View Single Post
Old 03-06-2006, 05:34 PM   #42
ShadowTemplar's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 1,068
@ Dravis: You're citing from a secondary source as if it were the primary source. That's bad scholarship. Please include the secondary source in your bibliography.

Originally Posted by rccar328
I believe that the fetus should be just as protected as the baby because the fetus is a baby at an earlier stage of life (just like a child is basically an adult at an earlier stage of development). I'm asking you to explain to me in some coherent terms why you believe they're different, and why you believe [only] one should be protected
Myelinated nerves.

A fetus has a heartbeat. That's got to count for something.
A pig has a heartbeat.

As for South Dakota, here is a nice article I just read. The second page had some quotes about how women feel after an abortion. Take it as you will....
The Mad Biologist has commented eloquently on this 'point' and others.

Personally, I dislike the use of the yuck-factor propaganda tactics that the anti-choice taliban enjoy so much. But I will use them in response to bull**** like the above quote.

It's the females problem for having sex irresponsibly. So the conquence is raising a baby. [My emphasis]
I think this speaks for itself.

And of course the baby will likely suffer and lead a life of misery, possibly getting pregnant at a young age themselves because their mother raised them the same way she was raised, and we're in a never-ending cycle. Hooray.
Are you denying personal responsibility? [...] If you think people are not in control of what they do, I'd like to inform you that you are wrong.
False dichotomy.

Just like menstruation and premature ejaculation.
Except that neither of those instances include another living being
I challenge you and all who argue like you to present a consistent definition of life that:
  1. Includes foetuses (because otherwise your point would fall)
  2. Includes all fully born humans that are not yet permanently deceased (alternatively, you may explain which fully born humans should not be considered alive, and why)
  3. Includes as part of #2 comatose patients (alternatively, you may explain why a comatose patient should not be considered alive)
  4. Excludes braindead patients (alternatively, you may explain why braindead patients should be considered living)
  5. Excludes skin cells (alternatively, you may explain why skin cells should be considered living)
  6. Excludes cancer tumors (alternatively, you may explain why cancer tumors should be considered living)
  7. Excludes sperm and egg cells (because otherwise ET's argument would be valid)
  8. Excludes viable stem cells (alternatively, you may explain why viable stem cells should not be considered living)

Such a definition is a necessary (but not sufficient) step towards making me take your 'point' seriously.

				Abortion-Related Deaths[2]
Year	Legal Abortions |	Legal	Illegal
1972	?		|	24	41
1973 	615,831 	|	25 	21
1974 	763,476 	|	26 	7
So there was no significant benefit, health-wise, that came from legalizing abortions.
It is flat-out impossible to do proper statistical analysis based on such a truncated sample. But even a ballpark analysis shows that the numbers you quote don't support your point.

In '72 your numbers claim that 65 women died from abortions. In '74 your numbers claim that 33 women died from abortions. Assuming a conservative relative standard deviation of 1/sqrt(N), the numbers are still significantly (more than two standard deviations - on each figure) different.

Oh, and I've assumed here that the number of abortions is constant in time. That's obviously a very conservative assumption (unless you want to claim that there were at least as many abortions before it was decriminalised as after - which would defeat your entire line of reasoning).

So your numbers don't add up, pal. What else in your post is bogus?

Last edited by ShadowTemplar; 03-06-2006 at 06:06 PM.
ShadowTemplar is offline   you may: