Why Pro-Choice is Pro-Life

Here’s a friendly reminder from a doctor who remembers fixing up the damage done by illegal abortion. It’s becoming more and more forgotten that desperate women will get their abortions, legal or not. And, when they’re not legal, they may be lethal. Therefore, pro-choice is indeed the pro-life stance.

Repairing the Damage, Before Roe

And, for the delusional religious individuals in the audience, you may be interested to know that abortion was practiced 1,550 years before the time of the myth of Christ and even solidly before the dates in the Old Testament. And, yet, despite the fact that the both the Old and New Testaments were not at all squeamish about discussing sexual matters, there is no explicit mention at all of abortion in either testament.

Therefore, Jesus was also pro-choice.

Advertisements

55 Responses to Why Pro-Choice is Pro-Life

  1. Kathy says:

    And here is a blog that points out that things haven’t necessarily improved since Roe was handed down: today’s post on realchoice.blogspot.com. No, pro-choice is not the pro-life stance. Even when abortions are legal, they may be lethal. You are in error if you think that just because abortion is legal that it is safe. Abortion takes the life of an innocent human, so it is always pro-death. Occasionally, abortions (legal or illegal) also take the life of the mother. Btw, I happened across Romania’s maternal mortality statistics, and found that nearly half of all pregnancies end in abortion every year, and abortion accounts for nearly half of the maternal mortality. And abortion is very legal in Romania.

    As far as your discussion of Christianity, there is no reason for the Bible to specifically mention murder by abortion, any more than there is a need to specify murder by hanging vs. drowning, or killing children vs killing adults. Killing terminally ill people is not specifically mentioned in the Bible, either — it all goes under the umbrella of “murder.” Which the Old Testament condemns; and the New Testament confirms that condemnation.

  2. HonestAbe says:

    Jesus was NOT pro-choice, but he could fix the damage from women who got illegal abortions!

    God, on the other hand, is VERY pro-choice. He had his son was the victim of a 135th-term (or 147th-term) abortion!

  3. HonestAbe,

    Funny!! Yes. God is pro-choice in the same way that many repugnicans are. They seem to be OK with abortion as long as it is state mandated after the 75th trimester. So much for the sanctity of human life for that crowd.

    What makes you think Jesus was not also pro-choice? He never said anything bad about abortion by name. If he was against abortion, why was he silent about it?

  4. HonestAbe says:

    Jesus was defintiely pro-life!

    1) Scriptures, baby! http://www.home.earthlink.net/~prolife-activist/ Maybe they apply… maybe they don’t… but it’s religion! You can MAKE them apply!

    2) Mel Gibson said so!

    3) If he wasn’t so pro-life, do you think he would have returned after he died?

    4) C’mon … Mel Gibson said so! You just don’t argue with the Road Warrior!

  5. Higghawker says:

    Scott, What a rediculous statement: “If he was against abortion, why was he silent about it?”

    The Bible doesn’t say anything about cocaine use, or pornography, but does that make it O.K.? God expects us to use our minds. But then, you need a guide book. Hint Hint

  6. Higghawker,

    Welcome back. I think on this one you may have missed an important point about abortion. As noted in the main post, with link, it was practiced 1,550 years before the time of Jesus.

    The other examples you give were not. So, of course he couldn’t know about cocaine and pornography because they didn’t exist. Abortion, both drug induced and surgical, were practiced during his time.

    So, while the bible mentions homosexuality, bestiality, cross-dressing, and incest, it remained silent on the issue of abortion.

    This is huge!!

    This isn’t some minor point that God/Jesus were not all knowing because they didn’t say anything about cocaine and pornography. This is a major point that something of which they were almost certainly aware was clearly not an abomination like homosexuality, bestiality, cross-dressing, and incest.

  7. Higghawker says:

    I’m not biting, but will leave you with this:

    The Bible is very clear on what the judgment of murders will be. (Revelation 21:8) “But the fearful, and unbelieving, and abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.”

    (Romans 1:28-32) “And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.”

    Jesus was most definately NOT Pro-Choice

  8. Higghawker,

    I still think you are wrong. Abortion is not mentioned in either of the above statements. There is no indication in the bible that abortion equates to murder. Why would Jesus not mention it specifically by name? Why be cryptic about it?

    I realize I’m attacking a deeply held view of yours. However, I think if you can get past the interpretations of your priests or ministers and take a real logical look at this, you will see that Jesus was fully aware of abortion procedures being practiced at the time and made no mention of it.

    It simply was not offensive to him.

    Further, since abortion even predates the Old Testament, which has lots of juicy sexy bits, and it it not mentioned there, the authors of the Old Testament also saw nothing wrong with abortion.

    Higghawker, I have to ask. Are you really willing to consider that the interpretations of the bible that you have been fed in church may actually be wrong? Are you willing to consider that the omission of any mention of the practice of abortion in either testament actually does indeed mean that the authors did not find the practice offensive in any way?

    Seriously, do some introspection about why this issue must remain for you as you have been taught despite all evidence to the contrary.

    You will find nothing in the bible that truly and unequivocally relates abortion to murder. Why would the authors be cryptic about this one issue when they clearly stated so many others, including rape, by the way, for which the victim is punished more than the rapist. But, that’s a different issue. The question today is simple.

    Why does the bible never mention abortion by name?

  9. First, I would like to apologize to HonestAbe and Kathy. Kathy’s post was flagged as spam as was one HonestAbe’s posts. I have now restored them.

    Kathy,

    My first and most important point to you would be with regard to Romania. I realize that our health care in this country is dead last as the worst health care of any developed and democratic nation. However, it is still far better than most of the developing nations. As such, it probably does not make sense to compare the quality of abortion received in the U.S. with a developing nation such as Romania.

    Further, if their abortion rate is what you say it is, it probably means that they do not have good access to family planning services and birth control. Those numbers are simply way too high to be representative of a nation with access to family planning services.

    With respect to abortion taking the life of an innocent human, I think you will find that there is no good scientific definition of when human life begins. In the absence of any definition from science, it seems clear to me that to make abortion illegal requires legislating based on one’s religious beliefs. This is a clear violation of the separation of church and state.

    With respect to the bible, I disagree very strongly. Many things are specifically elaborated in the bible. There is no squeamishness about sexuality on the part of the authors of the bible. As we are unclear of whether abortion constitutes murder today with some folks, mostly religious ones, arguing that it is murder and many arguing that it is wrongful imprisonment to take away a woman’s control of her own body. I would think that the same debates raged in biblical times, unless, perhaps there was literally no one against the practice. If anyone was against it, and the fact that it was performed shows that many were OK with it, I would think that Jesus would want to clear up the issue.

    Further, the bible does have an explicit passage about the monetary compensation for causing a woman to miscarry and under what circumstances it must be paid. Since the penalty for murder is death, clearly this is not considered murder. Here is a really good discussion of the ways in which the bible is actually fairly clear that a fetus is indeed not yet a human life. Note that it is from a religious organization, not an atheist or anti-religious organization. These are people looking to truly understand the bible, as opposed to people like myself who seek to ridicule it for it’s inconsistency, violence, and genocide.

    Exodus 21:22 clearly shows the death of the fetus is not equal to taking a life.

    Perhaps it is, as seems obvious to me, not one of the authors of the bible was against the practice of abortion, now going on for 3500+ years.

  10. Higghawker says:

    Scott, two questions: Your claim is that Exodus 21:22 shows the fetus not equal to a human life.

    Exodus 22: If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
    23: And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

    Question #1 What is the mischief that follows in verse 23? Is this the dying woman, or the child? The mischief is the dying child, for which life for life is due.

    Lets look at two uses of the word “babe” in the Bible.
    Luke 1:41: And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; NOTE: in the womb

    Luke 2:12 Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.

    Both uses of the word “babe” here are the same Greek word brephos, meaning unborn infant, or young child, infant. Strong’s Concordance #1025

    Human life was God’s most precious creation. He created us with souls. He also gave us free will to choose whether to obey His Word or live your life the way one seems best. Obedience to His Word will allow one eternal life with God.

  11. Higghawker,

    Question #1 What is the mischief that follows in verse 23? Is this the dying woman, or the child? The mischief is the dying child, for which life for life is due.

    Clearly the mischief is not the child dying. That was covered in 22. There would not be a conditional in 23.

    For the rest, I don’t think there is significance in the use of the word given the wording in Exodus 22:23 which also use the word child and yet state that a child is not yet a life if that child is not yet born.

    As for God’s most precious creation, do you really believe that some wacko wasteful god created 100,000,000,000 galaxies and 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets just to dump humans on this one 4.5 billion years after the rock formed?

    That’s an awful lot of creation for not much of a result, a species that has only been around for a max of 200,000 years and is already killing itself off? Not worth it.

  12. Kathy says:

    Scott –
    I daresay we will have to “agree to disagree” since eminent Biblical scholars also disagree on this question. However, I will quote this verse under consideration from the NIV: “22 “If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [e] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.”

    This makes it sound as if the baby is born prematurely but alive and is ultimately fine — in this case, the father could demand a fine of the offender; however, there is a clause for serious injury, which includes “life for life.” I agree that this could apply to the woman being seriously injured or dying, but it also could apply to the baby.

    As for my previous comment on Romania — that is an extreme case, I admit; however, women die of abortion even in modern countries, even with “safe ‘n’ legal” abortions. You can check out realchoice.blogspot.com for more info, because that blog is devoted to remembering women who died of abortions — both legal and illegal.

    And, as far as the question as to when human life begins — there is no doubt that it happens at conception, otherwise life would come from non-life, which goes against the law of biogenesis among other things. 🙂 At conception, two living human cells fuse into one living human cell, which is genetically unique and different from the mother and the father. It is, therefore, biologically a unique human life.

    The argument on abortion centers on when that human life is to be legally protected. Some who are pro-abortion have argued that parents should be allowed to legally do away with the child at any time prior to the child’s being “self-aware” as demonstrated by a test with mirrors (the child reacts to something behind him that he can only see in the mirror, thereby demonstrating that he is aware that he is the image in the mirror), or about 18 months of age. That is one thing that bothers me — when the definition of human personhood is so variable that some would argue it doesn’t even start at birth, much less at some point during pregnancy such as viability. That attitude really makes me concerned about where society will go from here. We already see it in the Netherlands — doctors are taking the lives of people who are terminally ill, rather than applying palliative care — even if the people don’t ask to be “euthanized.” They have also taken it one step further, and are euthanizing those who are seriously depressed, rather than trying to treat them. That scares me. I don’t see that much difference between what they’re doing, with full societal approval apparently, and what Hitler did, in declaring certain people as worthy of death (this wasn’t just Jews, it was children with mental and/or physical handicaps, people with genetic disorders such as dwarfism, and a variety of other groups). I don’t like that. You may disagree that it’s going to come to that, but I have yet to see anything that makes me think it’s not possible. And I see abortion laws as the first step in that line. If a woman can decide she doesn’t want to raise a baby with Down Syndrome, what is the difference between terminating that baby’s life before birth and afterwards? I can easily foresee a day in which a woman will give birth to a genetically deformed baby and say that since she would have had an abortion had she found that fact out during pregnancy, then she should have the right to terminate the baby’s life at birth.

    (Oh, and I think my comment originally went into the spam folder because somebody didn’t like something I had to say on another blog, and instead of deleting my comment said it was spam, because I’ve had several comments lately just not showing up, or even under moderation. Hopefully, it’s better now, because my comments are now appearing or are going to moderation. So, it wasn’t your fault, and I didn’t hold it against you anyway.) 🙂

  13. Kathy,

    You make some interesting points on the bible, which of course, only interests me as a curiosity, not as a guide for my life.

    However, when you say “At conception, two living human cells fuse into one living human cell, which is genetically unique and different from the mother and the father. It is, therefore, biologically a unique human life.”

    It is undeniably true that this is a human embryo and yet, it has fewer cells than a mosquito brain. And, even most religious individuals will not hesitate to slap a mosquito given half a chance. So, what’s so different about a fertilized egg, or a blastocyst?

    What makes the human embryo special?

    If you answer that it is specially created by god in his/her own image, then my answer is fine. But, that has no place in a court of law in a country with a separation of church and state.

    If you answer that all life is sacred, then I assume you would never take antibiotics or use chlorine bleach, or any of a dozen other actions that would take the life of a cell.

    So, really, the idea of the specialness of a human life is A) flawed and B) shoiuld not take effect until the mental capacities of the human exceeds that of the animals whose lives are not sacred, such as cows, pigs, and tuna, all of whom are more intelligent than a human at birth.

    That said, I think that the simplest thing is to stay with the measure that has been accepted for 3500 years, birth. Some cultures do practice infanticide, but not most, and even more rarely officially and humanely. So, I would strongly lobby against it. However, most societies do not really consider an infant a life until birth. So, I will agree with you that at birth, one is a live human.

    In fact, as proof, when stating one’s age, few people add the time in the womb.

    Certainly no government does when considering driving age, drinking age, age of consent, age of majority, age for military service, tax deduction for the dependent, etc.

    With respect to doctors taking the lives of the terminally ill, that is a wonderful thing. Assuming that the person’s own wishes are considered, of course, ending suffering is a great thing. I’d much rather have my life deliberately terminated than have air pumped through the meat that was once me until my money runs out, as usually happens in our sick and demented society. Anyone who has ever explained to a child that their pet had to be put to sleep because s/he was suffering was either lying to their children or was taking better care of their pet than most people take of their parents and grandparents.

    What a pathetic lot we are!!

    With respect to “euthanizing those who are seriously depressed”, please provide a link for that one. I have not heard a word of that. Are these people seriously depressed because they are terminally ill? Are they seriously depressed because they have some physical problem that, while not terminal, may completely prevent their enjoyment of life? Please provide a link to a reputable source for this as I have to say that it sounds a lot like urban legend or propaganda.

    You state that you see abortion laws as the first step in this direction. I do to. I see the removal of the right of a woman to decide her own fate as a shocking and horrific violation of human rights that is certainly well along the way to, more likely, a society like Iran or Saudi Arabia where women are denied many of the rights of men.

    With regard to terminating the life of a deformed baby after birth, this is exactly why I find birth such a perfect time for the dividing line. We can determine such problems well before birth. With proper socialized medicine, there would be no reason for a woman to put off such a test and find out so late.

    BTW, if you’re right about the spam filter catching you because people called your comments spam actively, I’d say that’s just wrong. In fact, I am quite against censorship in most forms. You will often see comments on my blog that are quite solidly against my views. If I am incapable of making the case against your comment, that would be a failure on my part, not a reason to spam your comment. Small minds exist on all sides of every issue. And, I guess small-minded induhviduals will always take the easy/stupid way out.

    I would also add that I’m not normally a big fan of comparing every issue to Nazi Germany. I think we may be getting close to their, but not for the reasons you cite, more likely for reasons like the USA PATRIOT Act. However, your point is still within the range of a legitimate opinion rather than just invoking Hitler to win an argument. So, I’m going to avoid invoking Godwin’s Law on the thread. Just keep in mind the risk that comparisons to Nazis may be offensive to those of us who had family, although rather distant family in my case, die in concentration camps. It does belittle the very real horrors of the time. I bother to take the time to say all of this last paragraph only because I explicitly warn about my right to invoke Godwin’s Law on my etiquette page which is admittedly a tad hidden.

  14. Kathy,

    One more point. Yes. Some women do die in legal safe abortions. However, if you are going to argue the point that abortion is dangerous to women rather than making a case solely on the fetus, it only makes sense to compare the death rates for abortion to the death rate for live childbirth.

    I had a bit of trouble getting the statistics in one comprehensive article. And, to ensure fairness, I stuck with peer reviewed journals, as found by Google Scholar, an excellent tool for finding articles in scholarly journals.

    Here is the best data I found, with links below.

    The death rate for live childbirth was between 9.1 and 12.4 per 100,000 births in 1978[1], best I could do. Pregnancy related deaths reached a low of 7.5 per 100,000 in 1982 and have been on the rise since [2]. This later number does include the number for abortion, so is important more for the fact that our medical care is getting worse or childbirth is getting riskier for some other reason and to show that the 1978 number is probably still fairly valid.

    The death rates for abortion were 4.1 deaths per 100,000 abortions in 1972 to 0.4 in 1987. These numbers are interesting for two reasons. First, even unsafe illegal abortions are at least twice as safe as childbirth. Second, safe legal abortions make the procedure around 20 times as safe as childbirth.

    1 – An Assessment of the Incidence of Maternal Mortality in the United States – American Jounral of Public Health, Click on the full text PDF for the full article for free.
    2 – Pregnancy-Related Mortality Surveillance — United States, 1991–1999 – Center for Disease Control. Note that this article is from CDC and article 1 claims their numbers are artificially low.
    3 – Obstetrics: Abortion Mortality, United States, 1972 Through 1987 – American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology. Unfortunately, full text of this will cost money. Fortunately, the important statistics are in the free abstract.

  15. Kathy says:

    Here’s a link on Dutch euthanasia in general, which includes a case of a woman euthanized against her explicit wishes, and here is another which includes discussion of euthanasia for mental illness. Here is an article published in the British Medical Journal, that includes this line: “None the less, the Dutch Supreme Court has ruled that P[hysician] A[ssisted] S[uicide] may be justifiable in certain cases in which there is unbearable mental suffering in the absence of physical illness.”

    As far as the human embryo — I consider that human life is sacred and valuable just because it is. Some vegans consider that animal life is just as sacred, which is why they don’t eat animal products. I understand if you do not consider human life to be more valuable than that of other species, so this is a philosophical difference. Yes, I would make a religious argument, were I to be arguing with someone from a Judeo-Christian background who was pro-abortion, but since you are not, I won’t . 🙂

    As an aside, it is interesting to me that the most pro-abortion country in the world (China, which even has forced abortions) counts conception as the beginning of life, and they do add the 9 months to the age of birth. But that is just a curiosity.

    I, too have done quite a bit of research on maternal mortality (you can read more by searching for that term on either of my blogs — womantowomancbe or katsyfga). In sum, however, maternal mortality is the death of a woman within a certain period of time (either 6 weeks or 1 year, depending on the state or country) after the end of a pregnancy, regardless of how the pregnancy ended — abortion, miscarriage, stillbirth, or live birth. (I point this out because many people think that “maternal mortality” is *only* deaths from childbirth.) I admit that abortion has gotten safer through the years — not only have techniques and medicine been developed to reduce the risk of complications, but women find out they’re pregnant earlier and can arrange for abortions sooner. The third article you cited shows that first-trimester abortions are the lowest risk, while the risk goes up exponentially as the pregnancy continues. However, I will point out two things that are not so obvious on the face of this question — pregnant women almost never die of pregnancy-related causes during the first trimester. Ectopic pregnancy is almost the only reason for it. So, to best compare “apples to apples”, it would be necessary to compare pregnancy-related deaths in the first trimester to abortion-related deaths in the first trimester; and abortions would be clearly more dangerous. The second point, is that doctors who perform abortions may intentionally conceal the cause of death as being due to abortion. RealChoice also has this page and this page which shows sloppy reporting either to or by the government of abortion-related deaths. This CDC document includes the following, “The estimated number of maternal deaths is 1.3-3.0 times higher than that reported in vital statistics records (6).” It further says that if misclassification is noted, then the certifying physician should be contacted to file an amended record… but it doesn’t say it’s required. And this website says that an author and his staff verified 23 cases of abortion deaths in the US in 1992-1993, with 18 of them verified to have had the information passed from the states’ health departments to the federal CDC, but there were only 2 official abortion deaths listed for that year. And this story may be an example of how some deaths and injuries due to abortion may be hidden — the doctor filled out the post-abortion paperwork before the abortion was even done! This page tells that there were 4 abortion-related deaths in Maryland in 1991; one of those deaths was attributed to “therapeutic misadventure” on the woman’s death certificate! And it’s not only deaths — this page talks about other reproductive problems women who get abortions are more likely to have in the future, including sterility, miscarriage, stillbirths, preterm births, etc.

    You’re right about maternal mortality increasing; and as a childbirth educator, that does bother me. The current “official” rate is 13/100,000; but as you already pointed out, the CDC recognizes that this is under-reported. One of the biggest problems is that the doctor who signs the certificate must have somehow known that the woman had been pregnant within the past 6 weeks or 1 year; so if a woman has an abortion and doesn’t tell her family, the coroner may simply not know about it. And as I’ve shown in the links above, even if it is officially known and reported, it doesn’t mean the CDC counts it.

    Oh, and part of the problem with maternal mortality is an increase in underlying health problems (much due to obesity, which complicates everything), and part of the problem is due to the increase in C-sections, many of which are unnecessary. C-sections have 3.6 times the maternal mortality of vaginal birth. In the 70s, the C-section rate was about 5%; by the mid 80s, it was about 20%; it’s now about 30%. Also, future life-threatening complications in pregnancy are more common after a C-section. Most of these are problems with the placenta, including a condition in which the placenta actually grows into the uterine wall, causing maternal hemorrhage and necessitating a hysterectomy, and frequently resulting in death.

    I just ran some numbers. Assuming 4 million live births per year (it’s a little more than that now, but this is round numbers) and 13/100,000 maternal mortality, that means that there are about 520 women who die in the US from pregnancy-related problems. This article on ectopic pregnancies, says that they account for 10-15% of maternal mortality, or for my purposes, 52 women per year. Assuming that 0 deaths were attributed to abortion and all deaths were due to childbirth (as opposed to, say, septic infection due to an incomplete miscarriage or late fetal demise), and a 30% C-section rate, I get that vaginal birth carries a 2.5/100,000 risk of death and a C-section carries a 9.2/100,000 risk of death. If there were any other reasons for these women to have died (suicide from postpartum depression, being killed so that another woman could steal the baby, murder because the baby’s father didn’t want the baby, etc.), the risk from birth would be still lower.

    This website had a bit more info on your link#3 (abortion mortality), and included this: “The highest risk was among women with abortions beyond 20 weeks of gestation (10.4/100,000).” And this more recent article (actually full-text! — I share your feelings about having to pay to read the full article) had this in the opening paragraphs: “Compared with women whose abortions were performed at or before 8 weeks of gestation, women whose abortions were performed in the second trimester were significantly more likely to die of abortion-related causes. The relative risk (unadjusted) of abortion-related mortality was 14.7 at 13–15 weeks of gestation (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.2, 34.7), 29.5 at 16–20 weeks (95% CI 12.9, 67.4), and 76.6 at or after 21 weeks (95% CI 32.5, 180.8). While the overall official death rate was 0.7/100,000, that of course assumes that all abortion deaths were actually counted. Also, later in the paper it has this: “However, if an abortion is performed at 18 weeks of gestation instead of at 17 weeks, the estimated absolute increase is 0.91 (from 2.4 to 3.3 per 100,000 abortions). ” So, abortion-related deaths at 17 weeks is 2.4/100,000 and at 18 weeks is 3.3/100,000, which is equal to or higher than that of vaginal birth, as I’ve figured it.

    Well, it’s extremely late, and I’ve probably written too much as it is already, so will close now.

  16. Kathy says:

    Ok, I did a long post with lots of links, and it hasn’t come through yet so it might have gone to moderation or spam. Or, since I worked on it piece-meal throughout the day, the connection might have timed out and it didn’t post at all! Sigh… Let me know if it came through, so I’ll know if I need to resend it. (It included the links to the Dutch euthanasia thing you wanted, among other things.)

    Just for a bit of background to what I am going to say next, in the previous (so far unposted comment) I included several links/sources which demonstrate that abortion deaths are intentionally overlooked by the CDC, or misclassified by doctors. Also, that C-section is 3.6 times as likely to end in death as vaginal birth. Working with 13/100,000 maternal deaths per year, and 4 million births per year, with 10% of the deaths being due to ectopic pregnancy, I arrived at certain numbers. I’ve found more accurate info now.


    Full-text!! About 2/3-3/4 of the way down is “figure 2” which divides maternal mortality by various factors. Only 55% are after a live birth, and 7% are after a still-birth. So 62% of deaths occur after childbirth, while the remainder are for other reasons: 13% unknown; molar pregnancy, spontaneous miscarriage and induced abortions are 6%; “undelivered” 7.5%; and ectopic 10.8%. (Oh, and RealChoice lists several deaths due to ectopic pregnancy that occurred after the woman had an abortion — the abortionist’s sloppy procedure failed to discover the ectopic pregnancy, and the woman died; these deaths were not counted as abortion deaths, although it’s likely that the pain of the fallopian tube bursting was thought to be due to the abortion, and the woman did not seek care.) But with 520 “maternal deaths” per year, statistically, 62% after childbirth would be 322 (rounding to nearest whole number). Death after vaginal birth — 70; death after C-section — 252. Deaths due to “unknown” — 68. Only 2 deaths would be attributed to molar pregnancy; and spontaneous and induced abortions are lumped together, so it’s just anybody’s guess as to how many would be attributed to which. But vaginal birth carries a 2.5/100,000 risk of death, by these figures.

    Gonna stop now so it doesn’t go into moderation. 🙂

  17. Hi Kathy,

    Sorry your comments keep going to spam. I have no idea why.

    However, I will point out two things that are not so obvious on the face of this question — pregnant women almost never die of pregnancy-related causes during the first trimester. Ectopic pregnancy is almost the only reason for it. So, to best compare “apples to apples”, it would be necessary to compare pregnancy-related deaths in the first trimester to abortion-related deaths in the first trimester; and abortions would be clearly more dangerous.

    I can’t agree with you on this. With respect to making abortion illegal, one is forcing the woman to carry to term. Thus, the risk of death must include all the way from the point of the abortion, and most are very early, through to childbirth.

    Thus, if we take a hypothetical million women with unwanted pregnancies, all of whom would choose abortion over childbirth in this example, we are stating that in order to save 999,900 fetuses, we are willing to take over the lives of a million women for some number of months (the average time between the abortion and the birth should be used) and then kill 96 of the women. This assumes the maternal death rate of 10 women per 100,000 births versus 0.4 women per 100,000 abortions.

    Note that I am really considering that we have randomly chosen 96 women to die.

    This is real.

    Since the death rate is much higher for childbirth and you would be forcing them to carry to term, you would be killing 96 full grown adult women, about whom there is no doubt that they are fully human.

    Do you really want their blood on your hands?

    If so, I state again that anti-choice is not a pro-life stance.

    Regarding RealChoice, please do not send me to blogs to dispute peer reviewed medical statistics. I do not expect anyone to take my blog at face value. That is why I provide links or state my opinions as such.

    Kathy. I have been extremely careful to avoid posting links in my comments to obviously pro-choice sites like NARAL and Planned Parenthood. Would you please do me the courtesy of restricting your links to objective sources as well. The CDC pages are fine. Don’t send me to religious sites with an agenda. If these cases of deaths in abortion not being reported are real, there must be a peer reviewed objective publication about it. Search Google Scholar.

    Remember, you are arguing with someone who is vehemently pro-choice. Have the courtesy to respond courteously by using objective links.

    C-Sections are an interesting point. I agree that most are unnecessary. This is one of the misfeatures of being in the only nation among the developed democratic nations of the world to have a for-profit non-governmental health care system. If you really want to save lives, advocate a nationalized health care system that would get us out of dead last place among the developed democratic nations of the world in both life expectancy and infant mortality. Start there.

    Regarding the death rates, even assuming your numbers to be correct, you still have 0.6 deaths per 100,000 abortions versus 2.5 maternal deaths per 100,000 vaginal births. So, requiring women to carry to term will still be a death sentence for approximately 19 women per year. Personally I think that 2.5 is horrifically low. I’m not sure how you calculated that number. I also think that without a change toward national health care, we still must assume that women will take the advice of their doctors on when to have a C-Section. So, we still have the maternal mortality rate at around 10 per 100,000 live births.

    So, we’d still be executing over 94 women per year for the crime of accidental pregnancy.

    I find that horrifically unacceptable.

    Regarding your comparison of late-term abortion versus vaginal only birth, I find the comparison completely and utterly irrelevant. We must compare based on averages. The overall death rate for abortion is still somewhere between 0.4 and 0.7 depending upon which link we follow. And since women must carry to term if abortion is made illegal, and the number of C-Sections would not be changed by overturning Roe v. Wade, the number of deaths per 100,000 live births still remains around 10.

    Crunch the numbers any other way you want. You’re just rationalizing death penalty for unintended pregnancy.

  18. Kathy says:

    Crunch the numbers any other way you want. You’re just rationalizing death penalty for unintended pregnancy.

    Well, the way I look at it, that’s a bit of “the pot calling the kettle black” since you’re advocating a prenatal death penalty for the human who was unintentionally conceived. Because in order to “save” the lives of these 96 women (using your figures), we’d have to kill a million unborn babies. Who has more blood on his hands, then?

  19. The difference is that I do not view fetuses as human life yet. Neither do our tax laws. Neither do any of many other laws including what happens when a pregnant woman trips and falls, but is not guilty of manslaughter for her miscarriage.

    So, yes, I will allow the deaths of fetuses to allow the mothers to live their lives. There is no scientific basis to do otherwise. There is no scientific point at which human life becomes human.

    Further, since the vast majority of fertilized eggs do not implant in the womb, the mythology in which you believe and I do not makes your desert war sky spirit the biggest abortionist in history.

    Out of curiosity, do you indeed fight against in vitro fertilization?

    To be consistent in your beliefs, you really should. Many more fertilized eggs are created than are implanted in the womb of the mother. These fertilized eggs are not even treated with the respect of being allowed to be used for medical research. They are merely tossed in the garbage.

    You must find this abhorrent. Would you deny these women their children to save the unwanted fertilized eggs from conception?

    In fact, since every human will die some day, wouldn’t we prevent more deaths by simply outlawing the conception of new humans?

    After all, life (or at least most animal life), is a sexually transmitted terminal illness. Would you prevent all conception to prevent the deaths of billions of unconceived humans?

    As I have never fertilized an egg, I have no such blood on my hands, or at least not directly.

    Actually though, since I am for freedom to reproduce (choice cuts both ways), I do indeed have as much blood on my hands for allowing reproduction as I do from allowing abortion.

    Yes. I can live with this with a clear conscience.

  20. HonestAbe says:

    Misanthropic Scott>> The difference is that I do not view fetuses as human life yet.

    As soon as you view any life as a thing, you dehumanize it and can easily make excuses for discarding it. This is an easy way people can approve of things like slavery and extermination.

    Suppose a couple desperately wanted to have a baby and after months of trying were finally able to conceive… and then, here comes Misanthropic Scott sitting down with them and telling them that all they have is a fetus which is easily discarded, adding that Jesus said he’d be cool with that, adding that it’s really more of a parasite than anything else… What do you think they’d tell you?

    Misanthropic Scott>> There is no scientific point at which human life becomes human.

    So when does Misanthropic Scott believe human life begins? Is it determined by time? Is it any particular event? Perhaps it occurs once you can register a heartbeat on a sonogram, or does it occur once the baby is free of the mother’s womb?

  21. HonestAbe,

    As soon as you view any life as a thing, you dehumanize it and can easily make excuses for discarding it. This is an easy way people can approve of things like slavery and extermination.

    Are you worried that I will enslave fetuses? I think you may be a tad melodramatic here.

    Suppose a couple desperately wanted to have a baby and after months of trying were finally able to conceive… and then, here comes Misanthropic Scott sitting down with them and telling them that all they have is a fetus which is easily discarded, adding that Jesus said he’d be cool with that, adding that it’s really more of a parasite than anything else… What do you think they’d tell you?

    What the fuck??!!? Are you suggesting that I’m selling abortion to parents who want children? Where did you get that from anything in my post. I’m merely suggesting that you stop trying to legislate your own religious views on others. Because, it is indeed true that defining a fertilized egg as a life is a religious view. God kills most of them personally. Most fertilized eggs do not implant in the womb.

    As for Jesus being cool with abortion. You’ve got the facts. Jesus knew about abortion and said nothing against it. Not one damn thing.

    So when does Misanthropic Scott believe human life begins?

    Misanthropic Scott believes that the time is a matter of opinion and is therefore irrelevant. The only relevant point is not legislating one’s opinions on others. If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one. I won’t. What gives you the right to make that decision for someone else based on a matter of opinion?

    Do you believe you have a hotline to Jesus?

    So, given that it is a matter of opinion, I think that once the baby is free of the womb is a good definition, as I stated above numerous times before you bothered with your post. Perhaps you should have read the conversation prior to your post.

    Birth is when we begin to measure our age. Birth is when we get tax deductions for children. Birth is when one can become a victim of murder. This is true in every developed democratic nation in the world, including ours. When it is no longer true in the U.S., we will cease to be a democracy and become a theocracy.

    If you like theocracies, I suggest that you move to Iran or Saudi Arabia. They are not far different than a Christian theocracy would be. A literal interpretation of the Bible is not much different than a literal interpretation of the Quran.

  22. Jim B. says:

    Scott said,

    “So, really, the idea of the specialness of a human life is A) flawed and B) shoiuld not take effect until the mental capacities of the human exceeds that of the animals whose lives are not sacred, such as cows, pigs, and tuna, all of whom are more intelligent than a human at birth.”

    And

    “So, given that it is a matter of opinion, I think that once the baby is free of the womb is a good definition…”

    Make up your mind, Scott. A newborn is clearly less “intelligent” than a cow, pig, dog… maybe even a tuna. So, are you with Peter Singer in believing a mother should have the right to terminate her newborn if she decides he or she is an inconvenience, or do you a human is valuable “once the baby is free of the womb.”

    If you answer the latter, what biologically significant change has occurred in the pre-born human immediately after a full term birth that was absent two hours, two days or two weeks prior?

    It seems to me abundantly clear that the value of a pre-born (and, under Singer’s view the immediately post-born) human, under the pro-choice/pro-abortion paradigm, is wholly contingent on the whims and desires of the mother. The strong pitted against the weak.

    http://blatzkrieg.wordpress.com/2008/06/19/baby-survives-abortion-attains-personhood-from-mothers-delight/

    And your argument about Christ’s silence on abortion is laughably specious. The notion that abortion was as common as it was 2000 or 3500 years ago, or that the issues was the same as it is today is, on its face, silly.

    Why do virtually 100% of Biblical scholars – those who take the Bible seriously as a divine text – agree that the Bible prohibits abortion? Is this some kind of vast right-wing theological conspiracy?

  23. HonestAbe says:

    MS>> Are you worried that I will enslave fetuses? I think you may be a tad melodramatic here.

    And you’re calling me melodramatic! You’re missing the point of my posting, but it’s nice how you choose one part and go with it.

    MS>> Are you suggesting that I’m selling abortion to parents who want children?

    Not at all. I am entertaining the idea that if the woman lost the baby… err… fetus… in an unfortunate accident, I don’t think you’d be one to offer any real comfort. “Ah well… but at least it wasn’t a real human!”

    MS>> stop trying to legislate your own religious views on others

    I’ve never told you my religious or political views. I’m just making conversation, and perhaps playing devil’s advocate.

    MS>> God kills most of them personally.

    Kind of like popping bubble wrap I suppose? You think God is that bored?

    MS>> As for Jesus being cool with abortion. You’ve got the facts. Jesus knew about abortion and said nothing against it. Not one damn thing.

    So… let me see if I understand you. Since the new testament doesn’t mention “abortion,” then Jesus must have been cool with it… I don’t believe the new testament mentioned urination, so Jesus must never have peed. It only mentioned one meal, so I gather that he usually received divine sustenance. Yes, I’m being sarcastic, but since when do you believe everything you read in holy scriptures?

    MS>> Do you believe you have a hotline to Jesus?

    Do you really believe that sort of hotline exists? You know, for a non-religious person, you do come up with some dandy ideas!

    MS>> Birth is when we begin to measure our age.

    Hmmm… that’s funny. Age was always used to measure the pregnancy and the age of the fetus/baby.

    MS>> Birth is when we get tax deductions for children.

    So now you’re letting the IRS determine birth?

    MS>> Birth is when one can become a victim of murder.

    I’ll refrain from addressing this statement. I don’t need your gimme’s.

    How about this definition: Birth is when your baby has been separated from the mother?

    MS>> If you like theocracies, I suggest that you move to Iran or Saudi Arabia.

    Ugh? Is that the best you could come up with? How about someplace in Europe?

  24. Amy Jo says:

    One thing most pro-life/pro-choice discussions neglect to mention is the emotional pain, and depression many post-abortive women experience after they make their choice… sometimes long after. Regardless of her stance on the issue, when considering an abortion a woman cannot predict how she will feel the next time she sees a Mother holding her child or what thoughts she may have if she gives birth to a baby in the future. It isn’t something most women or (especially) young girls can even comprehend while experiencing the pressure and anxiety of an unplanned pregnancy.

    Unfortunately many “pro-choice” groups, like Planned Parenthood for example, misinform these women who are often in emotional distress. It is a very lucrative industry, no reason to lose business by telling the ugly truth. Planned Parenthood is not there to pick up the pieces after the check is cashed… and the baby is gone forever, there are no “do overs” or changing your mind. Even if you are vehemently pro-choice, the stigma of aborting your own baby will cause future shame in many cases, even if only in the woman’s own mind. This is a reality that is rarely mentioned.

    At the very least, our federal tax dollars should not be funneled to groups like Planned Parenthood. Pro-life supporters, are being forced to fund what they would consider murder… against their will and if they do not stay abreast of American politics, without their knowledge. Now THAT’S not very democratic, I hope we can agree on that point. The problem with pro-choice legislation for me is not whether an individual woman has the right to choose what they want to do with their body and unborn child, regardless of the legality of it, ultimately the choice is hers and I don’t dispute that. My problem with pro-choice legislation is that it goes above and beyond a woman’s right to choose by funding abortions with my tax dollars. I view that as a step in the direction of socialism.

  25. Jim B. Says:
    June 22, 2008 at 10:02 edit

    Scott said,

    “So, really, the idea of the specialness of a human life is A) flawed and B) shoiuld not take effect until the mental capacities of the human exceeds that of the animals whose lives are not sacred, such as cows, pigs, and tuna, all of whom are more intelligent than a human at birth.”

    And

    “So, given that it is a matter of opinion, I think that once the baby is free of the womb is a good definition…”

    Make up your mind, Scott. A newborn is clearly less “intelligent” than a cow, pig, dog… maybe even a tuna. So, are you with Peter Singer in believing a mother should have the right to terminate her newborn if she decides he or she is an inconvenience, or do you a human is valuable “once the baby is free of the womb.”

    Clearly it is true that human infants are incredibly stupid and unable to take care of themselves. The term is altricial as opposed to precocial. It would indeed be more consistent to attempt to measure human intelligence at particular ages. However, we would end up with a very difficult to implement situation with some children being smarter than others and some people so severely mentally retarded that they would never achieve the intelligence of a pig.

    So, I’m suggesting that we stay with what human society has done for generations across the board in a great many societies and define abortion as acceptable, as the entire “civilized” (whatever that means) world does. And, we define infanticide as unacceptable, as most of the world does. Even where infanticide is relatively commonly practiced, it is typically not open and legal, and even less often in a developed democratic nation.

    So, I think the simplest and most effective and reasonable solution is to keep abortion safe and legal and infanticide illegal. If you want to call that hypocrisy because we kill pigs, I’m OK with that level of hypocrisy in myself.

    If you answer the latter, what biologically significant change has occurred in the pre-born human immediately after a full term birth that was absent two hours, two days or two weeks prior?

    None. It’s just a basic and simple to apply dividing line that makes a lot more sense than at the fertilization of the egg.

    It seems to me abundantly clear that the value of a pre-born (and, under Singer’s view the immediately post-born) human, under the pro-choice/pro-abortion paradigm, is wholly contingent on the whims and desires of the mother. The strong pitted against the weak.

    http://blatzkrieg.wordpress.com/2008/06/19/baby-survives-abortion-attains-personhood-from-mothers-delight/

    What about the strong against the weak as you pit government and/or religion against women? Do you not care for the women at all? Would you treat women as they are treated in Saudi Arabia?

    And your argument about Christ’s silence on abortion is laughably specious. The notion that abortion was as common as it was 2000 or 3500 years ago, or that the issues was the same as it is today is, on its face, silly.

    It was commonly practiced. Is it your contention that Jesus/God didn’t know about it? Go on. Claim that. Claim that the divine word of an all knowing creator of the fucking universe actually didn’t know about abortion. I dare you.

    As an atheist, the whole topic is merely amusing to me. However, you live this myth. The bible has no squeamishness about mentioning sex with sheep. Why is it silent on abortion?

    Why do virtually 100% of Biblical scholars – those who take the Bible seriously as a divine text – agree that the Bible prohibits abortion? Is this some kind of vast right-wing theological conspiracy?

    Because they don’t like the conclusion that comes with real thought on the subject? How the hell should I know? Early Christians kept records of the plants that could be used as birth control and abortifacients such as sylphium and rue. Modern Christians have changed their opinion based on the same damn book. Christians committed huge atrocities based on what they read in the same book that many claim is a message of peace. Times change. People change. People reinterpret the same words. Even fundamentalists have a hard time making sense of the bible because it contradicts itself so often.

  26. MS>> Are you worried that I will enslave fetuses? I think you may be a tad melodramatic here.

    And you’re calling me melodramatic! You’re missing the point of my posting, but it’s nice how you choose one part and go with it.

    I guess I am missing your point. What was it?

    MS>> Are you suggesting that I’m selling abortion to parents who want children?

    Not at all. I am entertaining the idea that if the woman lost the baby… err… fetus… in an unfortunate accident, I don’t think you’d be one to offer any real comfort. “Ah well… but at least it wasn’t a real human!”

    Point taken. Don’t send a misanthrope to console a total stranger about the accidental death of a fetus. I would be most likely to console the mother by saying that at least the fetus will never have to deal with the problems of the world. Then I”d point out that I have given my own children the greatest gift of all, that of non-existence. They will not have to live in the world that is to come.

    MS>> stop trying to legislate your own religious views on others

    I’ve never told you my religious or political views. I’m just making conversation, and perhaps playing devil’s advocate.

    Perhaps. I’m a programmer. I read things literally. There was no hint that you were playing devils advocate so I took you at your word,.

    MS>> God kills most of them personally.

    Kind of like popping bubble wrap I suppose? You think God is that bored?

    You know I believe god does not exist. Silly question. I was using that statement for shock value to the religious. Sorry if I was not clear. It should be abundantly obvious from most of this site that I am both an atheist and an antitheist.

    MS>> As for Jesus being cool with abortion. You’ve got the facts. Jesus knew about abortion and said nothing against it. Not one damn thing.

    So… let me see if I understand you. Since the new testament doesn’t mention “abortion,” then Jesus must have been cool with it… I don’t believe the new testament mentioned urination, so Jesus must never have peed. It only mentioned one meal, so I gather that he usually received divine sustenance. Yes, I’m being sarcastic, but since when do you believe everything you read in holy scriptures?

    Good use of sarcasm. However, since the bible does talk a lot about sex and murder, both condoning and condemning either depending on what segment one reads, I think that something related to conception and termination of the pregnancy would be something that would definitely be mentioned if there were some strong feeling about it. Perhaps Jesus didn’t like it but simply really didn’t care that much about it. Certainly, given its use in biblical times, for Jesus not to have mentioned it (assuming he ever existed) means that he didn’t have any big issue with it. Certainly not one worthy of setting off explosives in populated areas.

    MS>> Do you believe you have a hotline to Jesus?

    Do you really believe that sort of hotline exists? You know, for a non-religious person, you do come up with some dandy ideas!

    Of course I do not believe such a hotline exists. I do not believe Jesus exists. I doubt he ever walked the planet as a flesh and blood human. I want to know if you believe you have such a hotline. I’m glad to hear that unlike our president, you do not have such strong delusions.

    MS>> Birth is when we begin to measure our age.

    Hmmm… that’s funny. Age was always used to measure the pregnancy and the age of the fetus/baby.

    And, as born humans, we measure our age from our birthdate, regardless of whether we were premature or late.

    MS>> Birth is when we get tax deductions for children.

    So now you’re letting the IRS determine birth?

    No. I’m just going to use it as an indicator of people’s sentiment.

    MS>> Birth is when one can become a victim of murder.

    I’ll refrain from addressing this statement. I don’t need your gimme’s.

    How about this definition: Birth is when your baby has been separated from the mother?

    Um… I was looking to define personhood, not birth. So, no, this is not an acceptable restatement to me.

    MS>> If you like theocracies, I suggest that you move to Iran or Saudi Arabia.

    Ugh? Is that the best you could come up with? How about someplace in Europe?

    OK, name a theocracy in Europe? I can’t. Certainly some countries likely still have an “official religion”. I just don’t know any that legislate from it the way Saudi Arabia or Iran do.

  27. Amy Jo Says:
    June 23, 2008 at 10:13

    One thing most pro-life/pro-choice discussions neglect to mention is the emotional pain, and depression many post-abortive women experience after they make their choice… sometimes long after. Regardless of her stance on the issue, when considering an abortion a woman cannot predict how she will feel the next time she sees a Mother holding her child or what thoughts she may have if she gives birth to a baby in the future. It isn’t something most women or (especially) young girls can even comprehend while experiencing the pressure and anxiety of an unplanned pregnancy.

    On thing most discussions also fail to mention is that post-partum separation after a healthy birth is far more likely to cause women severe emotional pain than abortion. I’ll search for some studies later. I have to get to work.

    Unfortunately many “pro-choice” groups, like Planned Parenthood for example, misinform these women who are often in emotional distress. It is a very lucrative industry, no reason to lose business by telling the ugly truth. Planned Parenthood is not there to pick up the pieces after the check is cashed… and the baby is gone forever, there are no “do overs” or changing your mind. Even if you are vehemently pro-choice, the stigma of aborting your own baby will cause future shame in many cases, even if only in the woman’s own mind. This is a reality that is rarely mentioned.

    You’re kidding right? The idea that abortion is big business compared to live birth is ridiculous. The medical profession makes huge money on prenatal and ObGyn costs. The cost of abortion relative to live birth is negligible. When the medical profession lobbies, if they are doing so based on money, they would lobby against abortion, not for it. Check the books on the entire organization of Planned Parenthood, a not for profit corporation, compared to any major hospital, a for profit corporation. I think you’ll find that this argument doesn’t hold water.

    At the very least, our federal tax dollars should not be funneled to groups like Planned Parenthood. Pro-life supporters, are being forced to fund what they would consider murder… against their will and if they do not stay abreast of American politics, without their knowledge. Now THAT’S not very democratic, I hope we can agree on that point. The problem with pro-choice legislation for me is not whether an individual woman has the right to choose what they want to do with their body and unborn child, regardless of the legality of it, ultimately the choice is hers and I don’t dispute that. My problem with pro-choice legislation is that it goes above and beyond a woman’s right to choose by funding abortions with my tax dollars. I view that as a step in the direction of socialism.

    Our tax dollars do not fund groups like Planned Parenthood, as far as I know. Please correct me, with a link to a non-biased site, if you think I’m incorrect. Instead, our tax dollars go to fund war, which kills live human adults. Do you think it’s democratic that those who do not support a war for oil must still fund it to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars? We do not get to choose where our individual tax dollars are spent. Do you think it’s democratic that our tax dollars are being spent on corporate welfare for ExxonMobil in years of record profit?

    Sorry, no. We do not agree on this point. I think abortion (and family planning services to help reduce the number of abortions) are part of basic medical care. I believe in nationalized health care. So, I do indeed want my tax dollars to provide good sex ed to kids. I want my tax dollars to pay for contraceptives to save lives and prevent pregnancies. And, I want my tax dollars to fund abortions in cases of unwanted pregnancies we were unable to prevent.

  28. Jim B. says:

    Wow.

    I asked Scott,

    “…what biologically significant change has occurred in the pre-born human immediately after a full term birth that was absent two hours, two days or two weeks prior?”

    Scott answered,

    “None. It’s just a basic and simple to apply dividing line that makes a lot more sense than at the fertilization of the egg.”

    So, Scott acknowledges no significant biological difference between humans he is willing to afford legal protections to and those he is not. But, for “simplicity’s” sake, this is justified. Misanthropic, indeed.

    Way to completely dodge the question/point regarding the strength of the mother pitted against the impotent silence of her fetus by shifting to a discussion on… Saudi Arabia?

    Your appeal to tradition made me laugh and scream. I suppose you also oppose same-sex marriage, because of the universal disapprobation of homosexuality in human history? Don’t throw tradition at your opposition unless your willing to follow that path to its logical end.

    I’m not going to argue the Bible or Christian History with a misanthropic atheist. One, there’ s no point – you won’t be convinced of my position on abortion even if I do prove both the Bible and Christian History are consistently pro-life. And two, you clearly don’t care to honestly evaluate Christian Scripture and History – evidenced by your weak Biblical exegesis and cherry-picking of history.

  29. Jim B.,

    So tell me oh wise and perfect one who has no grey areas in life, where do you draw the line?

    Would you kill the 96 women discussed earlier in order to save a million fertilized eggs?

    Would you deny in vitro fertilization to women who want children because extra fertilized eggs are created and thrown in the garbage when they are not needed?

    How would you provide care for the millions of unwanted babies created over the years?

    Will you provide decent sex education and life saving contraceptives to teens to avoid most abortions and prevent STDs?

    Would you support government funded family planning programs?

    Do you support state mandated abortions performed after the 75th trimester? (death penalty)

    Are you a vegetarian (since you know that pigs and many other animals are smarter than human infants)?

    What other steps do you take to preserve life?

    Do you support strong climate legislation so that today’s children will have a healthy biosphere in which to live out their lives?

    Do you support sending condoms to Africa?

    Do you support educating women in developing nations as a means to improve life and reduce birthrates so that we can attempt to get the human population to a sustainable number?

    Re: The Bible: All biblical arguments are inherently cherry picking. This is necessary since the Bible is so self-contradictory that no clear argument can be made one way or the other. One of the commandments is “Thou shalt not kill” and then right after the commandments, the penalty for breaking any commandment is death by stoning. But, you’re right, no biblical argument would ever convince me about anything relating to law. The wall of separation of church and state should never be breached.

  30. Amy Jo says:

    I find it mildly amusing that a person who is very proud of the fact that he has been sterilized and is not the father of any children, nor does he intend to be has such a strong opinion about how other people’s children are educated about sex.

    Please put your Michael Moore DVD on pause and hop over to Canada to see how the average person *really* feels about nationalized healthcare paid through obnoxious taxes. They have much fewer resources than Americans do and wait much longer for important services. I live in a snowbird state and have an opportunity to speak with many Canadians first-hand. I don’t have to trust what the media tells me because I know from personal experience that many Canadians do not like their nationalized healthcare! In fact, in the past 14 years of speaking with Canadian visitors I don’t recall anyone who thought it was better than what we offer here in America. Many of the problems in our healthcare system can be directly attributed to our government: ridiculously expensive ins. for docs, malpractice suits for anyone who wants one, small private practices becoming a thing of the past, the danger of big pharma control over our lives….

    Anyway I have a couple of links to taxpayers funding PP, but you gave yourself a generous loophole since you could easily say that any site not to your liking is biased, but here goes:

    http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/jun/07060811.html

    http://www.sequence-inc.com/fraudfiles/2008/04/01/stop-taxpayer-funding-for-planned-parenthood/

    Planned Parenthood has reported a “surplus of funds after expenditures” in 34 different fiscal years… sounds like a profit to me.

    We do have a voice about where our taxpayer $$ is spent and it begins with exercising your honor to vote, and not just every 4 years since the senate and house are the ones making all those bills that spend your dough. Being a citizen is a lot more than coasting along enjoying your freedoms, unfortunately not many Americans seem to appreciate that anymore.

    BTW I am not skipping your topic of war to avoid it, but I don’t see it’s pertinence to the topic of abortion. Using one topic to justify or negate another is an illogical argument. And if you really think this war is about oil, please check your facts. It is about many things, things which the American people may disagree with, but oil is not one of them. Additionally, your liberal congressmen and women voted in favor of this war… otherwise we would not be in it! Please stop spreading the myth that any American President is able to declare war… it is an act of congress through either formal declaration or relinquishment to the president.

  31. Amy Jo says:

    My biggest question for you is “why”? Why do you want to fund the contraception of complete strangers? I certainly would not want to burden another human with paying for my promiscuity. We may not see eye to eye on abstinence, but we can’t deny the fact that it prevents STDs, AIDS, and pregnancies 100% of the time. If you can’t afford to protect yourself then willfully engaging in acts that will possibly put you at risk to depend on others to care for your negligence is irresponsible at best… but even more so it is quite selfish. It is akin to those who charge up credit cards knowing full-well they can’t pay for them. Our government has decided that taxpayers should chip in for those people, too. Our motto should be: “Enjoy yourself honey, no need to be responsible for your actions and be a mature adult, Uncle Sam has you covered with taxpayer dollars.”

    Who looks out for the average middle-class American who is a lawful and responsible citizen yet who is saddled with the financial burdens of negligent and even corrupt people who want to enjoy the benefits of freedom at their expense?

  32. Amy Jo says:

    By the way, being that you are a self-described “misanthrope”, which means a person who has a general dislike or distrust for the human species and people in general, how is it that you put such trust in our government? A true misanthrope would not desire a more powerful government.

    Just curious…

  33. Amy Jo,

    Liberal means being willing to dig into one’s pockets out of generosity. Remember, it’s liberal as opposed to stingy. Check the dictionary. For the opposite of conservative, see progressive. Check the dictionary on those two also.

    As for abstinence, yes, true abstinence would do that. Unfortunately, abstinence only education is very very different than abstinence. It has been shown repeatedly to end in many pregnant teens and teens with STDs. So, while abstinence is effective, abstinence only education is the exact opposite.

    What does stop kids from being promiscuous and what prevents STDs happens to be good honest sex education.

    So, since you are very concerned with tax dollars, let me ask you one.

    Why are you willing to subsidize other people’s children?

    Clearly children are phenomenally more expensive than birth control and family planning services as well as more expensive than abortion. So, you might ask why as a holder of the Golden Snip award I would be willing to subsidize children.

    And yet, I am perfectly willing to pay my own tax dollars for non-sectarian education and health care. Yes, I support nationalized health care too.

    When you look at where your tax dollars go, consider all the money both parties have thrown at ExxonMobil through the Export Import Bank and tax subsidies. Consider all of the money that got funneled into a war for oil that benefits the military industrial complex and the oil companies.

    You’re looking at small potatoes if you care about the costs of birth control.

    Even there though, look at the cost savings for not having to subsidize all of the unwanted children that your abstinence only programs combined with your anti-abortion policies create.

    If you really want to stop abortion, fund sex ed and condom distribution!

  34. Amy Jo,

    Sorry. I just noticed that you have three separate posts. I think I responded to the second first. This response is to the first of the three in a row.

    You’re right. I left myself the loophole to call church organizations and obvious sites like Operation Rescue biased. However, I’m a little surprised you didn’t just go to wikipedia or Planned Parenthood’s own financial report, readily available on their website.

    I, for one, am glad to know that they do indeed get government funding. Thank you for sharing that piece of information. It will take the edge off thinking about funding the Iraq war with my money.

    You said: “Planned Parenthood has reported a “surplus of funds after expenditures” in 34 different fiscal years… sounds like a profit to me.”

    Um. Sounds like a well run organization to me. I wouldn’t want my condo board to run without a bit of a surplus. It’s only profit if they pay out. If they give dividends, that’s profit. BTW, the government does indeed support many for-profit organizations that you seem to have no problem with, as noted above, ExxonMobil, Halliburton, pretty much every major bank with the sub-prime crisis underway. Why do you not have a problem with that?

    On to your third post. I have described my misanthropic nature on a page just for that.

    The Misanthropic Principle

    Perhaps I am not clear about exactly what I hate about people. People are destroying the biosphere of this planet. We have already earned our place in history as the catastrophe that caused the sixth great extinction on this planet. Now it is a matter of how bad we will allow that extinction to get.

    I’m not sure how you think this should translate to a government that controls people every step of the way from the bedroom through school and into their mandatory church attendance. Sorry, but school prayer, ID, abstinence only, all of this is indeed mandatory church attendance.

    As for my trust in government, I have none. With respect to health care though, I would just say that an incompetent government official whose job is to provide health care will, of necessity, still do a better job of it than a competent corporate executive in United Healthcare who is paid $130,000,000/year to deny health care to patients.

    Do you doubt that denial of service is exactly the job of every health insurance company employee? If so, why? Their job is to maximize shareholder profit. They are not going to do so by providing care.

    Want evidence? Take a look at the list of countries in the world as ranked by life expectancy. Then take a look at the list of countries in the world ranked by infant mortality,

    List of Countries By Life Expectancy
    List of Countries By Infant Mortality

    Where are we? 45th and 32nd.

    For these appalling statistics, we pay more than any other nation in the world as a percentage of our GDP. No one else even comes close. Worse, even with spending 16% of our GDP on health care, we leave

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States

    If you care about either life or money, and you sound like you care about both, you have to love this quote about the U.S. Denial of Health Care System from the link above, with citation on that page.

    The debate about U.S. health care concerns questions of access, efficiency, and quality purchased by the high sums spent. The World Health Organization (WHO) in 2000 ranked the U.S. health care system first in both responsiveness and expenditure, but 37th in overall performance and 72nd by overall level of health (among 191 member nations included in the study).

  35. Amy Jo says:

    Actually Scott, your presupposition that my ability to stay on topic (an attempt at a true conversation as opposed to a convoluted argument) means that I automatically support anything that I don’t expressly mention. I don’t agree with welfare or government subsidies paid to big corporations. As I mentioned before, I think nearly all of our government is wasteful, overreaching and intrusive… far beyond what is Constitutionally required. I believe in a very limited government.

    You also mention that being liberal means being generous as opposed to stingy. Personally I do not agree that being compelled by a federal government to pay for others would be considered generosity. Prior to FDR’s New Deal, 90% of needy Americans were cared for by churches and charities on a *voluntary* basis, that is true generosity. After the New Deal our government covered that 90%. I also do not consider throwing $ at a problem as truly caring for another person.

    Since you are a self-described misanthrope and generally seem to dislike humanity then your “generosity” towards others could only be for selfish reasons, which could not be considered true generosity.

    BTW, I found PP’s actual Annual Report difficult to read and I try not to cite Wiki unless I must since it is known to be riddled with inconsistencies and misinformation.

  36. Amy Jo,

    I’m not really sure what the above comment is in reference to. I’m having a hard time getting the first paragraph’s lead in.

    I personally believe that the basics for survival, including clean water and air as well as basic health care are rights of people necessary for life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Therefore, I do believe that the government is responsible for ensuring access to these things.

    I understand your desire for limited government. I can respect that. I just disagree with it. Our current government is far from limited and yet still fails to provide health care for 47 million people. That is unconscionable.

    Please reread my own personal reasons for being a misanthrope. I am more of a hater of humanity than a hater of individual humans. It is true that I do not like our species. However, I am a social creature and do like many members of our species while still finding our species as a whole repulsive for our actions.

    One of the actions of our species that I find repugnant is our treatment of each other. I try to do better for my own small part. Is that selfish? Well, it feels good to me, so I guess so. I also try to do my best by other species that I find more beautiful than our own. Sometimes, that too involves helping members of our own species. For example, reducing poverty also has the effects of reducing human birthrate and sometimes even reducing human impact on the environment. So, if I try to reduce poverty, that too must be selfish by your standards, I guess. I’m OK with that.

    (aside)
    As for wikipedia, you really just need to watch for citations, especially on controversial topics. That’s why I went to the Planned Parenthood report myself. The statement on wikipedia was lacking a citation. It turned out to be 100% correct anyway.

    Were you aware that a study was done by an impartial third party that showed wikipedia to have about the same level of accuracy as the Encyclopedia Britannica?

    A billion monkeys on a billion keyboards for only about 10 years didn’t create the works of Shakespeare, but did a pretty good job of creating something of value.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm
    (/aside)

  37. Amy Jo says:

    I apologize, you are correct… that lead in is a bit confusing. I was responding directly to this comment from you:

    “BTW, the government does indeed support many for-profit organizations that you seem to have no problem with, as noted above, ExxonMobil, Halliburton, pretty much every major bank with the sub-prime crisis underway. Why do you not have a problem with that?”

    Not only is it untrue but I do become frustrated with this tactic. Perhaps you were only being conversational but it has been my experience that when discussing issues with people who consider themselves liberal that they often put words into my mouth, use one topic or statement to prove or disprove another for their convenience, misquote me or argue my intentions in general. I am truly sorry if I jumped to conclusions, it is difficult to detect a person’s tone over the internet.

  38. Amy Jo,

    I apologize. You’re correct. You’ve said nothing that indicates directly that you support corporate welfare. I was merely responding to the supposition that you will vote republican which does carry a lot of baggage of that nature and worse. So, I picked some of the favorite corporate welfare clients of the republican party. The democratic party has its own list of favorites. There’s actually even a lot of overlap in this area. Unfortunately, neither party is above giving corporate welfare.

    BTW, with respect to liberal vs stingy and conservative vs progressive, those really are simple dictionary definitions, they may or may not reflect ideals of parties.

    Out of curiosity, and if and only if you don’t mind responding, are you planning to vote republican in the next election?

    When considering your answer either to me or to yourself, you should probably consider all that such a vote entails these days. One big difference between the parties these days is that the republican candidates are far less likely to actually go against their party’s line than the democrats, which is one of the reasons that the democrats have trouble getting stuff done. All or nearly all republican candidates vote one way then the democrats split their votes. The republicans win again. Big shock.

    To continue with the republican party line though, some of the major things that the party seems to tolerate zero or very little dissent on are:

    * Overturning Roe v Wade
    * Pro death penalty
    * Against any sort of program for poor people including the unwanted children
    * For any corporate bailout
    * Against gun control
    * For any form of government control over people’s lives, including wire tapping, spy cameras, marriage amendment to the constitution to redefine marriage, school prayer, no science in school, no science in government, no stem cell research (not even using the fertilized eggs currently being thrown out after in vitro fertilization)
    * No tax for wealthy people
    * No tax for corporations, foreign or domestic
    * Destroy the environment at every opportunity, drill, mine, deforest here and abroad, who cares as long as no billionaire is left behind.

    BTW, what do you think of a new idea I have for a bumper sticker?

    McBillionaires for McBush

    OK, the idea is actually old and used and unoriginal, but so is McCain.

  39. Amy Jo says:

    I agree that safe acquisition of those resources are important to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Where we differ is that I don’t feel that anyone *owes* them to me because they are my “right”. I feel responsible for myself and that of anyone in my care. I think that when the government makes choices that impede my ability to provide those things for myself they are overstepping their boundaries. Don’t even get me started about “clean” water, it is our government municipalities that allow or even arrange to dump poisonous fluoride (and more) into our water systems for the “well-being” of the people… yeah right! At least our water bills go up only a small amount for the privilege of being poisoned! 🙂

    Man is human and fallible and prone to intentional deception as well, that is my basis for desiring a limited government. Free markets, on the other hand, tend to correct themselves. If you have an inferior product and/or an unreasonable price someone else will find a way to provide your service or resource that is more appealing to the people. People always want the highest quality for the lowest price… that we can trust regardless of what is being peddled. The only time that this is not the case is when there’s a monopoly, which is exactly what nationalized healthcare will be. There is no incentive to be great, there is no competition. Monopolies always benefit the corporation and really never the consumer. The DMV is the perfect example.. hahaha!

    I agree with you about the government being so large yet failing to provide healthcare but I see it as a testament that they cannot be trusted with the resources that we have already given them and I have no desire to give them more. I hold my position that a government is not responsible for providing medical care to its people but share your opinion that they should have the ability to provide it given how much they have fleeced the American taxpayers. Last year our family went without healthcare for several months because we refused to pay nearly $1200 a month for basic HMO care while my husband worked at a small company that only covered the employee’s benefits. I know what it is like.

    I reread your misanthropy page and now see what you mean more clearly. I feel frustrated with humanity at times too, sometimes it seems as if we will never learn. I apologize for calling you selfish, although I think everybody is to some extent or another. My more general theory on liberal generosity is that they advocate voluntarily distributed wealth (through taxes) so they can feel like they are making a difference. To me sincere generosity doesn’t have an end in mind. True generosity cannot be compelled and the reward is in the act itself with no thought of a desirable consequence.

    Thanks for the Wiki information, I was not aware of the study. Interesting stuff!

  40. Amy Jo says:

    Well, I actually agree with overturning Roe v. Wade, but not for the reasons you might think. The lawsuit was a complete sham that included a couple of lawyers trying to make a name for themselves manipulating a plaintiff who not only never had said abortion but has recanted her story of being raped that was central to the case. It is an embarrassment to our legal history and a shame that we allow ourselves to set precedent with a case rooted in fabrication. I do believe that life begins at conception so certainly I would like to see people choose against abortion, however I do not believe I have the right to legislate my morality. Even the Bible advocates free will. People are going to do what they want to do regardless of my feelings or yours and in some cases regardless of the legality of an issue .

    At the very least our prison system should be undesirable, not a citizen-funded field trip complete with access to cable tv, pornography, cigarettes, education, gym equipment, and more that I don’t even know about etc… many people in prison have more available to them while incarcerated than when they were free. Outrageous!

    I support the right to bear arms. I don’t personally own any guns, but I feel that American citizens should be able to arm themselves if the so desire. The people who legitimately and responsibly purchase and register their guns do not concern me as much as the person who gets their guns illegally, which would imply malicious intent and those people will be getting their weapons regardless of the laws. There will always be dangerous people out there.

    I am against unnecessary wiretapping and cameras, look at that nanny state that was formerly England… which incidentally is quite liberal. Certainly there are instances that would justify surveillance for protection of the American people but the danger should be clear and outweigh the rights to privacy. I feel it would have to be a case by case basis. Either way, we have satellite surveillance of most of America as we speak.

    I advocate a flat tax for American citizens across the board regardless of wealth and less write-offs for corporations.

    I believe in environmental stewardship. I also believe we need to take a long, hard look at items that are openly disputed among the experts in the science community. Our decisions should be based on fact and not kick-backs for lobbyists. Environmentalism has a tendency to be taken to the extreme: population control in communist China. It can also be misguided or dishonest… remember acid rain? It should have destroyed all of our rainforests by now. How about that excellent waste of American dollars that was automobile emissions regulations? Also, if America must to adhere to the Kyoto Protocol, why aren’t the other signers accountable? It takes everybody chipping in to do their part but how do I convince my neighbor (or all those liberal Hollywood types, and Kerry, Gore, Gates, et al… with multiple homes, vehicles, yachts and private jets sucking down enough fossil fuels for 20+ average American families) to get rid of at least one of his Hummers? It is a fine line at times, but that is the nature of freedom of choice and protected “rights”.

    I registered with a major party in order to participate in the primaries. One could call me governmentally conservative, I feel the government should be quite limited; however, I feel people should be trusted to make their own choices within the limits of the law even if I disagree with them… perhaps one might consider that liberal. However I vote my conscious, not my party. When both candidates of the two major parties are in direct opposition to my beliefs I do not feel the need to vote for either. So far, that is how this November is shaping up for me… neither candidate is deserving of my vote thus far and I doubt much could change that now.

  41. Amy Jo says:

    By the way, I am registered as Republican. Wasn’t trying to avoid that question.

  42. Hi Amy Jo, (I’m going to go back to my older standard of italics for things you said and non-italics for my replies)

    I agree that safe acquisition of those resources are important to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Where we differ is that I don’t feel that anyone *owes* them to me because they are my “right”.

    I can understand that. However, I differ in my opinion. I feel that the government should provide the most basic necessary aspects for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness because indeed we have defined these as inalienable rights. I do not feel that this is anyone else paying my way. I pay a lot in taxes. I feel confident that even were the government to provide health care, I would be among those who paid more into the government than I took out in services. I simply feel that profit incentive for operations, for denial of service, for unnecessary medications, etc. is not the right model. I feel that even an incompetent government official can do a better job of providing care than a competent corporate executive tasked with maximizing profit for giving me care. BTW, another interesting statistic. Did you know that the United States, with 5% of the world’s population consumes 56% of the world’s medication? And, of course, our health care system is still the worst or at the very bottom of the barrel among the developed democratic nations of the world.

    BTW, to compare nationalized health care to a monopoly is to completely misunderstand the concept of a government program versus a for profit corporation. The charter would be different. As I’ve stated several times already, a job done incompetently will still be done better than a competently done job that is at odds with the actual purpose. When profit is the motive rather than providing care, profit will be the result rather than providing care. We see this every day.

    Don’t even get me started about “clean” water, it is our government municipalities that allow or even arrange to dump poisonous fluoride (and more) into our water systems for the “well-being” of the people… yeah right! At least our water bills go up only a small amount for the privilege of being poisoned!

    Do you think privatization of water would be better? I think we owe a huge debt of gratitude for the quality of the water here in the United States. Many countries, especially developing nations, recognize how precious fresh potable water really is. Yet we do stupid shit like showering in it, flushing our toilets with it, watering lawns with it (lawns are another wholly stupid concept for another discussion), washing our cars with it, even here in NYC, washing the damn sidewalks with some of the best potable drinking water in the world. The waste of it makes me physically ill. Fluoride in the water? Perhaps I just haven’t heard enough of the downside of this. Either way, I’ll consider it small potatoes compared to Bush’s proposed “Clean Water Act” that would have pumped raw sewage from over polluted rivers into clean ones. Great idea!!

    Man is human and fallible and prone to intentional deception as well, that is my basis for desiring a limited government. Free markets, on the other hand, tend to correct themselves. If you have an inferior product and/or an unreasonable price someone else will find a way to provide your service or resource that is more appealing to the people.

    Certainly humans are fallible … and greedy bastards too. Why do you trust corporate executives more than you trust our government officials? Enron? S&L scandal? Subprime crisis? Exxon Valdez? Are these good reasons to trust corporations?

    As for any “free market”, I would agree if you could find me a free market. We don’t have one. We have a market where corporations control the government for their benefit. We have a market where the government gives large subsidies to corporations that have provided them with adequate bribes campaign funding. We have a market where huge costs are completely externalized leaving the rest of us to pick up the real costs. If we had a truly free market based on deep economic principles, I would agree with you on this. Without that, you’re living in an idealistic dreamland.

    Well, I actually agree with overturning Roe v. Wade, but not for the reasons you might think. The lawsuit was a complete sham that included a couple of lawyers trying to make a name for themselves manipulating a plaintiff who not only never had said abortion but has recanted her story of being raped that was central to the case. It is an embarrassment to our legal history and a shame that we allow ourselves to set precedent with a case rooted in fabrication. I do believe that life begins at conception so certainly I would like to see people choose against abortion, however I do not believe I have the right to legislate my morality. Even the Bible advocates free will. People are going to do what they want to do regardless of my feelings or yours and in some cases regardless of the legality of an issue .

    So, since you do seem to believe that people have the right to choose, I presume that if you would overturn Roe v Wade, you would first replace it with a constitutional amendment that was not a legal sham and provided the same right, correct? Otherwise, your statement does not make much sense. I agree that the ends do not justify the means. However, overturning Roe will remove the rights of women. You must first ensure that those rights are protected before you undo what you see as a bad means to a good end.

    I too support the right to bear arms. I actually take the ACLU position on it personally. People should be allowed to arm themselves. People should not, however, own nuclear weapons. So, clearly there is a point between the two where the line is drawn. Should people be allowed to own fully automatic weapons with armor piercing bullets? I don’t know. Should people be allowed to own bazookas? Probably not. Hand grenades? Probably not. Since I am unsure of exactly where to draw that line, I simply do not advocate strongly for either side of this issue. That ACLU makes the same statement has caused many people to misinterpret that as support for gun control.

    I disagree with you on the flat tax. I think that someone making $40K a year is going to have a hard time paying 15%, while someone making $250K/yr can pay more than that with less affect on their lifestyle. I don’t find it fair for both to pay the same. The biggest thing that bothers me in our current progressive tax system is knowing that someone making $100M/yr with a billion in assets is paying a lower percentage in total taxes than I pay just in social security. That hurts.

    I don’t mind paying both more and a higher percentage than someone earning less than me. I just want the super wealthy to pay their share too. This is not the top 1%. This is the top 0.001% or so, a group that is never separated on the charts of who pays the most taxes. So, when looking at the top 1% it looks like they pay their taxes … and they do. But the top much smaller percentage does not.

    I don’t think comparing population control in China to environmentalism is a fair comparison. You are comparing a country with no history of human rights to the U.S. No one here is suggesting limiting births by legislation. All population control measures being suggested by environmentalists are voluntary and amount to getting women in developing nations and failed nations educated and into the work force, which has the dual benefit of a better life and birth rate reduction.

    As for climate change, the debates about it in the scientific community are very different than those that you hear of in the main stream media. They amount to minor discrepancies in the exact amount of sea level rise, the particular effects on specific location, etc. There is no dispute about whether anthropogenic climate change is real. Not among climate scientists. You need to check the peer reviewed literature. I’ve got several threads on climate change. Pick any, ask me about any particulars you think are in dispute. I will provide peer reviewed articles and reputable mainstream articles that paraphrase and reference specific peer reviewed articles. You will see that there really is no debate among scientists in the related fields of climatology.

    As for the wealthy politicians, I would not use them as my shining examples. About Gore though, I would say that he is living the life he advocates. He is making incremental changes and buying carbon offsets. He is not perfect. Neither am I. I do my best and still live a lifestyle that, were every person on the planet to live as I do, would require 3 planet Earths. At least though, in my case, they would only be needed for a generation. For, if everyone lived as I do, the species would die out as no new children were born. There would likely be some very happy and prosperous times in between. And then the rest of the species on the planet could live freely again.

    As for Republican/Democrat, I’m a registered democrat and will vote that way. However, I consider myself a Liberal. So, registering as a Democrat (the party that killed my party) is actually quite painful to me. However, I want to vote in the primary and still consider the Democraps to be a lesser evil than the Repugnicans. I also don’t really like either party though.

  43. Amy Jo says:

    Are we to assume that if the “not-for-profit” government takes over health care and provides the money of the people that there will not still be denial of services. Perhaps I need more info on how the system works. How are the medical providers paid in this system?

  44. bobbo says:

    Of course there will be denial of services. Every system does that under one set of terminology/concepts or another.

    Liberal===knows they got help from society and feels they owe something back to the community of man.

    Conservative===believes they made it all on their own with no help from anyone else and everyone else should do the same.

    Amy Jo–did you change your own diapers, get vaccinated, drink clean water, learn to read get an education? Did it all on your own?

  45. Amy Jo says:

    Bobbo,

    Not sure if you are being condescending or not…. my Mama changed and washed my cloth diapers and rubber pants thank you very much. We drank from the well that my Great-Gandaddy dug.. it was perty clean, yessiree! I taught myself to read at the age of three, damn I am smart! The public school system teached me real good about gettin’ ahead with my peers, how not to dress in a crowd, how talent does not outweigh oral sex and why skool on acid is no fun at all, no sir! Gee, now that you mention it, thems was my most important lessons, thanks fer remindin’ me!

  46. Amy Jo says:

    Bobbo,

    Also wanted to give thanks fer lettin’ me know what it meanz to be a ‘Publican. Sheesh, I had better stop serving in my community… more free time to put my neighbors’ recycling into their trash bins, kill the whales, promote acid rain, have babies and suck down the planet’s resources! Yee haw! Never did like the elderly, or making meals for new Mamas or cleaning up my neighborhood or serving on my HOA BOD! Wheew! Golly, I best go buy a couple a Hummers and burn human sacrifices in my backyard, too! By the way, my pool is filled with crude oil! Hot damn!

    If only I could find a way to heat up this planet too… Whoo Hoo!

  47. Amy Jo,

    Of course, the providers are all paid by the government. Interestingly, when my mother went to France for experimental brain surgery for Parkinson’s Disease, we learned that doctors there get paid to come to work, just like I do for programming. They get paid for providing care, not for specifics like performing operations. So, they provide the necessary care, which we found was amazing, and perform the operations as needed. There’s no incentive for unnecessary operations, as there is here (think C-sections for the prime example).

    Also, since the system is national, it is harder, though probably not impossible, to sue. So, hospitals can say things like “We don’t have any procedures planned for you today. Why not take the tram into town for a nice lunch?” This while my mother had a steel halo screwed into her skull to be used later for holding her head steady during the procedure. (yes, they did give her a cover for it.)

    After 30 days of testing and 3 major operations, we did have to pay the bill in full. Not being French citizens, we were not entitled to free care. Admittedly, this was 10 years ago, but the total cost of 27 days in neurology and 3 days in neurosurgery (different rates, but still no actual charge for the operation), was $19,000. 20 years ago I was diagnosed with diabetes. I had no operations and far fewer tests and spent 5 days in the hospital. My total bill was $5,000.

    So, for a much simpler case 20 years ago, my medical cost, albeit covered by B.C.B.S., was $1,000/day. My mom’s cost after 10 years of increases, was still far less per day, even for brain surgery. And, she wasn’t treated like a prisoner and had excellent care.

    Perhaps there are differing opinions, but I’m for nationalized care.

  48. Amy Jo says:

    Almost fergot ’bout them awesome sex ed lessons at my fancy public skool! Gee, if Mr. Heneke did not put that rubber on the cuke, I mighta been pregnant at 13! Nope, dem kids learned real good all about what warts on vaginas look like, whoo that SHUR kept my legs together and tight! Boy do I owe a huge thanky to my public skool days! I even pulled out my heath text on my weddin’ nite, good times!

  49. Amy Jo says:

    I have to admit that doesn’t sound too bad. Perhaps they could find a way to cut the pork and other ridiculous government programs in order to foot the bill w/o increasing taxes? They could get a long way if they checked up on the losers taking the government for a ride with public assistance… I would gladly turn in some friends and family. 🙂

    Part of the problem, too is that Americans are very dumb about health in general… that goes for the docs too. My Mom took 4 years of nursing school and only had *one* nutrition course! That is asinine!

    Are you still being treated for your diabetes?

  50. Ellie May Clampett,

    You git outta them city clothes. Give ’em back to Amy Jo, untie her, and let her out of your closet. Ya cain’t be this way in Beverly Hills. It just taint proper.

    Amy Jo,

    National health care would certainly have its problems as well. There probably would be pork associated with it. There’s tons of pork associated with our current system if you can recognize pork in the private sector. Look at he CEO of United Healthcare earning $130,000,000/yr. Multiply that by every denial of health insurance company in the land. Then add in the lesser execs and the shareholders. Then look at the pharmaceutical company’s prices.

    I agree about people being dumb … and actively wanting to stay that way. Gee, my cold won’t go away in under 3 days (’cause the normal time to run its course is 2 weeks) so I better go to the doctor. The doctor won’t even bother to try to educate me in the fact that we mostly don’t have anti-virals (some are starting to come out in recent years, but not for most viruses yet) so s/he just prescribes antibiotics rather than admitting that there’s nothing to do for it.

    Then come the drug-resistant bacteria … as if there weren’t enough around already from farms using the same bacteria on their farm animals rather than giving them enough space and proper food so they don’t need them.

    Too many tangents that I can go off on here. Back on track.

    One of the things that would change with nationalized health care is that, since no system can possibly treat everyone perfectly, decisions would be made based on cost effectiveness of treatment, whether it is life-sustaining, and things like QALYs, and other attempts to make rational decisions on health care.

    Not everyone would receive perfect care. Right now the decision of who will not receive care is based on wealth. This is abhorrent to me. Poor people get terrible care, emergency room only and at city hospitals that are far inferior to any you would go to. They get no preventative medicine at all. Rich people on the other hand often get far too much care, such as staying on life-support until their money is gone before finally pulling the plug. Yecch!!

    I have type 1 diabetes. It means my pancreas does not produce insulin at all. I will be treated for this until I die, a pancreas can be cloned from own cells, or an artificial pancreas is created. The last is the most likely in the short term, IMHO, and still counts as treatment, sort of.

  51. Amy Jo says:

    I have done some fascinating research on diabetes, my FIL is Type 2… but alas, it matters not since he won’t listen to anything I tell him. One day I am going to slip some anti-inflammatory products into his drink!

    Wow, cloning your own pancreas… that is pretty interesting. Have you ever hear of Dr. Russel Blaylock? He has really interesting medical reports and is a bit anti-establishment so his opinion holds more weight with me! 🙂

    Gotta git back to the homestead, Jethro’s done got himself into trouble again!

  52. Amy Jo,

    This doctor seems to have some interesting things to say. However, when taking advice that is against mainstream medical advice you might want to take it with a grain of salt, so to speak. I’d suggest that if you are really considering modifying behavior for your own health that you research the topic carefully using Google Scholar which will search peer reviewed scholarly publications. Some of the papers posted on this doctor’s own site are not peer reviewed despite being deliberately written in a format that is intended to look as if they are. This kind of subtle deception where he never actually says something has been peer reviewed but simply dresses it up to look so makes me not only question the results of his studies but his own honesty in the representation.

    In short, I’m trying to sound as reasonable about this as possible, but claiming conspiracy theory in the peer review process is something that, while possible, is highly unlikely to be well-coordinated enough to be effective. Already, the dental profession, for example, has switched away from amalgam fillings. So, why cover up anything about them? What is to be gained? Already they are selling porcelain fillings and they probably charge more for them. So, there’s really no point to cover up anything about amalgam.

    In fact, they could make far more money by showing a real danger and having everyone racing to their dentists to have old filling replaced. So, what’s the point of the cover up?

    I’m going to try not to get further sidetracked on this topic. Just be careful. And, when weighing the choice of vaccination for you or your children, be sure to consider the high risk of the disease versus the statistically insignificant, based on many peer reviewed studies, risk of autism.

  53. bobbo says:

    Amy Jo:

    No, I’m not being condescending. Just offering a “tendency” I have seen among my liberal and conservative friends and acquaintances. It helps to have issues reframed to take a fresh look?==or not.

  54. KingTester says:

    Re: Your post on Dvorak.org/blog Comment #21 in article “Christian Party wants public register for women who have abortions”

    I would love to debate you on this topic. You say abortions are fine due to the quoted death rates of women that go full term. Your stats may be correct but you are avoiding the issue. You must first answer the question “What is the unborn?” if it is not human then kill it, no problem, no justification is needed. If it is human then no justification is adequate.

    As for the argument by others between what constitutes a fetus vs. a baby they are one in the same, traveling 8 inches down a birth canal does not change the nature of the fetus/baby it only changes the location in proximity of the mother.

    Scientifically baby in the womb:
    – has unique DNA, even as small as a few cells
    – is alive and growing
    – is human by nature (see embryology)
    – While not fully developed has all of the parts to fully mature. (Don’t confuse construction with design)
    – Life is not measured by size
    – is a result of specific external events thus not an accident.
    **All of these reasons equally apply to a 3 year old and you wouldn’t kill an unwanted 3 year old.

    Some may say the only reason an abortion may be justifiable is if the baby goes full term and will definitely kill the mother with close to 100% certainty. In this instance a life is being saved (the mother). Personally I must admit that I’m not entirely satisfied with that scenario but that I all that I can come up with right now.

    Note I have not brought religion into this conversation at all. I’m just drawing logical conclusions based on the some elements of biology including DNA and embryology.

    Now that the nature of the unborn has been brought into the open, the unborn is human; no justification is adequate for abortion, not even the stats that you offer.

    Abortions usually occur by some justification by the mother. I can not think of any place in the animal kingdom where this occurs other than humans. So I’m not sure how Darwin’s theory would apply or be brought into the discussion

    Picture this, you are standing a sink doing some dishes and your son or daughter walks up behind you and says, “Can I kill this?” You would not answer in the affirmative or negative unless you turned around and saw exactly the object of that question. If it were a mosquito you may say go ahead, if it were the neighbors cat then you are more apt to say no. You first had to ascertain the nature of the thing being killed.

  55. KingTester,

    The unborn is a human fetus. I see no reason that the government should stop anyone from killing him/her. S/he has no legal status. S/he has no rights in this or any other civilized society.

    Certainly, said fetuses rights, if any, do not trump the rights of the born. When you accidentally knock over a pregnant woman who is not even showing yet and she miscarries, will you be OK with being sentenced for manslaughter as you would if the woman died?

    Humans aren’t special. We weren’t specially created by any deity. We are part of a vast continuum of life on this planet.

    Scientifically, a fetus in the womb is not a baby. As bobbo has rightly pointed out on Dvorak Uncensored, use words correctly, as they are defined in the dictionary and you will not be harassed for being a total asshole twisting words into false meanings to make invalid points.

    Regarding the bullet points you attempt to make under your false claim that a fetus is a baby:

    – has unique DNA, even as small as a few cells

    This is also true of mosquitos.

    – is alive and growing

    This is also true of mosquitos.

    – is human by nature (see embryology)

    So what? So are convicted criminals. So are the terminally ill.

    – While not fully developed has all of the parts to fully mature. (Don’t confuse construction with design)

    Incorrect and irrelevant. Said fetus has all of the instructions to build all of the parts in order to mature. This is also true of my hair and fingernails and I regularly cut them.

    – Life is not measured by size

    Then you must be horrified at those who kill flies or take antibiotics.

    – is a result of specific external events thus not an accident.

    No birth control is 100% effective. Therefore this is not only irrelevant, but false as well.

    **All of these reasons equally apply to a 3 year old and you wouldn’t kill an unwanted 3 year old.

    There must be a point at which we do outlaw killing. And yet, there are exceptions to it as well. We regularly execute criminals, and all too frequently the innocent as well. I think drawing the line at birth is a long time-honored tradition. I would be fine with outlawing infanticide and allowing abortion.

    Some may say the only reason an abortion may be justifiable is if the baby goes full term and will definitely kill the mother with close to 100% certainty. In this instance a life is being saved (the mother). Personally I must admit that I’m not entirely satisfied with that scenario but that I all that I can come up with right now.

    Then you are a total fucking nutjob. Congratulations for being such an extremist that you would sacrifice a full grown woman for the life of a fetus. I can now say with complete and utter certainty that you are truly devoid of all reasonable morals.

    Picture this, you are standing a sink doing some dishes and your son or daughter walks up behind you and says, “Can I kill this?” You would not answer in the affirmative or negative unless you turned around and saw exactly the object of that question. If it were a mosquito you may say go ahead, if it were the neighbors cat then you are more apt to say no. You first had to ascertain the nature of the thing being killed.

    And yet, if it was a pig or a cow, you would likely be fine with it despite their greater brain power than any fetus. I think you make arguments that seem logical to you, though not to me. Based on such arguments you determine that women are not free to decide either their own fates or the fates of the horrifically deformed or the fetuses of their rapists or even the fetuses created while on drugs.

    You do not even seem satisfied with allowing a woman to have an abortion when her own health may be at risk. You want to wait ’til she dies, then you might say that it would have been OK if she had had an abortion to save her life, but we couldn’t know until she was dead. Oh well.

    You sir are among the most sick and twisted induhviduals I have ever had the misfortune of debating.

    You, like Alfred1 on DU, are among the many reasons I blog anonymously.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: