html

This is a source off of the university's host. It seems that Garfinkle is still held in some respect by the other the professors and is cited.
http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/youthdevelopment/DA3081.html
http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/youthdevelopment/DA3083.html
The problem being that it is "unpublished raw data"

Zakath
January 16th, 2004, 04:16 PM
okinrus,

As nearly as I can tell, it's the same fellow. Check the dates to find a possible solution. He was convicted of the felony counts in 1993. The two links you posted referencing his research are dated 1986. The Dean's presentation was also in 1986. Both are seven years prior to his felony convictions.

As we all know a lot can happen in seven years - remember Enron.

Zakath
January 16th, 2004, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by okinrus

Human beings naturally see the most unlikely cases. It doesn't matter that only 5% of rape victims gets pregnant because these cases do happen. Ah, the last refuge of the losing argument... "Those statistics don't matter! It's the people that are important."

I don't think anyone would argue that the people aren't important, certainly I wouldn't agrue that.

I'm merely trying to illustrate how weak the arguments are when you try to invoke statistics, as the first article on the thread did, and then no one is able to follow up with valid statistics to back their arguments.

The abortion issue is very emotional, believe me, I know this from years of experience as a clinician. I have counseled women who did and who chose not to have abortions. It's not infrequent that both sides are wounded psychologically, but from what I've seen I tend to think they went into it that way. That is my own anecdotal observation though, I have no numbers to back that up.


Naturally, someone who is a rape victim is more likely to support views that they think are in favor of rape victims. That is, more time will be spent on the consideration of the pregnant rape victims who might want that choice. Now, not every rape victim who has a child will abort the child. Only like 50% will. Do you have a source for that number? The report we were initially discussing does not appear to contain that information.


No, I would think rape victims would be rather unhappy. What I meant was couples in marriage who have had one or more abortions.[/qyote]Then I think I'm missing your point here. :confused:


[quote]Yes, I posted it because I saw it appear on another site.You have run across, and been bitten by, an aggravating bug on the Internet - the ease with which information will spread, whether it's true or not. I can still find sites on the Internet where fradulent fossils are posted as "god's truth" even though they were discredited and admitted as frauds years ago. It's a lot easier to post or link to something one hears or reads that seems to support their position, than it is to do the primary research (i.e. tracking down and reading the articles oneself.) Quite a lot of misinformation is spread this way.

Remember TANSTAAFL - There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.
The information on the Internet is often worth exactly what it costs you. ;)


It would be difficult for me to get original studies because I'm not a member of any medical database.
I'm willing to take a small bet that it never was actually published in a peer-reviewed journal, but was presented at a conference and cited from that presentation. It's a common enough practice and the fact that I couldn't locate even a single journal reference in any of the twenty or so sources I ran would seem to indicate that is what probably happened.

I'm sure there might be an interested nurse, physician, or physicians's assistant reading this who could see if the article was ever published and prove this old atheist shrink wrong... :D

Gerald
January 16th, 2004, 04:54 PM
Originally posted by Zakath
TANSTAAFL
Gesundheit.

:chuckle:

Zakath
January 16th, 2004, 05:03 PM
Thank you, G. :D

okinrus
January 17th, 2004, 03:32 AM
the last refuge of the losing argument... "Those statistics don't matter! It's the people that are important."

No, your claim was that there was only a small number of rape victims who actually became pregnant. However, my claim was that pro-choicers, especially ultra-feminist, are often times sexually assaulted. Thus, it's not a rational conclusion to become pro-chioce, but an emotional appeal to protect themselves. While the statistics would be helpful, there is practically no way to get statistics on this without asking alot of people embarrasing questions.



Do you have a source for that number? The report we were initially discussing does not appear to contain that information.

I was giving the figure from memory, but it's around 30% who will abort.
http://www.cathinsight.com/morality/altern.htm



Remember TANSTAAFL - There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.
The information on the Internet is often worth exactly what it costs you.

Well, depending on the topic. Most .edu sites have accurate information.



I'm sure there might be an interested nurse, physician, or physicians's assistant reading this who could see if the article was ever published and prove this old atheist shrink wrong...

Yes, I don't think it was ever published. Must only have a small result set.

Zakath
January 17th, 2004, 07:19 AM
Originally posted by okinrus
No, your claim was that there was only a small number of rape victims who actually became pregnant. A claim that I supported with scientific study...


However, my claim was that pro-choicers, especially ultra-feminist, are often times sexually assaulted. Often times? Here we go again. Often implies a high frequency relative to some other baseline. So you are saying that men rape "ultra-feminist pro-choicers" than other groups?

That is something I'd really like to see some backing for.

Something to remember - just because a paticular group in America gets a lot of press doesn't mean it represents a large percentage of the population in question.


Thus, it's not a rational conclusion to become pro-chioce, but an emotional appeal to protect themselves. But following your logic, weren't they already "ultra-feminist" and "pro-choice" when they got raped? You sound like you're putting the cart before the horse here. :think:


While the statistics would be helpful, there is practically no way to get statistics on this without asking alot of people embarrasing questions. Yet that is no reason not to do studies to answer questions. If researchers used your logic, then hardly any studies about behavior would ever be done.


I was giving the figure from memory, but it's around 30% who will abort. http://www.cathinsight.com/morality/altern.htmOK, let's try the exercise one more time...

This is another illustration of the difficulty some pro-choicer's have in carrying on a coherent argument. Notice that you've now changed your numbers without conceding that you've done so...

In post 27, you originally claimed that around 50% of pregnancies resulting in rape will end in abortion. I then asked you to provide source information, you did so, and I appreciate that.

Then, in the same post that you provide the source info you: a) change your number from 50% to 30% and
b) provide a source that supports neither number!

You kindly provided the article "Rape Victims Find Abortion Alternatives" from the "Catholic Insight" web site. In the article it states the following in the very first paragraph:

... Mrs. Makimaa has done research on how many children are conceived by rape, and she just published a book, "Victims and Victors," about violated women. According to a 1996 study by the Medical University of South Carolina, 32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year in the United States. Of those, about 20,000 are aborted.

Since you now have actual numbers, a simple mathematical calculation (dividing the number of abortions by the number of pregnancies resulting from rape) gives you the figure you need.

Dividing 20,000 by 32,101 and converting it to percentage gives you 62.3%. That tranlsates into "almost 2/3rds of pregnancies from rape were aborted". That's a very different number from the one you remembered and then even more different from your new changed number.

This is the kind of credibility issue that I am commenting on. You make a statement using numbers. Your opponent challenges you to prove those numbers are accurate. You then change your number without mentioning why and provide statistical evidence that contradicts your figures. :doh:


Well, depending on the topic. Most .edu sites have accurate information. I used to do national survey research for a living. Accuracy in a survey depends on design issues like validity as well as response rate. Some surveys are well-designed, some are not. But even the best design will not overcome a poor response rate. Non-academics can hope that sites with an education domain will have accurate information but that is unfortunately not always the case. It pays to read the article thoroughly. If you do not have a science background, you'll have to rely on your intuition (always a risky thing in research). When a number seems out of line with what your gut tells you, check it out and verify it elsewhere...


Yes, I don't think it was ever published. Must only have a small result set. Could be. Without tracking down the author, we'll probably never know for certain.

okinrus
January 17th, 2004, 12:52 PM
But following your logic, weren't they already "ultra-feminist" and "pro-choice" when they got raped? You sound like you're putting the cart before the horse here.

Yes, I wrote too fast. What I'm saying is that many of the ultra-feminist have had bad experiences with men. Is that so implausible? Remember, I'm not writing a scientific research paper here. Some of these claims are impossible any way to back up with statistical evidence. For example, an ultra-feminist is not well-defined.



This is the kind of credibility issue that I am commenting on. You make a statement using numbers. Your opponent challenges you to prove those numbers are accurate. You then change your number without mentioning why and provide statistical evidence that contradicts your figures.

I didn't change my numbers. I said like 50% because I was recalling it from memory. I figured it was not too important to my argument because I was only pointing out that a fair percentage of women who were raped choose to keep the child. Then you asked for statistics, so I looked for them. But there are many surveys that would have different numbers.

Zakath
January 17th, 2004, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by okinrus

Yes, I wrote too fast. What I'm saying is that many of the ultra-feminist have had bad experiences with men. Is that so implausible? Thank you for clarifying. Certainly it is possible that any kind of woman feminist or otherwise has had a bad experience with one or more men.


Remember, I'm not writing a scientific research paper here. Some of these claims are impossible any way to back up with statistical evidence. For example, an ultra-feminist is not well-defined.Yes, I realize that. But when you start throwing out numbers, don't be surprised if you're called to explain them, along with definitions.


I didn't change my numbers. I said like 50% because I was recalling it from memory. I figured it was not too important to my argument because I was only pointing out that a fair percentage of women who were raped choose to keep the child. Then you asked for statistics, so I looked for them. But there are many surveys that would have different numbers. There you go again - "many surveys" with "different numbers". Do you know that for certain, or are you merely "recalling it from memory"?

You have proven on several occasions in this thread that your numerical memory is not reliable and that you use vague terms that are not clearly defined. Such techniques do little to convince an opponent that you even know your subject, let alone that you might be correct.

okinrus
January 17th, 2004, 06:44 PM
There you go again - "many surveys" with "different numbers". Do you know that for certain, or are you merely "recalling it from memory"?

Yes, I've seen quite a few on the web, and other countries would have their own surveys as well. Surveys with state demographics would also be common, but we would hope that the numbers not drastically different. Almost no two surveys will have the exact same numbers, so the fact that there are more than one survey on this matter would pretty much prove the different numbers part. I lost the site that contained the numbers that I thought I saw, and not knowing the original survey, it's practically impossible to find it. Like 50% is not 50%.

It, on the other hand, behooves me that we have to produce statistics. Abortionist claim that the fetus is not a person. How sure can they be of that? Are these people prophets to some unknown, but ever personal, god I do not know of? If we put one baby in one million wooden barrels, closed it so that no one could see, and then offered a million dollar prize for shooting one of the barrels at random, clearly the women who shot at one of the barrels is guilty of attempted murder, and if the bullet kills one of the babies, then that person is guilty of first degree murder. This scenario, however, is played out millions of times each year, and are we not to take notice? Even if not a single baby is murdered, the intent, the harm, and the damage is still there. Now our conscience, not the contrived human law, tells us that if the mother of a child harmed her fetus by cutting the fetus' arms off, then that women is responsible for the arms of that child. Further, if such crimes would effect the child, causing irreparable damage, is it not unreasonable to assume that the mother would be responsible for the more grievous injuries?

Turbo
January 17th, 2004, 09:27 PM
Originally posted by Zakath
The primary argument against abortion, prior to Roe v. Wade, was not a relgious argument, it was a medical safety argument.

Originally posted by Turbo
Can you support that statement?

Originally posted by Zakath
At the time of the Roe decision, according to the U.S. Dept. of Health 17% of all deaths related to maternity were abortion-related. (Rebecca Benson Gold. Abortion and Women's Health - A Turning Point for America?) Additionally, I was an adult prior to 1973 and personally recall that was a primary argument in numerous heated debates over reproductive rights. This is also a primary argument being put forward in other countries including Mexico, and some African nations. What point are you trying to make with the statistic you cited? It does not support your original assertion that:
The primary argument against abortion, prior to Roe v. Wade, was not a religious argument. (I assume you use religious and moral interchangeably.)
The primary argument against abortion, prior to Roe v. Wade, was a medical safety argument. And no, I will not just take your word for it.


Millions of babies die of starvation and disease each year around the world as well. Millions of Jews die of natural causes each year, too. So does that mean it’s OK to slaughter them?


Infant mortality is a reality of the life allegedly given to humans by your diety. Alleged by you. In reality, man’s sin brought death into the world.


Whatever else it is, abortion is a societal issue. You happen to live in a society that accepts that unborn children are of less societal value than an adult woman. Whether you find that valuation acceptable or not, I believe that valuation decision is part of the current driving force behind abortion.And that makes it OK, right? If Nazis want to slaughter Jews, and most people in their society support them, then there is nothing wrong with slaughtering Jews, right?


Originally posted by Turbo
Healthy mother? Her baby is dead. At least you acknowledge that unborn child are indeed children by calling a woman who has an abortion a "mother." The problem is, you defend the murder (yes, murder: immoral killing) of these babies.

Originally posted by Zakath
You are attempting to argue from a religious viewpoint. That is your privilege, but an argument I, as an atheist, will not engage. :chicken:


Murder is "illegal killing". Abortion is not murder, in a legal sense, in the U.S. The definition is not limited to illegal killing, no matter how much you wish it were so. I even specified that I was using the word murder to mean "immoral killing" rather than using the word “in a legal sense.”

I refer you to my first posts here at TOL, which were directed toward you:

BEL: Three Columbine Seniors 03-12-2003
post 58 (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=209139#post209139)
post 81 (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=209625#post209625)

Some people never learn. :zakath:


Originally posted by Turbo
So you're "pro-choice" after all, then?

Originally posted by Zakath
Not really, no. I am anti-shoddy arugments. I think anti-choice folks damage their credibility and weaken their argument when they mis-use statistics.You claim you are not pro-choice, yet you refer to “anti-choice folks” with exclusive terms. :think:

Should abortion be legal or not? (Why not just tell us where you stand?)


According to your Creationist and Intelligent Design friends, your deity allegedly designed the system for human reproduction - a system that fails and results in spontaneous abortin approximately one out of five times.

You cannot have it both ways - either he built a defective system or he didn't... No, God’s creation was perfect. Man’s sin brought death and suffering into the world.

Did your old church push Calvinism?

Knight
January 17th, 2004, 09:31 PM
:turbo::up:

Zakath
January 18th, 2004, 08:59 AM
Originally posted by Turbo
What point are you trying to make with the statistic you cited? To demonstrate that there was legitimate reason for concern over fatalities related to illegal abortion.

It does not support your original assertion that:
The primary argument against abortion, prior to Roe v. Wade, was not a religious argument. (I assume you use religious and moral interchangeably.)
The primary argument against abortion, prior to Roe v. Wade, was a medical safety argument. And no, I will not just take your word for it.I stated clearly that the evidence I was presenting was based on my own recollection. Not to accept the validity of my recollections of that time is your privilege.


Millions of Jews die of natural causes each year, too. Really? According to the numbers I've seen (adherents.com), as of 1999, there were only about 15 million Jews in the entire world. You claim millions of them are dying each year. Do you have statistics to back up this claim?


Alleged by you. In reality, man’s sin brought death into the world.I stated that infant mortality is a reality of lilfe. Do you actually dispute that?

I also stated that infant mortality was given to humans by your deity. Since your Bible teaches that YHWH made all things, that includes death. millions of infants die each year from spontaneous abortion, even though it is within the province of the Christian deity to prevent those deaths.



And that makes it OK, right? I did not say that. Read my post again.


If Nazis want to slaughter Jews, and most people in their society support them, then there is nothing wrong with slaughtering Jews, right?Let's try to stay on topic here, Turbo. If you want to debate the legitimacy of nationalism, and the ability of nations to have laws differing from their neighbor states, start another thread.


The definition is not limited to illegal killing, no matter how much you wish it were so. I even specified that I was using the word murder to mean "immoral killing" rather than using the word “in a legal sense.” You are merely re-defining a word to suit your purose. You remind me of the story Abraham Lincoln told about calling a horse's tail a leg. Just because you say a word has a particular meaning, does not automatically make you correct. Murder is a legal term and that is the sense in which I was using it.


I refer you to my first posts here at TOL, which were directed toward you:

BEL: Three Columbine Seniors 03-12-2003
post 58 (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=209139#post209139)
post 81 (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=209625#post209625)You admit in the posts that the argument was not over murder, per se, but over another poster's definition which assumed the point he was trying to prove. That is for your definition of murder to be accepted, one must assume the existence of abosolute morality.

That is as separate argument and not the point being discussed here.


Some people never learn. You appear to be one of them. :chuckle:


You claim you are not pro-choice, yet you refer to “anti-choice folks” with exclusive terms.Ah, you folks never did like it when folks play the advocatum diaboli in discussions here, do you?


Should abortion be legal or not? (Why not just tell us where you stand?)Under certain circumstances, I beliee so, yes.


No, God’s creation was perfect. Man’s sin brought death and suffering into the world.According your version of the Christian myth. Yet your Bible says that YHWH creates evil as well as good, doesn't it?


Did your old church push Calvinism? I attended several churches over the 30+ years I was a Christian. Some did, many more did not.