Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Serious Questions about Pregnancy and Abortion
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 16 of 53 (346749)
09-05-2006 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Silent H
09-05-2006 4:48 PM


Re: Summarizing so far... (reply to all)
Before answering anything else, are you in agreement with the positions regarding the state of scientific evidence on these claims? If not, why not, and what could be changed?
What's not clear about my position so far? I laid it out in my first post in this thread. If you didn't understand that then I don't understand what you're asking me now.
I did not find support for the claims made and would like to have better/more correct info if it is out there.
Google? Or did you expect that your ignorance on an issue was sufficient reason for us all to jump to the task of doing your homework for you?
Again - what is going on here that you expect to be interesting? You're clearly not interested in contending that "abortion is murder", or "pregnancy is risk-free", so what are you here to talk about? We've already established what the risk is - great in general, very high if you don't live in the US or Europe.
We've determined the risk, thanks to the efforts of you and others, to a casual level of precision. If you wish to get more precise - how precise do you want to be? What more information about risk do you require?
Now I would turn the tables and ask why it would NOT be of interest to you, since it was a factual statement you made?
What was a factual statement that I made? Quote the statement. I didn't recognize any of the positions in your OP as mine; of course, that could simply be your famous inability to accurately percieve a person's actual position, which I have documented.
So you'll have to grant me some allowances. Which factual claims to which you have referred do you think I made?
Well most people have agreed that birth is the demarcation of when "personhood" begins
Oh? You polled all people? I guess I'd like to see your results, your poll model, and your methodology. Tell me when you had all this time to be polling the entire planet on the issue of when personhood begins. Truly, the long-distance charges must have been enormous!
I wasn't the one pressing for people to accept my position regarding that, or trying to address it as a topic in this thread.
Neither am I. I'm simply adopting the language of my opponents so that I may be easily understood by them, and moreover, show them that even if we accept the full legal or ethical or moral personhood of the fetus, abortion is still a right that women have.
The specifics of personhood among fetal entities is not a debate that I'm even close to being interested in, and contrary to your assertion, a consensus definately has not emerged on that issue in regards to the debate as a whole.
The main points here is the degree of physical risk posed by pregnancy and mental risk by abortion, and how that would impact the abortion debate for people... not just me.
That risk has been established to a precision completely sufficient for informal debate. So we're done, right? Oh, you want to be a lot more specific?
What on Earth for? And how specific, precisely?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Silent H, posted 09-05-2006 4:48 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Silent H, posted 09-05-2006 6:14 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 17 of 53 (346758)
09-05-2006 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by kongstad
09-05-2006 7:10 AM


BMJ study
Thanks Kongstad, sorry it took me a bit to go through the study you linked to.
this paper from 2005, that states that abortion does not influence on depression rates.
That statement is not entirely accurate. The study you linked to is very specific in its focus. It is meant to address possible flaws in an earlier study by Reardon which concluded that termination of unwanted first pregnancies was connected to depression.
They did this by recoding data and analyzing the effects of selection schemes used by the Reardon study. I will assume for sake of argument that their recoding and analysis is correct and so their criticism of Reardon stands.
Unfortunately the limit of conclusions from this study is pretty severe. They are only addressing abortions of unwanted first pregnancies. Here is what they say...
Several limitations remain, however. The research focuses on first pregnancies and does not encompass unwanted pregnancies experienced by women who previously had either a planned pregnancy or an unintended pregnancy that was wanted or that didn’t matter.
It seems to me somewhat intuitive that terminating an unwanted pregnancy would be less prone to depression than those who terminated an unintended pregnancy.
Despite other problems with the data, they make a somewhat strongly worded conclusion but it is limited in scope...
We conclude that, under present conditions of legal access to abortion, there is no credible evidence that choosing to terminate an unwanted first pregnancy puts women at higher risk of subsequent depression than does choosing to deliver an unwanted first pregnancy.
Have you read the more recent study that I provided in my OP? Do you feel that its conclusions are more/less valid than the study you quote here?

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by kongstad, posted 09-05-2006 7:10 AM kongstad has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 18 of 53 (346790)
09-05-2006 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by crashfrog
09-05-2006 5:05 PM


Re: Summarizing so far... (reply to all)
What's not clear about my position so far?
It seems you would agree with the proposed claim for #1 but you haven't voiced anything regarding claim #2. I'm just trying to find out if you are in agreement.
As it is I did read your first post and pointed out that your supporting docs were not completely sufficient for drawing conclusions. In fact it was somewhat misleading as they BOTH included abortion under risk associated with pregnancy.
I don't think that undercuts a position that pregnancy comes with risk, but it does diminish the level of risk that can be claimed (its predominance as cause of death), as well as ability to discuss that in conjunction with a support for abortion.
all to jump to the task of doing your homework for you?
I said I did do a search and have not found support for the claim made. That makes it a challenge to others to find evidence to support that claim. I'm not sure how controversial that is, in fact that is usually the M.O. at EvC.
We've already established what the risk is - great in general, very high if you don't live in the US or Europe.
Actually that hasn't been established at all. That there is risk has been established, that it is "great in general" does not seem to be in the data. It does seem very high in developing countries but as I already pointed out the data includes abortion deaths, which means it is unsuitable to use this data to discuss risk of carrying a child to term vs having an abortion to reduce risk.
What was a factual statement that I made? Quote the statement.
In my OP I directly quoted another poster that was attempting to defend an earlier statement you had made. I noted that another poster (that would be you) had limited the range of threat to 13-18 and not all women. That is the factual statement I just referred to. Here is a post by someone that appears to be you. Here is what that poster (perhaps you) said...
The leading cause of death, worldwide, for women ages 13-18 is pregnancy. You may have heard the term "complications from pregnancy", but that's a misnomer. The stresses that a developing fetus places on a mother's body simply kill the mother, sometimes.
Here is that same person, in an earlier post in that thread...
When you aggregate all cases of pregnancy together, you find that the number of deaths that result is greater than almost every other cause of death in women.
Do you recognize these or not? If you have data to support such claims I am certainly willing to look at it. It is NOT found in the data you linked to upthread as the data includes many things beyond demands of a fetus killing a mother, indeed it includes abortion, and definitely does NOT come out on top as a major killer of women worldwide compared to other problems.
Tell me when you had all this time to be polling the entire planet on the issue of when personhood begins.
Ah, my mistake. I meant within the US most people have agreed for person to be defined at birth. I was taking that because that seems to be what the law states. I understand there are some efforts underway to move it back for some criminal cases (killing a fetus when attacking/injuring a woman) but that does not seem to have broad consensus.
Oh, you want to be a lot more specific?
I didn't ask for greater degree of precision, I am asking about validity. Yeah it would be great if we could have a very precise measurement of risk but that is not necessary, a ball park will do. The question is if there is a valid ballpark figure we can agree to on these subjects... or is there insufficient data to make such claims?
I'm not sure why my interest in discussing the state of evidence appears bizarre. I was under the impression that that is what was behind EvC debate in general.
If this topic really doesn't interest you, then why did you post here at all? If it doesn't interest you then why do you appear to be making claims in other threads which reflect claim #1? You don't have to answer these last two questions, but I am puzzled.
Can you give me a simple yes/no regarding the proposed state of evidence I advanced on these claims?

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by crashfrog, posted 09-05-2006 5:05 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by crashfrog, posted 09-05-2006 7:44 PM Silent H has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 19 of 53 (346814)
09-05-2006 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Silent H
09-05-2006 6:14 PM


Re: Summarizing so far... (reply to all)
It seems you would agree with the proposed claim for #1 but you haven't voiced anything regarding claim #2.
I have no position on claim #2.
I don't think that undercuts a position that pregnancy comes with risk, but it does diminish the level of risk that can be claimed (its predominance as cause of death), as well as ability to discuss that in conjunction with a support for abortion.
I don't see that as valid reasoning. For instance, the fact that there are over 6 million auto accidents in America in a year makes it pretty obvious that it's important to wear one's seatbelt - even though a lot of those 6 million accidents involve people wearing seatbelts. The fact that deaths from abortions are included in those numbers doesn't impeach the argument that the risk of pregnancy justifies the avaliability of abortion.
Which isn't even what you're arguing! So what, again, is exactly under discussion, here? A very specific determination of risk? Who cares about that?
Do you recognize these or not?
No, those were me. I don't see anywhere in those statements the claim you referred to in your OP.
Ah, my mistake. I meant within the US most people have agreed for person to be defined at birth.
Oh, ok.
When did you poll the population of the United States?
I was taking that because that seems to be what the law states
What does that have to do with anything?
If you have data to support such claims I am certainly willing to look at it.
You don't, apparently, find the argument that the claims support contentious - arguments that were not, by the way, directed at you. You've already agreed to the fact that pregnancy connotes sufficient physical risk to justify the legality of abortion.
If you don't like the claims, which I believe I've supported with sufficient data to merit a conclusion on an informal internet forum despite your specious objections, consider them withdrawn. I'm not interested in arguing about it with you. I had thought I had made that clear by now. I don't see my argument as weaker without those claims being unimpeachably true, despite the fact that they're the conclusions of every relevant authority who appears to be studying the issue. Nonetheless, you've accepted the argument that they were intended to butress, so what are we talking about?
definitely does NOT come out on top as a major killer of women worldwide compared to other problems.
Er, but that's not the claim I made, remember? I specified women 13-18, not "women". Why are you asking me to defend claims that you know I didn't make?
I didn't ask for greater degree of precision, I am asking about validity.
You've already agreed that the contention of risk is valid. You're disputing the precision of the degree of risk. What on Earth are we still talking about?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Silent H, posted 09-05-2006 6:14 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Silent H, posted 09-06-2006 6:50 AM crashfrog has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 20 of 53 (346920)
09-06-2006 6:50 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by crashfrog
09-05-2006 7:44 PM


crash v crash
For instance, the fact that there are over 6 million auto accidents in America in a year makes it pretty obvious that it's important to wear one's seatbelt - even though a lot of those 6 million accidents involve people wearing seatbelts. The fact that deaths from abortions are included in those numbers doesn't impeach the argument that the risk of pregnancy justifies the avaliability of abortion.
Your analogy is incorrect. If you are arguing that the risk of pregnancy justifies the availability of abortion, then the proper car analogy is to show how many people DIE in auto accidents that weren't wearing seatbelts. If one just gives a study showing how many accidents there are, with no list of injuries/fatalities there is no argument for a seatbelt at all. If one gives a study showing how many deaths/injuries occur in accidents and it includes people wearing seatbelts then one still does not have adequate evidence to argue for seatbelt usage.
The only way to argue for the use of seatbelts... using statistics... is to show that accidents where people do not use seatbelts results in greater amounts of death/injury than for those who wear seatbelts. Going back to the study at hand, you cannot say for sure whether abortion actually decreases the risk of death for mothers within developing countries, as opposed to having a child. In fact it could very well be opposite due to poor medical tech.
I don't see anywhere in those statements the claim you referred to in your OP.
This is from my OP...
Claim #1 - "The leading cause of death for women worldwide is due to pregnancy and childbirth."
One poster limited this to only women 13-18, while another used the broader category.
Do you see it now?
When did you poll the population of the United States?
I didn't, I said in the very next sentence that I based my conclusion off of laws which result from a form of indirect polling called voting. You ask what that has to do with anything, and again I get confused. Look at what this other person (who appears to be you) says in another thread, when asked: "At what point does the unborn child cease to "be" or "become" a human? At what point does a human have the right of protection under law?"
According to the law, at birth. What part of that do you find ambiguous?
When 2ice responds to the above with: "I did not ask you what was legal. I asked you how you define these things." this same crash states in post #228...
According to the law. What part of that was hard to understand? The law governs my civil behavior. So on the civil question of when I'm going to act like a given organism is something with rights I should protect, I'm going to look to the law.
It appears then that at the very least this OTHER person called "crashfrog" (bizarro-crash?)uses the law to define when he feels a fetus may be considered a human being, and goes on to suggest the other poster ought to as well.
Personally I would not use the law or consensus to drive my own definition of what is human, but I certainly do view it as a handy, if imprecise, way of judging general consensus. How much precision do you need, and when did you poll americans to arrive at your own conclusion that there was NO general consensus?
You've already agreed to the fact that pregnancy connotes sufficient physical risk to justify the legality of abortion.
I have stated that even in the absence of physical risk women would be justified. Finding any amount of physical risk (as long as it is less than the risk from abortion) would add another valid argument for me to use, as well as a potential counter to antiabortion arguments. Others may find risk more valuable to their own arguments.
I didn't come on here to debunk the proChoice position, but to get a clear understanding of the evidence, something people can feel comfortable agreeing is the state of evidence for future debate. In the case of claim #1, it is not really supported, but out of the anlysis (thus far) there is certainly support for proChoice arguments that pregnancy involves some physical risk, especially in developing nations (though now as we see we cannot be sure if that is less risky than abortions in the same environment), that women may want to avoid.
Is there a problem that I am finding support for a proChoice position while negating other claims that go beyond evidence?
I believe I've supported with sufficient data to merit a conclusion on an informal internet forum despite your specious objections
Your claims within in this thread seem about the same as my proposed statement of evidence so yes I think they are merited. However your earlier claims in another thread, as discussed in the OP and repeated here (regarding 13-18 yos, as well as women in general) have not been. Not even for informal debate.
And my objections were not specious. That claim is funny since I directly quoted from the authors themselves about the limits of the study. The only thing I added later was that pregnancy risk in their study included risk from abortion complications, which is anything but a specious thing to point out. "Specious" sure sounds good when you want to dismiss an argument without having to present any logic or evidence. However, where I come from its name-calling, and a fallacy.
but that's not the claim I made, remember? I specified women 13-18, not "women". Why are you asking me to defend claims that you know I didn't make?
Uh, I just got done showing you your own quote from post #53 with the generic woman claim, and you agreed it was yours. Maybe it was that other crashfrog again? Here it is, showing even more of that post to make it clearer...
We're talking about all women worldwide.
So, yes, they do represent all cases of pregnancy. When you aggregate all cases of pregnancy together, you find that the number of deaths that result is greater than almost every other cause of death in women.
Looks like that other frog is suggesting all women and not just 13-18. The limited range was for "leading cause" alone, the larger range of all women (as we can see here) was "greater than almost any other cause of death". BOTH are not supported in the data you provided.
You've already agreed that the contention of risk is valid. You're disputing the precision of the degree of risk.
Don't put words in my mouth. I believe that the current state of evidence suggests some amount of risk, but not nearly to the degree as originally claimed. I have made NO argument with regard to precision, as the difference between "leading cause" or "one of the leading causes" and "not a leading cause" is not about precision of estimation, they are different ballpark estimates/conclusions.
The point is for people to agree or not. If AntiAbortion people agree then that offers an avenue of discussion. If they don't then they need to provide evidence. If ProChoice people agree then that smooths out any wrinkles between those on the proC side, by avoiding inaccurate statements. Or better still puts those on the proC side in a more solid position with valid evidence. In other words this portion not only clarifies the validity of evidence available on the subject, it happens to help the ProC side (to varying degrees).
What on Earth are we still talking about?
Again, I feel compelled to ask if you don't like this thread, and apparently are incapable of understanding what it's about... why are you posting, other than to break my balls?
I have no position on claim #2.
That's pretty convenient, and interesting given that that some other guy named crashfrog said he based his morality on science and scientific evidence. Guess that wasn't you again, huh?
Edited by holmes, : defining precision.

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by crashfrog, posted 09-05-2006 7:44 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by crashfrog, posted 09-06-2006 9:03 AM Silent H has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 21 of 53 (346933)
09-06-2006 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Silent H
09-06-2006 6:50 AM


Holmes vs. the truth
I didn't, I said in the very next sentence that I based my conclusion off of laws which result from a form of indirect polling called voting.
Uh...huh. That really seems valid to you? In a country where you have to have essentially a super-super-majority against an incumbent for him to lose an election, thanks to gerrymandering, I don't see how the actions of legislators can be used as evidence of a majority opinion on anything held by the American people.
If you didn't poll all Americans, you have zero basis for conclusions about their majority opinions. In other words you've done exactly what you've got such a huge bug up your ass about me doing in this thread.
It appears then that at the very least this OTHER person called "crashfrog" (bizarro-crash?)uses the law to define when he feels a fetus may be considered a human being, and goes on to suggest the other poster ought to as well.
No, that's me. No need to pretend like we're talking about someone else.
But here's the funny thing - I can't for the life of me see where I claimed that the law represented the majority opinion of the people of America. Maybe you can show me where I said that? If you can't I don't see what my individual opinion has to do with anything.
How much precision do you need, and when did you poll americans to arrive at your own conclusion that there was NO general consensus?
C'mon, Holmes. You know better than that. Your contention, your burden of proof. Where did I ever claim there was no consensus? Quote my exact language. You're really starting to look ridiculous, here.
All I'm leveling is the exact charge you like to level against me - faulty support for one's conclusions. You haven't supported your contention of consensus. The presence of laws doesn't support that contention because many laws are unpopular and opposed by a majority of the public. The actions of legislators often don't represent anything like a national consensus on an issue.
Retract your claim. It's that simple. It's what you always seem to want me to do when you think I've overstepped the evidence. Well, let's see if you're willing to do so now. I've often admitted to being wrong in the past. I'm curious to see if you have the capacity to admit error. I've never seen you do it.
Looks like that other frog is suggesting all women and not just 13-18.
You're taking me out of context. The context of these remarks is that for all women, pregnancy is only one of the leading causes of death. Not the leading cause.
Back to the old distortions again, eh? Hardly surprising.
Uh, I just got done showing you your own quote from post #53 with the generic woman claim, and you agreed it was yours.
Here's the context you've dishonestly chosen to omit, quote miner:
Did you miss the part where I told you that being pregnant was the leading cause of death, worldwide, for women aged 13-18? And one of the leading causes of death for all women?
This group of women, however, does not represent all cases of pregnancy. To say that they do would conflate two separate issues.
Again, didn't you read? We're talking about all women worldwide.
So, yes, they do represent all cases of pregnancy. When you aggregate all cases of pregnancy together, you find that the number of deaths that result is greater than almost every other cause of death in women.
I believe that the current state of evidence suggests some amount of risk, but not nearly to the degree as originally claimed.
What degree was claimed? If you dispute the degree but not the risk, how is it that we aren't having an argument about the degree?
I have made NO argument with regard to precision, as the difference between "leading cause" or "one of the leading causes" and "not a leading cause" is not about precision of estimation, they are different ballpark estimates/conclusions.
But that's exactly a dispute of precision. I mean, how high does it have to be up on the list to be described as "a leading cause"? I would use that terminology for anything in the top 20. You might only think it was valid to describe the top 5, or the top 2.
That's a debate about precision, if you hadn't noticed. A debate about words mean.
why are you posting, other than to break my balls?
To correct, once again, your all but endless distortions, quote mines, outright lies, and inconsistencies. It's impossible for you to post, apparently, without cramming them full of these distortions.
That's pretty convenient
What's convinient about it? Didn't you just tell me that if I wasn't interested on a topic, I didn't have to post about it?
Get over yourself, Holmes. Is it really so hard for you to believe that we're not hanging on every one of your posts with bated breath? That it's possible for you to offer a position on something that the right of us might simply not be interested in discussing?
Good grief, Holmes. Your ego is truly breathtaking.
and interesting given that that some other guy named crashfrog said he based his morality on science and scientific evidence. Guess that wasn't you again, huh?
Ah, yes. Ad hominem. Just wouldn't be a Holmes post without it, eh?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Silent H, posted 09-06-2006 6:50 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Silent H, posted 09-06-2006 11:44 AM crashfrog has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 22 of 53 (346959)
09-06-2006 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by crashfrog
09-06-2006 9:03 AM


crash v crash (stop hitting yourself)
I don't see how the actions of legislators can be used as evidence of a majority opinion on anything held by the American people.
Fair enough, how much precision do you need? I was taking it as a rough estimate of general consensus... which by the way doesn't mean majority of personal opinion but majority willing to accept as a practical matter. Remember that I don't share that opinion, but I do share in that consensus.
I figure if the majority of people had a problem with human life being identified by birth there'd be much more hue and cry about it than simply from the far right antiabortion opponents.
I don't see what my individual opinion has to do with anything.
You were arguing that you used law to define human life, and then went on to make the argument that if the other poster did not join that consensus he was setting himself beyond the law. Thus it is highly relevant to my point.
Now I could be wrong that that held an implication that most others do as well, but it seems to suggest that since the opposite would mean most people were above the law. In any case I must scratch my head... Why would you allow laws to dictate your definitions of human life where you view laws as the result of minorities held in power due to gerrymandering?
Quote my exact language. You're really starting to look ridiculous, here.
Buddy, every time I quote your language, you look more ridiculous. You keep saying you haven't said things which quite clearly you have.
All I'm leveling is the exact charge you like to level against me - faulty support for one's conclusions... Retract your claim. It's that simple.
Oh I see what this is. You are trying to catch me in some error regarding something that is totally offtopic, and near inconsequential, because you don't want to talk about the evidence which is the topic here.
If you want me to say that I don't have scientific evidence that most people in the US use birth as the point of considering a gestational life as human life, then fine. In fact I thought I already said that to you. I directly said my statement should have been just to the US, and I was basing that on common law. I certainly wasn't trying to hide that fact.
Do you want me to add that to claims in this thread, so we can investigate it? I'm more than willing to.
You're taking me out of context. The context of these remarks is that for all women, pregnancy is only one of the leading causes of death. Not the leading cause.
Uh... take a look again. You just pulled my words out of context! Here is what I said with the yellow portion being what you cut out to make the above statement...
Looks like that other frog is suggesting all women and not just 13-18. The limited range was for "leading cause" alone, the larger range of all women (as we can see here) was "greater than almost any other cause of death". BOTH are not supported in the data you provided.
So as you can see I am totally in sync with what your claim was, not twisting anything, and making a valid criticism. Now I am willing to accept an admission that you simply didn't read my post, but clearly you need to get a hold of yourself. And again...
What degree was claimed? If you dispute the degree but not the risk, how is it that we aren't having an argument about the degree?
Degree is exactly what I am trying to get some settlement on, based on validity of conclusions from studies, though it didn't have to be an argument. What I like is how you prefaced the quote with a statement that I was dishonest and a quote miner, when you saw exactly what I was referring to above...
Did you miss the part where I told you that being pregnant was the leading cause of death, worldwide, for women aged 13-18? And one of the leading causes of death for all women?
As I said, you have a limited range for "leading cause", and a general range for "one of the leading causes" and BOTH are not supported. If you wanted to make it "one of the leading causes of death" for all women in developing nations I could accept that (with the caveat we still don't know how much is from abortion), but your own source stated for developing nations the risk of pregnancy was small.
But that's exactly a dispute of precision. I mean, how high does it have to be up on the list to be described as "a leading cause"? I would use that terminology for anything in the top 20. You might only think it was valid to describe the top 5, or the top 2.
??? I'm sorry, but I have no idea where you came up with that use of "precision". It has no bearing on any uses I have seen that term put to (which is usually about measurement). In fact that looks like a conflicting statement given that you were suggesting my solution was demand more studies with better precision. How does one get "better precision" from different studies, when you are talking about how to label things AFTER measurement? That's not to mention I clearly didn't use precision that way when discussing measuring US views on when human life begins, and you had no problem with it. Sheesh.
For argument's sake I am willing to assume you meant precision to mean the above, and we can run with that definition. I'd suggest we change the name to "ranking", "defining", or "labelling", but whatever you want.
To address that issue, I don't think there is any wiggle room on "leading cause", that implies the top cause. For "one of the leading causes" I agree that there will be some subjective wiggle room. I'd say top 1-5. I think top 20 is stretching it a bit. Not to say you couldn't but I don't think most people would agree top 20 is "one of the leading".
We could add that to the list of claims to check out if you want.
It's impossible for you to post, apparently, without cramming them full of these distortions.
Apparently it is quite possible for me to do so, though there is a question of it is possible without having you quotemine me to invent a pretext of personal outrage, and so argue me rather than discuss evidence.
What's convinient about it? Didn't you just tell me that if I wasn't interested on a topic, I didn't have to post about it?
Well it seems convenient to me as it allows you to pretend that there is only one issue in this thread and so claim "why on earth are we here?" when you feel the other topic is completed. Convenient in that you will not have to admit that a claim by a fellow "defender of science" falls short of support. And convenient in that it allows you to ignore a point advanced by antiabortion people, which is gaining some level of scientific support.
Ah, yes. Ad hominem. Just wouldn't be a Holmes post without it, eh?
1) That wasn't ad hominem. I'm not even sure why you'd think it counted as that.
2) Are you claiming that you have not stated that science and scientific evidence is the basis for all your moral positions? If you have done so then I find your disinterest in discussing scientific evidence rather curious. If you claim not to have said so, then someone else using the name crashfrog certainly did.
Can we get back to the claims regarding state of evidence? A simple yes/no on the proposed new claims would have sufficed.
Edited by holmes, : made some of this mess a little clearer.

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by crashfrog, posted 09-06-2006 9:03 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by crashfrog, posted 09-06-2006 12:13 PM Silent H has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 23 of 53 (346965)
09-06-2006 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Silent H
09-06-2006 11:44 AM


Holmes' playground antics revisited
I was taking it as a rough estimate of general consensus...
Proven that it isn't. Can you provide evidence for your assertion, or not?
I figure if the majority of people had a problem with human life being identified by birth there'd be much more hue and cry about it than simply from the far right antiabortion opponents.
Hue and cry where? What did you do to determine if there was a hue or cry?
Honestly Holmes - how hard is it for you to admit error? It's amazing that you're still defending your assertion at this point. You said something dumb, you were careless. Admit it and let's move on, ok?
If you want me to say that I don't have scientific evidence that most people in the US use birth as the point of considering a gestational life as human life, then fine. In fact I thought I already said that to you.
Just come out and say it: "I made a mistake." It's really just that simple, Holmes. I don't believe you can do it, however. If you do I don't really have anything else to add to this thread. I believe that I supported my claims because your rebuttal to that support was specious and based on assumptions that are patently ridiculous (detailed below.) Apparently you disagree.
I'm fine with disagreeing with you on that. I doubt you'll be able to let it go.
You were arguing that you used law to define human life, and then went on to make the argument that if the other poster did not join that consensus he was setting himself beyond the law. Thus it is highly relevant to my point.
Explain how. I never asserted the law was a consensus, so here you are again putting words in my mouth.
Oh I see what this is. You are trying to catch me in some error regarding something that is totally offtopic, and near inconsequential, because you don't want to talk about the evidence which is the topic here.
Oh, poor baby! Everybody's out to get poor ol' Holmes!
The topic of this very thread is unsupported conclusions. You offered a conclusion that you couldn't support. How is it off-topic to point that out? This is just a diversion so that you don't have to admit error. How pathetic is that?
As I said, you have a limited range for "leading cause", and a general range for "one of the leading causes" and BOTH are not supported.
Did you miss the part where I agreed to retract those claims? I'm seriously not interested in discussing them further. I believe they've been supported, because I don't find your objections compelling. They're based on taking seriously the contention that, in the third world, more women die from abortions than from pregnancies. I reject that immediately, it's ridiculous. Abortion simply isn't that avaliable in the developing world to begin with.
So, since I reject that implication, there's no reason for me to believe that the inclusion of deaths from abortion somehow impeaches the data. I find it valid.
You disagree. Apparently you think it's reasonable to contend that more women die from abortions than from pregnancies. That's the only situation under which the data wouldn't show what I claimed it showed, and you claim it doesn't show what I claim it showed. QED.
Well, I'm not interested in arguing about that. So if you don't think the claims are supported, consider them retracted, as I told you before. They weren't essential to my original argument so why waste a bunch of time talking about how supported they are, if they're essentially disposable and we don't disagree on the position they were intended to butress?
What are we still arguing about? It seems like we're still arguing because it's impossible for you to do anything but try to appear superior to me. Honestly, it's pathetic.
In fact that looks like a conflicting statement given that you were suggesting my solution was to get more studies with better precision.
Where on Earth did I make that suggestion? Holmes, you're all over the map here. Once again, you're putting words in my mouth that I didn't say. I suspect you've probably got some quotemine, again, to try to prove otherwise. Honestly the only reason I think you get away with acting like a creationist is because none of the admins care to read our exchanges, unless you bitch to the admins to do so. I suspect we'll see that behavior again, soon.
Are you claiming that you have not stated that science and scientific evidence is the basis for all your moral positions?
What's the relevance here? That fact that I try to do that doesn't seem relevant to what scientific topics I'm interested in.
I mean, there's a whole handful of topics just in the past few weeks that I have commented on, and to which you have not responded. And why should you? You're not required to be interested in every single topic that I participate in.
Why is it that you won't extend me the same courtesy? Is it so hard for you to understand that I'm not acutely interested in every single position you care to take?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Silent H, posted 09-06-2006 11:44 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 09-06-2006 2:13 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 26 by Silent H, posted 09-06-2006 3:20 PM crashfrog has replied

  
2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5851 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 24 of 53 (346982)
09-06-2006 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by crashfrog
09-05-2006 8:29 AM


But even in a developed country, such as ours, pregnancy is a significant risk to the mother's health. Throughout the developed countries, one in every 1800 women will die due to being pregnant.
In discussing psychological affects of abortion in the recent thread studies were cited. I used the lowest estimate cited in those studies for people having long term psycholigical affects from abortion. This was 1%. This was not considered a significant number by you, schraf, or the studies cited.
Above you are considering 1/1800 deaths from pregnancy as being a significant risk factor in womens health. This is .0005% or 5 ten thousandths of one percent.
Some general concensus needs to be reached that is consistant and reasonably non biased for exactly what a significant percentage is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by crashfrog, posted 09-05-2006 8:29 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5851 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 25 of 53 (346988)
09-06-2006 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by crashfrog
09-06-2006 12:13 PM


Re: Holmes' playground antics revisited
Holmes:
You were arguing that you used law to define human life, and then went on to make the argument that if the other poster did not join that consensus he was setting himself beyond the law. Thus it is highly relevant to my point.
Crashfrog:
Explain how. I never asserted the law was a consensus, so here you are again putting words in my mouth.
Topic: Right to Life Ethical Considerations
Message 228:
[Twice Baked:
I did not ask you what was legal. I asked you how you define these things.]
[ Crashfrog:
According to the law. What part of that was hard to understand? The law governs my civil behavior. So on the civil question of when I'm going to act like a given organism is something with rights I should protect, I'm going to look to the law.
I don't hold myself above the law, I guess. Apparently you think differently.]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by crashfrog, posted 09-06-2006 12:13 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by crashfrog, posted 09-06-2006 3:27 PM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 26 of 53 (347005)
09-06-2006 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by crashfrog
09-06-2006 12:13 PM


Re: Holmes' playground antics revisited
Proven that it isn't. Can you provide evidence for your assertion, or not?
I answered this question later in the post you are replying to. Is there a reason you left this question in?
Honestly Holmes - how hard is it for you to admit error?... Just come out and say it: "I made a mistake." It's really just that simple, Holmes. I don't believe you can do it...
Oh, you mean like back in post #18? Here it is again...
Ah, my mistake. I meant within the US most people have agreed for person to be defined at birth. I was taking that because that seems to be what the law states. I understand there are some efforts underway to move it back for some criminal cases (killing a fetus when attacking/injuring a woman) but that does not seem to have broad consensus.
See that, I admitted I made a mistake, and then clarified the scope of what I was saying as well as where I came up with my position. I have gone on record that the evidence I used was of limited quality, so I'm not sure why that would require an apology because I never claimed it was conclusive on the matter.
Explain how. I never asserted the law was a consensus, so here you are again putting words in my mouth.
Is it that you don't know what the word consensus means? I just said that you argued that the other poster SHOULD join the consensus created by the law, otherwise he would be above it. Unless you are suggesting that most people consider themselves above the law, and act against the definition of human life set in the law, they are in consensus.
I supported my claims because your rebuttal to that support was specious and based on assumptions that are patently ridiculous
And apparently you still haven't looked up the meaning of specious. Boy I wish all my college courses had been this easy to pass... someone confronts you with evidence and you just whisk it away with name-calling, brilliant!
Oh wait, this time you say you'll support that claim...
Did you miss the part where I agreed to retract those claims?
Yes, but then you refuse to answer a simple question on the proposed states of current evidence, and go on to make contradictory statements like the following...
I believe they've been supported, because I don't find your objections compelling. They're based on taking seriously the contention that, in the third world, more women die from abortions than from pregnancies. I reject that immediately, it's ridiculous. Abortion simply isn't that avaliable in the developing world to begin with.
So you retract, yet then reserve the right to continue acting as if the evidence exists for your claim. Oh by the way, if you want an example of a specious argument, look no further than your statement above.
First you prop a strawman of what I said... my argument does NOT rely on believing abortion results in more deaths, I only stated that we cannot tell and that could be the case... and then state categorically abortion isn't available in the developing world.
If you READ YOUR OWN MATERIAL you will discover that they say there is abortion in developing nations. Now am I supposed to believe your assertion on this matter, or the material you presented as evidence to support your claim?
you think it's reasonable to contend that more women die from abortions than from pregnancies. That's the only situation under which the data wouldn't show what I claimed it showed, and you claim it doesn't show what I claim it showed.
No, that's not what I said. While I mentioned that is possible, that is not necessary to undercut your use of it in your argument. We can assume for sake of argument that no abortions are included and the stats still don't show what you claim.
They weren't essential to my original argument so why waste a bunch of time talking about how supported they are, if they're essentially disposable and we don't disagree on the position they were intended to butress?
Did you read the OP or not? I was looking to investigate the state of evidence regarding the issues of risk related to pregnancy (physical), and abortion (mental). I don't view any evidence as "disposable" only placed into a context so we can come to a conclusion on the state of evidence.
unless you bitch to the admins to do so. I suspect we'll see that behavior again, soon.
You got suspended for language. I didn't bitch to anyone, I asked if I got to use the same language. If you noticed, other people did complain. And no, you won't see me bitching to anyone... but who is this "we" you are talking about?
What's the relevance here? That fact that I try to do that doesn't seem relevant to what scientific topics I'm interested in.
That doesn't make much sense. You claimed that you used science and scientific evidence to form all your moral positions. To now claim that you are uninterested in evidence that impacts, at least being brought to bear against, a moral position you hold means you do NOT use science to form your position... that would mean you pick and choose scientific data that interests you to reinforce your opinion.
I myself am not interested in any and all subjects. Heck, I don't even claim to base all my moral positions on scientific evidence. But if I am engaging in debates on a subject and factual claims are made, I am interested in finding out if those factual claims have evidentiary support. If I don't then I can't make claims about those facts and the opponent's position stands.
You can do what you want, I just find it curious given the earlier claim.

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by crashfrog, posted 09-06-2006 12:13 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by crashfrog, posted 09-06-2006 3:47 PM Silent H has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 27 of 53 (347009)
09-06-2006 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by 2ice_baked_taters
09-06-2006 2:13 PM


Re: Holmes' playground antics revisited
Fascinating, but I already quoted that exchange, and like I said then, I don't see where I asserted that the law represented a consensus.
You might have noticed that the word consensus doesn't even appear in that post. Surely I wasn't the only one that noticed that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 09-06-2006 2:13 PM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 28 of 53 (347015)
09-06-2006 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Silent H
09-06-2006 3:20 PM


Re: Holmes' playground antics revisited
Ah, my mistake. I meant within the US most people have agreed for person to be defined at birth.
But that's what your mistaken about. You haven't shown that most people agreed for person to be defined at birth.
That's your mistake. You think you admitted it, but now you've just repeated it. Do you see why I think it's impossible for you to actually admit when you're mistaken?
I have gone on record that the evidence I used was of limited quality, so I'm not sure why that would require an apology because I never claimed it was conclusive on the matter.
Where did I make an assertion that anything was conclusive? Why do you think that you simply get to assert factual claims that don't have to actually be true?
You asserted that something was true, something easily measured if it is. You've offered no evidence that it is. You seem to be under the impression that you can demand evidence from others - even open threads to scrutinze the most minute, incidental claim for its evidentiary basis - but that others are completely unreasonable to do the same to you.
Why is that?
Is it that you don't know what the word consensus means? I just said that you argued that the other poster SHOULD join the consensus created by the law
As shown, I didn't even use the word "consensus." How could I have asserted what you claim?
Read again Holmes, and understand it this time. I have never asserted the law represents a consensus. Why on Earth would I have challenged you for using laws as an indicator of consensus if I believed that the law represented a consensus? Wouldn't that, in fact, be an extremely stupid thing to have done?
Yes, but then you refuse to answer a simple question on the proposed states of current evidence
Which question? If you think I'm avoiding questions it's because I assume most of your questions, like most people's, are rhetorical. If there's a specific question you'd like to have answered you'll have to set it out somehow and make it more prominent. It's hard enough keeping these discussions from spiralling into multiple-page posts as it is without being obligated to address every sentence with a question mark behind it.
So you retract, yet then reserve the right to continue acting as if the evidence exists for your claim.
Yes. It's called "agreeing to disagree." It's what people do when they can't even come to an agreement on basic premises, like what evidence is needed to support a claim.
What makes you think you're the only one who gets to have ideas about what kind of evidence is needed to support a claim in this context? (The context of an informal, recreational internet debate board.) That you get to dictate to me whether or not I'm allowed to consider a claim supported by certain evidence? I'm sorry but I reserve the right to come to my own position on that issue.
You're just going to have to accept that.
First you prop a strawman of what I said... my argument does NOT rely on believing abortion results in more deaths, I only stated that we cannot tell and that could be the case... and then state categorically abortion isn't available in the developing world.
Yes. But no reasonable person would assume it to be the case, and you certainly haven't provided any evidence that it is. Thus, since your argument is only valid under assumptions that no reasonable person would accept, I have every reason to reject it as specious.
If you READ YOUR OWN MATERIAL you will discover that they say there is abortion in developing nations.
I never said that abortion was completely unavaliable in the developing world. One more of your distortions.
We can assume for sake of argument that no abortions are included and the stats still don't show what you claim.
Doesn't show what claim? Answer carefully.
I was looking to investigate the state of evidence regarding the issues of risk related to pregnancy (physical), and abortion (mental).
And what is your position on the state of evidence of the former? I'm not interested in anything related to the latter, remember.
You claimed that you used science and scientific evidence to form all your moral positions. To now claim that you are uninterested in evidence that impacts, at least being brought to bear against, a moral position you hold
How so? I've never claimed anything about mental issues related to abortion, and I don't recall forming a moral position on the subject. Are you sure you're not confusing me with Schraf? Moreover - do you think maybe it's just possible that you misunderstood what I was saying then, or that my position on moral issues may have changed since then? It really seems like you take an unhealthy interest in how I make moral decisions. Who am I to you that you take such an interest? It's a little creepy.
Do you see why I accuse you of having a personal vendetta against me? Everything I say and do is subject to your intense scrutiny, a scrutiny that I don't see applied to anybody else, except maybe Schrafinator. What did I ever do to you, Holmes, that I might merit such personal attention?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Silent H, posted 09-06-2006 3:20 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Jazzns, posted 09-06-2006 5:33 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 30 by Silent H, posted 09-06-2006 6:03 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 29 of 53 (347046)
09-06-2006 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by crashfrog
09-06-2006 3:47 PM


Re: Holmes' playground antics revisited
Do you see why I accuse you of having a personal vendetta against me? Everything I say and do is subject to your intense scrutiny, a scrutiny that I don't see applied to anybody else, except maybe Schrafinator. What did I ever do to you, Holmes, that I might merit such personal attention?
This is a side issue but I think I have an answer. You are simply not hopeless. Unlike a creationists for example, you are a smart enough guy who can potentially accept new information and change your mind about something.
I love reading these back and forth discussions between two "evos" because it is more than just one person banging their head against a tall brick wall of self-induced ignorance.
The subtlty is also far more entertaining and can be quite humerous.
I still think deep down that you and holmes could get along just fine. =)

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by crashfrog, posted 09-06-2006 3:47 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 30 of 53 (347058)
09-06-2006 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by crashfrog
09-06-2006 3:47 PM


Re: Holmes' playground antics revisited
But that's what your mistaken about. You haven't shown that most people agreed for person to be defined at birth.
Ahem... You said I never admit a mistake. I showed you I did. That was primarily what the quote was for. As a bonus, I showed in the full quote (which you just mined) that directly after my admission I went on to explain what the scope was AND why that seemed to be the case.
I have said that laws are not perfect and my opinion could be wrong, HOWEVER as long as laws are not being challenged they do APPEAR to reflect some degree of consensus. I am willing to add this issue to the list for examination.
Do you see why I think it's impossible for you to actually admit when you're mistaken?
No, especially when I just proved that I did admit I made a mistake.
What's funny is that you continue to go on and on about this issue, when I not only have stated that my evidence may not be appropriate and I am willing to open it for examination. Why don't you just say "okay" if the issue is so important to you?
You seem to be under the impression that you can demand evidence from others - even open threads to scrutinze the most minute, incidental claim for its evidentiary basis - but that others are completely unreasonable to do the same to you.
I am willing to look at evidence on it and come to a consensus on that evidence, which is all I was asking anyone in this thread to do with the other claims. I have been asking if you want me to do that for at least the last two posts... can you read?
I didn't even use the word "consensus." How could I have asserted what you claim?
You do understand that in english more than one word can have the same meaning, and in this case one can refer to something without using a specific word? I explained how your argument implied consensus. If you are having problems reading, perhaps you should alert posters. I'll try again...
Consensus is essentially an agreement to something, in this case a consensus to use birth as a defining line between nonperson and personhood. When you argue to a person that the law makes that definition, and that his not using that definition makes him above the law, then unless you believe most people feel above the law they must use that definition and so by definition be in consensus. Its called logic.
So you can make this very clear, you were either implying most people were in consensus and the other poster was an odd man out, most are not in consensus and so the poster's being "above the law" is commonplace, or you didn't know either way but decided that it sounds good not to be "above the law" whether it is widely held or not. That last argument would logically carry no weight in the way you used it against the other poster.
If there's a specific question you'd like to have answered you'll have to set it out somehow and make it more prominent.
Well I started with it once, and asked you to adress it before anything else. And in another post I placed it last. Others had it mixed around. How do I get your attention?
Yes. It's called "agreeing to disagree."
Wow, so you agree with Candian Steve, Faith, and Tal? That figures. Look I'm going to tell you what I told them. You can agree to disagree ONCE you agree on the facts underlying an issue and understand more than one point of view can emerge from those facts.
This simply is not the case for what you claim to be supported by the evidence you gave.
I'm sorry but I reserve the right to come to my own position on that issue. You're just going to have to accept that.
Oh, I can accept the fact that you are choosing to be willfully ignorant, but that is different than agreeing to disagree on the facts. The facts are that the evidence you provided do not support your claims. Its like when Tal says a Fox article shows WMDs have been found, and the only evidence for it is in the headline, while the rest of the article states otherwise. Except for the few fragments that have been pulled out of context, reading the full report (and in some cases just looking at the data) reveals that pregnancy itself does not pose that great of risk. We can agree risk occurs, and it is very high where medical technology is not available. But that is it.
That means appealing to its ranking as a threat, especially on a worldwide scale is disingenuous. The report this data is culled from argues that more medical technology is needed, not abortions, because pregnancy within developed nations carries such a low risk! That patently undermines the claim.
You can of course continue to argue that some risk is enough to justify abortion, but you cannot claim your earlier statements are supported by your evidence. And there is no way I could "agree to disagree" on that. I mean really, you are essentially in disagreement with your own source.
no reasonable person would assume it to be the case, and you certainly haven't provided any evidence that it is.
??? If we can agree that under that abortion where it is illegal is more dangerous because it leads to abortions without much medical training, especially as further conditions arise, why is it unreasonable to think that abortions where there is little medical training in general would not be more dangerous. It certainly isn't conclusive, but it is plausible.
I never said that abortion was completely unavaliable in the developing world. One more of your distortions.
Ah another mistake. Just to be clear I am saying my mistake. Not an intentional distortion but a misread (popped over the "that" in "that available"). See how simple it is to correct such a thing!
Of course now I wonder what you mean by "that available"? Yeah, clean abortions with trained staff probably aren't, but why does that make abortion less available? Women have been using all sorts of methods forever. And even where the sterile trained kind might be, medical attention might not be available should complications arise later. This is why I suggested risk (and so death) associated with abortion may very well be higher in developing nations.
Doesn't show what claim? Answer carefully.
Your earlier, now suppressed but you claim to believe is still supported, that pregnancy is a leading cause of death worldwide for women 13-18, and one of the leading causes of death for all women.
The latter is only possible with a rather free use of the the phrase "one of the leading", and that by using numerical ranking rather than actual percentages.
And what is your position on the state of evidence of the former?
I proposed something quite similar to what you said early on, which is why I didn't understand the hesitation to just state that you agreed. As follows...
While evidence shows that there is risk inherent to pregnancy, and that the risk is increased dramatically with little medical technology/availability, the degree of risk is not as great as seen in claim #1.
I've never claimed anything about mental issues related to abortion, and I don't recall forming a moral position on the subject
The moral position is on abortion itself. Opponents, people that are antiabortion, are advancing and argument that abortion presents a risk of mental harm and so should be considered in allowing abortion to exist and/or in how preabortion counseling is handled.
You can pretend to be on an island if you wish, but it seems to me a person that does not take into consideration the arguments of opponents when formulating a position, is sort of half-assing it.
Who am I to you that you take such an interest? It's a little creepy.
All I said is that it is curious that a person who beats his chest about how steeped in evidence his moral positions are, would not be interested in discussing evidence that reflects on moral positions he holds.
If you hadn't blown so much hot air about your connection to science earlier, I wouldn't have noticed or cared to mention anything about your disinterest in it now.
Do you see why I accuse you of having a personal vendetta against me?
No. I opened a thread to investigate some claims. I went out of my way not to mention you as a source for one of them, and asked not to get into that. When you came in all I did was address the evidence you provided, to which I've been attacked personally with increasing vehemence.
I think you are projecting. This makes twice now that you have made out like I am persuing some vendetta with you, when YOU were the one to start posting to me, and refused to just deal with the evidence (and topic) once your evidence gets questioned, and instead focus on deconstructing me.

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by crashfrog, posted 09-06-2006 3:47 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by crashfrog, posted 09-06-2006 6:43 PM Silent H has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024