How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 Philosophy 101
 So What Is It If It Survives   [ Page: 1  2  3  ]
 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

So What Is It If It Survives

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


50 posted 09-23-2008 08:42 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K

Dear Ron,

quote:

I don't know, Bob, how about this quote from the article: "Anti-abortion groups criticized the research, saying that the scientists had jumped to conclusions from imperfect tallies, often estimates of abortion rates in countries where the procedure was illegal. 'These numbers are not definitive and very susceptible to interpretation according to the agenda of the people who are organizing the data,' said Randall O'Bannon, director of education and research at the National Right to Life Educational Trust Fund in Washington."




     And Mr. O'Bannon has peer-analyzed these conclusions with what statistical experts.  He has gotten his opinion published and you quote him as a biased source, without making note of that.  You may indeed be completely correct about Mr. Bannion and the import of his opinion, but there is nothing in your citation that would reassure me as to that point.  Whereas appearance in The Lancet conveys a considerable amount of information about the depth and quality of the information being presented.  This, again, doesn't mean Mr. O'Bannon is wrong; clearly that would be a conclusion based on Ad Hominem prejudices.  It does mean that a conclusion based on Mr. O'Bannon's say-so is insufficient in itself to be anywhere near convincing.

     If, of course, you disagree, I'd be interested in your reasoning.  After all, it's possible Mr. O'Bannon is correct and has kept his critique from sweeping the scientific journals in a well-coordinated peer-reviewed counter-attack directed at the study and its conclusions for reasons that are beyond my understanding of his institutional interests.  Usually scientists with competing points of view and well reasoned arguments cannot wait to respond in conferences and in journals, and the debate is quite lively.  Often, about issues as fiery as this, it is carried in the popular press.

     For example, while the scientific data is pretty much settled about global warming, the popular press keeps the story alive, and politicians, whose interests are often served by them doing so, are happy to keep the pot stirred.  In the scientific press, however, there's really not much question.  If that were the case here, don't you think there'd be headlines everyplace about the big boxing match in this latest round of Pro-Life/Pro-choice debates?

     Pretty much quiet.

     It wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong, though.  I've gotten to the point where I've come to tell myself that raw egg is probably great for my complexion.  Probably is, too.  

     I've got to say, though, this is one great discussion.

Best to everybody,

Bob Kaven
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


51 posted 09-23-2008 08:45 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Echolong,

          Got any data on that assertion?

Bob Kaven
echolong
Junior Member
since 09-17-2008
Posts 22


52 posted 09-23-2008 09:09 PM       View Profile for echolong   Email echolong   Edit/Delete Message     View IP for echolong



Women's life span depends on the balance of two forces, according to Thomas Perls, a geriatrician at Harvard Medical School. One is the evolutionary drive to pass on her genes, the other is the need to stay healthy enough to rear as many children as possible. "Menopause draws the line between the two," Perls says. It protects older women from the risks of bearing children late in life, and lets them live long enough to take care of their children and grandchildren. http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/1998/10.01/WhyWomenLiveLon.html

Abortion is related to breast cancer http://www.polycarp.org/abortionbreastcancerbargraph1_files/abortionbreastcancerbargraph1_12703_image001.gif
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


53 posted 09-24-2008 03:27 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Echolong,

          I find the second graph more interesting than the first.  If you could let me know what article it's from, I'd like to follow up.  The data looks fascinating, and I appreciate your presenting it so willingly.  I'd like to see some explanation of what the various studies did, however, who conducted the overall comparison study, authors, stuff like that.  On the surface, though, it looks impressive.

     The first study said nothing about beauty, but then you were joking about that.  Health seems a more interesting topic.  Certainly it suggests that women tend to outlive men, but we already knew that.  The question I thought we were looking at was the effects of abortion on long term health of the mother.  My observation of the article didn't see any material addressing that.  It did say that women who survived into their centenary years had children into their 40's as opposed to women who died younger.  That doesn't establish a causal link—that is if a woman wants to live to be 100 years old she should have a baby in her 40's.  It only suggests an association of some sort.

     My recollection is that the mortality rate from clinical abortions professionally performed remains less dangerous than carrying a fetus to delivery for the health of the mother on a statistical basis.  I'd rather not have to rummage through old documentation to look for this data when others could do it as well, especially since my memory may well be faulty and I hate having egg on my face.  But this is in fact my impression, and that is exactly the degree of certainty I have in it.

     Thank you for your interesting articles, and if you do have that data on your references, I'd really like to have a look.  If it's too much of a pain. that's all right as well.

Best to you, Bob Kaven
echolong
Junior Member
since 09-17-2008
Posts 22


54 posted 09-24-2008 09:42 AM       View Profile for echolong   Email echolong   Edit/Delete Message     View IP for echolong

dear Bob K http://www.afterabortion.org/PAR/V8/n2/finland.html
http://www.afterabortion.org/news/abortiondeaths.html
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


55 posted 09-24-2008 03:09 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Ron:
quote:
Why should we believe any of them wrong and you right? What makes your morality better than theirs?


Whenever we debate anything concerning public policy, you say that my stance is pure abstract morality, and yours is founded in the world of pragmatism and strictly necessary.  

It's a false claim.  My point about morality has been that it cannot be divorced from your views anymore than mine.  And my viewpoint is likewise just as rooted in the world of cause of and effect as yours.  I just simply think you are skewing the data of reason, science, and morality to get at your conclusion.

  
quote:
You have to come up with better reasons to pass laws than just because they jibe with "your" morality.


This is an example of what I mentioned earlier, of how you misconstrue the pro-life position as a pushing of private abstract morals.  The pro-life position has nothing to do with "my" morality.  First of all, in a democratic society those who hold such a view are no small number, and those views should be represented.  (Before you complain here, remember that you're the one who insisted that humanity was defined by consensus, not me.)  Secondly, the argument really doesn't stand on abstract morality, but assumes a morality we all hold in common: the sanctity of human life.  The rest of the arguments are based upon embryonic science and reason to show that it is untenable to say that a fetus is not human.  

Ron, have you read anything of Francis Beckworth's arguments?  If you had, I don't think you would try to say that it's obviously an attempt to make into law someone's private morals (akin to someone thinking it's wrong to dance or wear cotton).  If you do so, then you've made a straw man to attack which is nothing like the real arguments.


quote:
Nope, those are examples of protecting people from other people.


So are anti-abortion laws.  Why should a fetus (which embryologists unblinkingly tell us are human organisms separate from the mother) be considered non-human?

quote:
Me: Consensus has never defined truth, or else heliocentrism started with Copernicus. Neither did the Fuhrer (and many who shared his philosophy) believe certain classes of people to be human. Lack of total agreement says nothing about truth, or about what we should strive to do.


Ron: So, uh, you would content that lack of agreement is proof you're right? Sorry, Stephen, but not everyone is Copernicus and, thankfully, not everyone is Adolph Hitler.  ... Copernicus and Hitler were wrong.


Ron, if we're going to debate, at least remember the context of my quotes.  I refuted the consensus view of truth merely because YOU had used it in argument for your position of legal-pro-abortion.  Of course refuting your claim of consensus by popularity, doesn't mean that I believe the opposite (unpopularity = truth).  I was rather disregarding popular opinion as a measure of truth altogether.  My positive arguments refer to science, reason, and commonly-held-moral-principles.  A head count was your argument and I was simply disregarding that as valid debate.  That's not a negative argument ... that is refuting yours.  

Embryologists still tell is that a fetus is a human organism.  Why should we confidently consider it non-human, to the point of sanctioning its killing?

(And BTW, Copernicus was right, it was Aristotle who was wrong about Geocentrism.  My point was the Heliocentrism was right all along even when everyone by popular opinion thought the earth was stationary.)

quote:
Me: No one EVER disagreed with the sanctity of human life.  What they disagreed on, always, was which groups were to be considered human.


Ron: Just as you did in this post, Stephen? Many people place the potential for human life farther back in the chain of events than you appear to do. Once again, what makes them wrong and you right?


The questioning is granted.  I never said asking the question was wrong.  What I said is that there are and have always been wrong answers.  Segregationists, slaveowners, and Nationalist Socialists under the Third Reich were dead wrong about their views of humanity.  So are abortionists and those who believe the propaganda that a fetus is a non-human.

As to beliefs that extend into mere potentiality, I (like you) feel that those beliefs should be limited to personal choices, though they may persuade whom they will.  Why the difference?  Because one is mired in abstract potentiality and the other in being.  Embryologists tell is that fetus is a human organism in early development with a 4-chambered beating heart at 3 weeks, not a potential human organism.  You're trying to link and draw commonalities between two very different arguments.  You might even say the pro-life position (which would oppose making birth control illegal) represents a good balance between the Spirit of the Age mired in relativistic truth, and ultra-right religion which would impose personal convictions legally upon all.  If a fetus is a human organism (not a potential), they warrant legal protection from arbitrary killing through abortion, in the same way a temporarily comatose patient on a mechanical ventilator would warrant protection from a vengeful family member "pulling the plug".


Don't obfuscate the distinction between pure potentiality and actuality ... unless you want to argue that protecting your wife from others is invalid because she hasn't achieved self-actualization.  Are we completely human Ron?  

Grinch:  
quote:
I’m feeling generous though, lets call it 50%, so now we have half of the 43 million in orphanages and half with mothers that you’ve suggested would receive financial support from the state, presumably via taxation.

How much is that going to cost in total over the next 21 years?


You only feign generosity Grinch.  Remember, I watch the movie every year at Christmas.    

You're really tight-fisted, since you are presuming that the total number of abortions will be unwanted at birth and henceforth.  I would say it is more than reasonable to think that the propaganda of not-human-yet teaching makes them much easier not to want.  

I too was initially "unwanted" by my own parents since their pregnancy with me was 10 years after three children, unintended, and frankly unwelcome.  It wasn't the best news, you might say.  My mother literally cried at first.  Never considering the professional-consumer-untruth that I wasn't yet human and could be disposed of conscience-free for a fee, they of course acquired a proper desire for me in time.  They later concluded that I was a great blessing.  Whether they still feel so, is up for debate.  (kidding I hope)     

I also know a woman at work named Gail who has a 17 year old child born with severe spina-bifida who nearly died during correction, who is MR and is permanently in a wheelchair.  She is the absolute sunshine of Gail's life, is happier than most "normal" people, brings joy to others, and enjoys being alive.  I think if Gail had believed in a dehumanizing dogma, the escape-hatch would have been more attractive and likely taken.  Nor does presumed financial difficulty mean that there will be no way, or that someone else will have to foot all the bill.  I could have reasoned away my own two adoptions (about 20K apiece) for similar reasons.  The point is, your number isn't realistic, because neither economics nor emotions nor circumstances are static.

Stephen
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


56 posted 09-24-2008 03:24 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
The point is, your number isn't realistic..


No Stephen, the point is you’re avoiding the question.

There are 43 million abortions a year, if they didn’t take place they’d result in roughly 43 million kids, they have to be looked after by somebody, either the mother with state support or the state alone so how do you propose we pay for them?

I’ll make it easier - you can split them any which way you choose between state supported mother and solely state supported - how’s that for generosity?


Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


57 posted 09-24-2008 03:30 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Grinch,

You are still presuming that all abortions are for sheer economic reasons.  You are also presuming that the mothers who claim this can't support them in reality.  You need to find the percentage of which this is a reality, and not just use the total number of abortions underhandedly.

Until the question is properly asked, I can't be berated for avoiding it.  Much like "Are you still beating your wife"?  I just can't answer that one straightforward.    

Also, though I'll be willing to answer your question when you ask it properly, I'll still point out that the economics are secondary to the foundational question of humanity ... unless you want to argue for a benevolent genocidal program for the poor and economically challenged.

Stephen
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


58 posted 09-24-2008 04:50 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


If you really wanted to supply a credible answer to my question Stephen you could have found the figures you needed to do so in the time it took you to fashion your reason not to.

Just to prove how generous I can be I’ve done the leg work for you

The average number of adoptions worldwide is 260,000

130 million kids are born each year

The world population  is 6,602,224,175 - half of which live below the internationally accepted poverty line (can‘t afford the minimum recommended calorific intake).

There are 43 million abortions a year

Using the above figures at least 21.5 million mothers can’t afford to support themselves, let alone another kid, of those current adoption figures suggest that only 43000 would be adopted.

That leaves you with an minimum of 21457000 unwanted kids per year. How are you proposing we pay for their upkeep?


Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


59 posted 09-24-2008 05:14 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Grinch, there's still so much wrong with your math, that I'll choose to await the final revision.

quote:
The world population  is 6,602,224,175 - half of which live below the internationally accepted poverty line (can‘t afford the minimum recommended calorific intake).

There are 43 million abortions a year

Using the above figures at least 21.5 million mothers can’t afford to support themselves, let alone another kid, of those current adoption figures suggest that only 43000 would be adopted.


So half the world population lives below the poverty line ... therefore half of abortions are below the poverty line??

I would say that since most abortions occur in Western Industrialized nations, you need to keep googling for the correct figures.

When it comes to legality, we're talking about U.S. abortion and adoption.  What are the percentages of Mothers who are malnourished who have abortions in the U.S.?  Much lower percentage living below the poverty line here wouldn't you say?

I guess I'm not so generous as to do your legwork for you, but I know it's a lot less.  You've been forced to cut it half, but there's more cutting to do if you want to talk realistic numbers.

And how's that Genocide program for the impoverished coming along?  If your statistical questions are about exploring how to care better for the poor, I'm for the discussion.  If it is used as rhetoric for pro-abortion and how killing the unborn is distasteful but necessary, then I'll simply point out that my argument takes economic problems as secondary to human rights issues.


Stephen
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


60 posted 09-24-2008 05:56 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


Stephen,

Thanks for the answer, it was the one I was expecting.



quote:
my argument takes economic problems as secondary to human rights issues.


That’s a recipe for disaster if ever I heard one. The economic problems are called consequences Stephen and, trust me on this, ignoring consequences is never a good idea.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


61 posted 09-24-2008 10:01 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Grinch you want to address that faulty math?

one half of the world's population is in poverty = one half of abortions are due to poverty?

I'll gladly consider your question if you explain how this can be true.

And BTW, secondary does not mean ignored. it's not an attempt to evade consequences, it is resolving to deal with them, come what may.  If someone chooses to become pregnant, the resultant human life should be addressed not obliterated.  And yes I do think that addressing this includes government helps and doing everything that can be done to fight privation.

Stephen
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


62 posted 09-25-2008 02:22 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Grinch,

I've done some correcting of my own assumptions about abortion stats.  It looks like I can grant you that 78% of abortions are in developing countries, while 22% are in developed countries.  However I can find no statistics on the reasons given for abortions in countries outside the U.S.  I'll keep looking.

However of the roughly 46 million abortions per year worldwide, about 26 million abortions are legal and 20 million are illegal.  

In the United States, of the 1.3 million abortions per year, 21% give the reason of not being able to presently afford a baby.  28 % of these abortions are with those whose family incomes are less than $15,000.  38% of them are with those whose income is between 30k and 69k annually.

Since we are discussing legality in the U.S., the numbers of unwanted or severely impoverished babies requiring "support" would be much less than the staggering number you first suggested.

Again, more education on the scientific discoveries that human development begins to rapidly ensue at fertilization, more efforts to help mothers identify with the humanity of their unborn children, more fostering of pre-birth bonding, and increased efforts to provide alternatives such as adoption and foster care, will help significantly.


Stephen    
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


63 posted 09-25-2008 05:32 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Embryologists tell is that fetus is a human organism in early development with a 4-chambered beating heart at 3 weeks ...

Okay, Stephen, now we're getting somewhere perhaps. Grinch wants to draw the line at ten weeks. You want to draw it at three?


Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


64 posted 09-25-2008 05:41 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Actually based upon embryology, I want to draw the line at confirmation of pregnancy; For while a beating heart is a vivid indication of humanness, it isn't a determiner.  
echolong
Junior Member
since 09-17-2008
Posts 22


65 posted 09-25-2008 06:19 PM       View Profile for echolong   Email echolong   Edit/Delete Message     View IP for echolong

quote:
Okay, Stephen, now we're getting somewhere perhaps. Grinch wants to draw the line at ten weeks. You want to draw it at three?


Dear Ron, you just wanted to trap Stephanos. Do you think that every single cell needs to live its life  fully without being disturbed? (you must want to mention bacteria)  

[This message has been edited by echolong (09-25-2008 07:21 PM).]

Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


66 posted 09-25-2008 06:41 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

quote:
I want to draw the line at confirmation of pregnancy


Or maybe not.


http://www.parenting.com/article/Fertility/Postpartum/didnt-know-i-was-pregnant/2
rwood
Member Elite
since 02-29-2000
Posts 3797
Tennessee


67 posted 09-27-2008 01:46 PM       View Profile for rwood   Email rwood   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for rwood

Hello again, to all and to this subject:

"So what is it if it survives?"

Survival, by definition, makes the "it" non-static, or in the least dependent upon the energy of something or someone. And if the it is at all requiring of loving child care, then it is most likely a child, though I've attended to a few kittens, puppies, foals and calves, with loving care. The strangest was a duckling who thought I was his mommy. I didn't have to convince him he was a duck, but that I wasn't.

I've probably said this before. This topic survives, by our discussion of it, which is fine by me because that means people are still surviving to do so.

My question upon the topic is: How can I will a being to die, if I cannot will a being to live? I can't. It's my answer and not one I force upon others.

I'm not innocent of anything. The thought of abortion stabbed my mind for a second. Just because I immediately removed the knife doesn't make me any better of a person than those who found it to be a solution. I found that what existed in my life as a problem wasn't as big as my determination and love I felt for my unborn child, and that just doesn't apply for all.

Solutions are usually sought for problems. Problems: gamut/gamete. It's amazing how linked some words can be, or maybe my mind is just weird that way.

And then we will always come to what defines a being, when, how, why, etc.

I'm not apt to pro-forming terms as much as I am to educating myself and seeking out all I can, inward and outward, in order to simply live with my personal decisions, while respecting those of others. Though, some things are just not respectful or beneficial to any life.

Which brings me to another type of energy surviving around the topic:

Mental, emotional, and physical warfare toward a female, a woman, a mother. As if she doesn’t have enough from birth to deal with, internally, from her own self, from the moment she’s able to form an opinion, form a figure, form a mature reproductive system, and form a life capable of carrying a life. No matter what she chooses, there is warfare, from every direction on every level.

The statistics posted are, by all means, rough. They do not include the unreported.

I feel fortunate I am free as a person to have a personal choice. I'm careful not to exercise that right on a whim. I must correct myself here, for speaking in present terms. I'm no longer able to have another child. I have two: One hero and one miracle. I'll never see myself as all deserving of their special presence in my life. And I'm happy they have rights to their own personal choices. They, too, have to live with them.

Many want to preach life but have no idea how to end the nightmare some are living, the madness and stupidity involved in many unwanted pregnancies, the pain of a parent who loves her child more than life but cannot provide.

Even if a person seeks to nip in-the-bud what causes a child: Sex. No, wait, there are other methods of fertilization now.

Good gracious

times have really really changed.

or have they?
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


68 posted 09-27-2008 09:45 PM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

Reg...

just...thanks for showing up.



 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> Philosophy 101 >> So What Is It If It Survives   [ Page: 1  2  3  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors