If Life begins at conception

[Neoteny]

On that note though, I am sure we could define humans through DNA. Not that it would be easy but it could be done if there was an interest.

It can be done and it is being done. It's just a matter of locating, characterizing, and determining the interactions between various transcription factors and epigenetic players. dwilhelmi would no doubt tell us that's simple. It's all hedgehogs and hoxes. I reckon he's really referring to, though poorly, the statistics discussing percentage differences in our genomes, which is probably fair enough, but easy to shred logically. Natty seems to be enjoying it.

I think I get what you mean though. What if there is a mutation in the DNA, is it still human? To what degree? Where is the cut off?

The only thing is, that can be as much an excuse to let this go on as it is a reason. I mean most certainly anything created from human sperm and human egg in a womb should be considered human, regardless of a mutation after that point. That is how it would work with other animals.

Again, that's fair enough, and as good a place as any to agree to disagree. I think there's much more to humanity (and chimpanity), than the arrangements of our guanines (and I'm a pretty big reductionist), but I get the sneaking suspicion that you do too.

[dwilhelmi]

How exactly does your definition make "logical" sense? It's just some arbitrary thing that you decide that makes someone "human" because it suits your agenda. Anal warts have human DNA too. Skin flakes that fall off you have human DNA. Your hair contains human DNA. Should all of those be defined as "human" as well?

In the real world, there IS no easy or clear-cut answer to the question "what is human". Like it or not, things are not always black and white, and there are no easy answers to all questions. It's easy to make absolute statements and rhetoric, but in the real world, there are real people who have real problems, and trying to institute some absolute morality that everyone has to follow is the first step to totalitarianism.

There is no absolute scientific definition of "human", so we have to look at it pragmatically - is it practical to ban abortions? And the answer is an overwhelming "f*ck NO".

Good point. I don't know too much about DNA, so I was oversimplifying for the sake of my argument. In my mind, the point of fertilization is the only line I can point to, in the entire process, and say "before this point, definitely not human". Since after that point, I can find no other clear line, that is the point I choose to use.

How, though, is the answer to your question "an overwhelming f*ck NO"?

Much like your suggestion that it's up to people who are in favour of the current system where abortions are legal to somehow provide evidence against your fantasy land where abortion rates decrease when made illegal. Surely you wouldn't be so unfair as to deprive us of your careful research backing up your stance?

My stance (making something illegal causes occurrences of said activity to decrease) is the logical, expected conclusion. Most people would agree that if you outlaw something, it happens less. That is why you outlaw things. If you claim that outlawing an activity makes said activity increase (the opposite of the expected outcome), then the burden of proof lies with the person making said claim.

In short, my proof is that if outlawing an activity did not decrease occurrences of an activity, nothing would be outlawed, ever. Therefore, outlawing an activity must have some kind of reduction effect.

[natty dread]

My stance (making something illegal causes occurrences of said activity to decrease) is the logical, expected conclusion. Most people would agree that if you outlaw something, it happens less. That is why you outlaw things.

Oh how nice. Hey, how about fixing poverty? All we have to do is make being poor illegal, and everyone will instantly stop being poor. If you outlaw something, it happens less!

show: more serious response

[Neoteny]

LIFE BEGINS AT IMPLANTATION

FOOLS

Seriously though. The point behind these one liners is an argument from absurdity targeting the idea that fertilization is a pretty arbitrary place. It most certainly is not a "point." Like everything else in biology. It is a process. Natty already bitched at you about black and white. Everything in biology is the same way. Life is a process. Just like everything else. If you come away from this discussion with that in mind, I'll consider my work here a success.

[Symmetry]

How exactly does your definition make "logical" sense? It's just some arbitrary thing that you decide that makes someone "human" because it suits your agenda. Anal warts have human DNA too. Skin flakes that fall off you have human DNA. Your hair contains human DNA. Should all of those be defined as "human" as well?

In the real world, there IS no easy or clear-cut answer to the question "what is human". Like it or not, things are not always black and white, and there are no easy answers to all questions. It's easy to make absolute statements and rhetoric, but in the real world, there are real people who have real problems, and trying to institute some absolute morality that everyone has to follow is the first step to totalitarianism.

There is no absolute scientific definition of "human", so we have to look at it pragmatically - is it practical to ban abortions? And the answer is an overwhelming "f*ck NO".

Good point. I don't know too much about DNA, so I was oversimplifying for the sake of my argument. In my mind, the point of fertilization is the only line I can point to, in the entire process, and say "before this point, definitely not human". Since after that point, I can find no other clear line, that is the point I choose to use.

How, though, is the answer to your question "an overwhelming f*ck NO"?

Much like your suggestion that it's up to people who are in favour of the current system where abortions are legal to somehow provide evidence against your fantasy land where abortion rates decrease when made illegal. Surely you wouldn't be so unfair as to deprive us of your careful research backing up your stance?

My stance (making something illegal causes occurrences of said activity to decrease) is the logical, expected conclusion. Most people would agree that if you outlaw something, it happens less. That is why you outlaw things. If you claim that outlawing an activity makes said activity increase (the opposite of the expected outcome), then the burden of proof lies with the person making said claim.

In short, my proof is that if outlawing an activity did not decrease occurrences of an activity, nothing would be outlawed, ever. Therefore, outlawing an activity must have some kind of reduction effect.

Most folks also have a passing familiarity with prohibition and the war on drugs. Sadly these seem to have passed you by in your rush to think that merely making something illegal and dangerous means that people won't find a way to get it.

Your "proof" is laughably poor, and provides no proof that making abortion illegal would reduce rates of abortion. You do have some substance to your arguments, beyond simply saying "I think it will happen" in a variety of ways, don't you?

[BigBallinStalin]

I have yet to see ITT any evidence that a prohibition on (at least) something leads to greater or lesser consumption. Natty,Sym, and dwilhelmi have stated contrary facts, crossed their arms, but haven't shown any evidence.

[Symmetry]

I have yet to see ITT any evidence that a prohibition on (at least) something leads to greater or lesser consumption. Natty,Sym, and dwilhelmi have stated contrary facts, crossed their arms, but haven't shown any evidence.

Meh, it ain't that hard to google.

Higher abortion rates where it's illegal (USA Today)

Legal or not, abortion rates compare (NYTimes)

Bans 'do not cut abortion rate' (BBC)

Universal health care tends to cut the abortion rate (WaPo)

[BigBallinStalin]

<looks at dwilhelmi>

[kentington]

I have yet to see ITT any evidence that a prohibition on (at least) something leads to greater or lesser consumption. Natty,Sym, and dwilhelmi have stated contrary facts, crossed their arms, but haven't shown any evidence.

Meh, it ain't that hard to google.

Higher abortion rates where it's illegal (USA Today)

Legal or not, abortion rates compare (NYTimes)

Bans 'do not cut abortion rate' (BBC)

Universal health care tends to cut the abortion rate (WaPo)

All this shows is that in less developed countries unsafe abortions are higher, not abortions as a total. Also, these are places where abortions happen because they can not have another child because of poverty. Also, contraceptives are not as easy to obtain. Look at the chart on your third link. I may be reading it wrong, if so let me know.

Also, shouldn't we have a far smaller number of total abortions per 1,000 women than less developed countries? Safe or unsafe we have access to sex ed and contraceptives.

[kentington]

On that note though, I am sure we could define humans through DNA. Not that it would be easy but it could be done if there was an interest.

It can be done and it is being done. It's just a matter of locating, characterizing, and determining the interactions between various transcription factors and epigenetic players. dwilhelmi would no doubt tell us that's simple. It's all hedgehogs and hoxes. I reckon he's really referring to, though poorly, the statistics discussing percentage differences in our genomes, which is probably fair enough, but easy to shred logically. Natty seems to be enjoying it.

I think I get what you mean though. What if there is a mutation in the DNA, is it still human? To what degree? Where is the cut off?

The only thing is, that can be as much an excuse to let this go on as it is a reason. I mean most certainly anything created from human sperm and human egg in a womb should be considered human, regardless of a mutation after that point. That is how it would work with other animals.

Again, that's fair enough, and as good a place as any to agree to disagree. I think there's much more to humanity (and chimpanity), than the arrangements of our guanines (and I'm a pretty big reductionist), but I get the sneaking suspicion that you do too.

Thanks for that response and the civility.
If I get you right, your last statement is saying that DNA is not enough for humanity just as Symmetry had posted? I can agree with that, but as to your point we disagree with the point, when is it human?
Do you agree that a point can be established that is more accurate than the system currently used? As far as when it is able to be aborted.

Separate question; I don't want to google the details of abortion, because I don't want to know all of them. Does anyone know if the (insert your word for human/cells) is killed/terminated before being removed from the body?

[dwilhelmi]

I have yet to see ITT any evidence that a prohibition on (at least) something leads to greater or lesser consumption. Natty,Sym, and dwilhelmi have stated contrary facts, crossed their arms, but haven't shown any evidence.

Meh, it ain't that hard to google.

Higher abortion rates where it's illegal (USA Today)

Legal or not, abortion rates compare (NYTimes)

Bans 'do not cut abortion rate' (BBC)

Universal health care tends to cut the abortion rate (WaPo)

For the first three links, they all appear to point to the same study, performed by The Guttmacher Institute, which is a pro-choice organization. The rates of abortion in countries where abortion was illegal was gained by "using data on hospital admissions for abortion complications, interviews with local family planning experts and surveys of women in those countries" - in other words, there was no solid data, so they did the best they could by estimating based off of what data they could find. So a group of pro-abortion people came up with an "educated guess" on the number of abortions and, surprise, it was higher!

Furthermore, in many of the abortion-legal countries, they also had greater access to birth control, which makes sense - legalization of abortion and easier access to birth control both being more liberal-leaning ideas. So the providing of birth control could be having a significant impact on the abortion rates.

Which brings me to the fourth link, which made no claims that making abortion illegal made abortion rates go up, but instead made the claim that easier access to birth control and health care made abortion rates go down. That makes perfect sense, and I think that birth control should definitely be easier to access. So, that to me raises the question - what would the abortion rates look like if a country both outlawed abortion AND provided easy access to birth control?

Regardless, this all brings me back to my second point in my original post - any study done comparing the abortion rates of two different countries is unreliable at best, because there are so many other factors to consider.

[Symmetry]

I have yet to see ITT any evidence that a prohibition on (at least) something leads to greater or lesser consumption. Natty,Sym, and dwilhelmi have stated contrary facts, crossed their arms, but haven't shown any evidence.

Meh, it ain't that hard to google.

Higher abortion rates where it's illegal (USA Today)

Legal or not, abortion rates compare (NYTimes)

Bans 'do not cut abortion rate' (BBC)

Universal health care tends to cut the abortion rate (WaPo)

All this shows is that in less developed countries unsafe abortions are higher, not abortions as a total. Also, these are places where abortions happen because they can not have another child because of poverty. Also, contraceptives are not as easy to obtain. Look at the chart on your third link. I may be reading it wrong, if so let me know.

Also, shouldn't we have a far smaller number of total abortions per 1,000 women than less developed countries? Safe or unsafe we have access to sex ed and contraceptives.

From the first line of the first link:

Abortion rates are higher in countries where the procedure is illegal and nearly half of all abortions worldwide are unsafe, with the vast majority in developing countries, a new study concludes.

From the second link:

“We now have a global picture of induced abortion in the world, covering both countries where it is legal and countries where laws are very restrictive,” Dr. Paul Van Look, director of the W.H.O. Department of Reproductive Health and Research, said in a telephone interview. “What we see is that the law does not influence a woman’s decision to have an abortion. If there’s an unplanned pregnancy, it does not matter if the law is restrictive or liberal.”

But the legal status of abortion did greatly affect the dangers involved, the researchers said. “Generally, where abortion is legal it will be provided in a safe manner,” Dr. Van Look said. “And the opposite is also true: where it is illegal, it is likely to be unsafe, performed under unsafe conditions by poorly trained providers.”

From link number 3:

Restricting the availability of legal abortion does not appear to reduce the number of women trying to end unwanted pregnancies, a major report suggests.

And link number 4:

This is not a coincidence. There's a direct connection between greater health coverage and lower abortion rates. To oppose expanded coverage in the name of restricting abortion gets things exactly backward. It's like saying you won't fix the broken furnace in a schoolhouse because you're against pneumonia. Nonsense! Fixing the furnace will reduce the rate of pneumonia. In the same way, expanding health-care coverage will reduce the rate of abortion.

At least, that's the lesson from every other rich democracy.

The latest United Nations comparative statistics, available at http://data.un.org, demonstrate the point clearly. The U.N. data measure the number of abortions for women ages 15 to 44. They show that Canada, for example, has 15.2 abortions per 1,000 women; Denmark, 14.3; Germany, 7.8; Japan, 12.3; Britain, 17.0; and the United States, 20.8. When it comes to abortion rates in the developed world, we're No. 1.

No one could argue that Germans, Japanese, Brits or Canadians have more respect for life or deeper religious convictions than Americans do. So why do they have fewer abortions?

One key reason seems to be that all those countries provide health care for everybody at a reasonable cost. That has a profound effect on women contemplating what to do about an unwanted pregnancy.

This was all in the links I provided, so why would you say that they're not saying anything about abortions in total? I'm not sure how much I can provide if you've not looked at what I've already linked to.

[kentington]

I have yet to see ITT any evidence that a prohibition on (at least) something leads to greater or lesser consumption. Natty,Sym, and dwilhelmi have stated contrary facts, crossed their arms, but haven't shown any evidence.

Meh, it ain't that hard to google.

Higher abortion rates where it's illegal (USA Today)

Legal or not, abortion rates compare (NYTimes)

Bans 'do not cut abortion rate' (BBC)

Universal health care tends to cut the abortion rate (WaPo)

All this shows is that in less developed countries unsafe abortions are higher, not abortions as a total. Also, these are places where abortions happen because they can not have another child because of poverty. Also, contraceptives are not as easy to obtain. Look at the chart on your third link. I may be reading it wrong, if so let me know.

Also, shouldn't we have a far smaller number of total abortions per 1,000 women than less developed countries? Safe or unsafe we have access to sex ed and contraceptives.

From the first line of the first link:

Abortion rates are higher in countries where the procedure is illegal and nearly half of all abortions worldwide are unsafe, with the vast majority in developing countries, a new study concludes.

From the second link:

“We now have a global picture of induced abortion in the world, covering both countries where it is legal and countries where laws are very restrictive,” Dr. Paul Van Look, director of the W.H.O. Department of Reproductive Health and Research, said in a telephone interview. “What we see is that the law does not influence a woman’s decision to have an abortion. If there’s an unplanned pregnancy, it does not matter if the law is restrictive or liberal.”

But the legal status of abortion did greatly affect the dangers involved, the researchers said. “Generally, where abortion is legal it will be provided in a safe manner,” Dr. Van Look said. “And the opposite is also true: where it is illegal, it is likely to be unsafe, performed under unsafe conditions by poorly trained providers.”

From link number 3:

Restricting the availability of legal abortion does not appear to reduce the number of women trying to end unwanted pregnancies, a major report suggests.

And link number 4:

This is not a coincidence. There's a direct connection between greater health coverage and lower abortion rates. To oppose expanded coverage in the name of restricting abortion gets things exactly backward. It's like saying you won't fix the broken furnace in a schoolhouse because you're against pneumonia. Nonsense! Fixing the furnace will reduce the rate of pneumonia. In the same way, expanding health-care coverage will reduce the rate of abortion.

At least, that's the lesson from every other rich democracy.

The latest United Nations comparative statistics, available at http://data.un.org, demonstrate the point clearly. The U.N. data measure the number of abortions for women ages 15 to 44. They show that Canada, for example, has 15.2 abortions per 1,000 women; Denmark, 14.3; Germany, 7.8; Japan, 12.3; Britain, 17.0; and the United States, 20.8. When it comes to abortion rates in the developed world, we're No. 1.

No one could argue that Germans, Japanese, Brits or Canadians have more respect for life or deeper religious convictions than Americans do. So why do they have fewer abortions?

One key reason seems to be that all those countries provide health care for everybody at a reasonable cost. That has a profound effect on women contemplating what to do about an unwanted pregnancy.

This was all in the links I provided, so why would you say that they're not saying anything about abortions in total? I'm not sure how much I can provide if you've not looked at what I've already linked to.

All of the quotes you put from your links are missing numbers except the last one. The last one is off topic from your argument. That has to do with health care.
Look at the chart in link 3. Did I read it correctly?
Sorry that I said abortions in total. By that I mean that on the chart it lists both safe and unsafe abortions per 1,000 women. I was saying that the total number of safe and unsafe abortions per 1,000 women aren't lower, in that chart, in places with banned abortions. It just has more unsafe abortions.

[Symmetry]

I have yet to see ITT any evidence that a prohibition on (at least) something leads to greater or lesser consumption. Natty,Sym, and dwilhelmi have stated contrary facts, crossed their arms, but haven't shown any evidence.

Meh, it ain't that hard to google.

Higher abortion rates where it's illegal (USA Today)

Legal or not, abortion rates compare (NYTimes)

Bans 'do not cut abortion rate' (BBC)

Universal health care tends to cut the abortion rate (WaPo)

All this shows is that in less developed countries unsafe abortions are higher, not abortions as a total. Also, these are places where abortions happen because they can not have another child because of poverty. Also, contraceptives are not as easy to obtain. Look at the chart on your third link. I may be reading it wrong, if so let me know.

Also, shouldn't we have a far smaller number of total abortions per 1,000 women than less developed countries? Safe or unsafe we have access to sex ed and contraceptives.

From the first line of the first link:

Abortion rates are higher in countries where the procedure is illegal and nearly half of all abortions worldwide are unsafe, with the vast majority in developing countries, a new study concludes.

From the second link:

“We now have a global picture of induced abortion in the world, covering both countries where it is legal and countries where laws are very restrictive,” Dr. Paul Van Look, director of the W.H.O. Department of Reproductive Health and Research, said in a telephone interview. “What we see is that the law does not influence a woman’s decision to have an abortion. If there’s an unplanned pregnancy, it does not matter if the law is restrictive or liberal.”

But the legal status of abortion did greatly affect the dangers involved, the researchers said. “Generally, where abortion is legal it will be provided in a safe manner,” Dr. Van Look said. “And the opposite is also true: where it is illegal, it is likely to be unsafe, performed under unsafe conditions by poorly trained providers.”

From link number 3:

Restricting the availability of legal abortion does not appear to reduce the number of women trying to end unwanted pregnancies, a major report suggests.

And link number 4:

This is not a coincidence. There's a direct connection between greater health coverage and lower abortion rates. To oppose expanded coverage in the name of restricting abortion gets things exactly backward. It's like saying you won't fix the broken furnace in a schoolhouse because you're against pneumonia. Nonsense! Fixing the furnace will reduce the rate of pneumonia. In the same way, expanding health-care coverage will reduce the rate of abortion.

At least, that's the lesson from every other rich democracy.

The latest United Nations comparative statistics, available at http://data.un.org, demonstrate the point clearly. The U.N. data measure the number of abortions for women ages 15 to 44. They show that Canada, for example, has 15.2 abortions per 1,000 women; Denmark, 14.3; Germany, 7.8; Japan, 12.3; Britain, 17.0; and the United States, 20.8. When it comes to abortion rates in the developed world, we're No. 1.

No one could argue that Germans, Japanese, Brits or Canadians have more respect for life or deeper religious convictions than Americans do. So why do they have fewer abortions?

One key reason seems to be that all those countries provide health care for everybody at a reasonable cost. That has a profound effect on women contemplating what to do about an unwanted pregnancy.

This was all in the links I provided, so why would you say that they're not saying anything about abortions in total? I'm not sure how much I can provide if you've not looked at what I've already linked to.

All of the quotes you put from your links are missing numbers except the last one. The last one is off topic from your argument. That has to do with health care.
Look at the chart in link 3. Did I read it correctly?
Sorry that I said abortions in total. By that I mean that on the chart it lists both safe and unsafe abortions per 1,000 women. I was saying that the total number of safe and unsafe abortions per 1,000 women aren't lower, in that chart, in places with banned abortions. It just has more unsafe abortions.

And they state that the overall rate of abortion is either higher or equal, none of the sources claim lower rates. This is roughly my argument- that making abortion illegal does not reduce rates of abortion, and certainly makes it more dangerous. I also think that there's evidence to suggest that it can result in higher rates of abortion, but that's kind of a tertiary point.

The last point was just me being intentionally annoying to BBS, who never reads people's arguments anyway, and I'd be surprised if he actually looked at the link. It was tangentially relevant, anyway, and disproved your less developed countries line, unless, of course, you feel that the higher abortion rate in the US is a sign of lower development.

I think I've argued a fair bit from the abortion shouldn't be made illegal side though. Perhaps you can provide some sources of your own on your side? That the law should be changed?

[natty dread]

afe or unsafe we have access to sex ed and contraceptives.

Telling kids to "just keep it in your pants until marriage" does not count as sex ed.

[Neoteny]

Thanks for that response and the civility.
If I get you right, your last statement is saying that DNA is not enough for humanity just as Symmetry had posted? I can agree with that, but as to your point we disagree with the point, when is it human?
Do you agree that a point can be established that is more accurate than the system currently used? As far as when it is able to be aborted.

Separate question; I don't want to google the details of abortion, because I don't want to know all of them. Does anyone know if the (insert your word for human/cells) is killed/terminated before being removed from the body?

I don't necessarily think there is a better system. Asking when someone becomes a person is the same to me as asking when a person becomes an adult. Legally it was, for me, at 18 years of age. At the time, I considered myself an adult by 16. In hindsight, I was probably closer to being an adult at 22. Who knows when I'll think I'm an adult when I get to 70. Everyone develops differently. Most of us don't acquire anything beyond chimp capabilities until late infancy. If we're using chimps as a marker, that leaves us in an awkward situation. Birth is a pretty convenient cutoff, but, since life's a process, I figure extending the cutoff back a couple of months is not a bad thing. I don't think we can say much else about where life or personhood is definitively established, so I'm forced to err on the side of maternal rights over the developing child's. It's going to be a trade-off somewhere, unfortunately, there's no way around it. It's harsh, but, hey, we don't seem to have much trouble treating non-human animals even worse, so I'm sure we can handle it. Short answer: nah, I can't think of a better system, even if this one sucks.

To answer your second question, I don't think early pregnancies are subject to euthenasia, though late ones probably are. This is probably due to, ah, engineering-related concerns.

[dwilhelmi]

I think I've argued a fair bit from the abortion shouldn't be made illegal side though. Perhaps you can provide some sources of your own on your side? That the law should be changed?

A claim was made (making abortion illegal does nothing to decrease abortion rates, and might even increase them). I called BS on that claim, and asked for proof. I never made the claim that making abortion illegal does in fact decrease the rates, I merely stated that it seems logical to me that it would. No statement of fact was made, so no proof is required.

The proof for the aforementioned statement was provided in the four links you provided. However, I reject said proof based off of the rebuttal post I supplied that has been completely ignored (included below in case you missed it). As far as I can tell, the burden for proof of said statement still lies with you, sir.

show: My Previous Post

[natty dread]

I never made the claim that making abortion illegal does in fact decrease the rates

* cough... cough... * ahem.

My stance (making something illegal causes occurrences of said activity to decrease) is the logical, expected conclusion. Most people would agree that if you outlaw something, it happens less. That is why you outlaw things. If you claim that outlawing an activity makes said activity increase (the opposite of the expected outcome), then the burden of proof lies with the person making said claim.

In short, my proof is that if outlawing an activity did not decrease occurrences of an activity, nothing would be outlawed, ever. Therefore, outlawing an activity must have some kind of reduction effect.

waiting to see how you explain yourself out of this one.

[kentington]

All this shows is that in less developed countries unsafe abortions are higher, not abortions as a total. Also, these are places where abortions happen because they can not have another child because of poverty. Also, contraceptives are not as easy to obtain. Look at the chart on your third link. I may be reading it wrong, if so let me know.

Also, shouldn't we have a far smaller number of total abortions per 1,000 women than less developed countries? Safe or unsafe we have access to sex ed and contraceptives.

From the first line of the first link:

Abortion rates are higher in countries where the procedure is illegal and nearly half of all abortions worldwide are unsafe, with the vast majority in developing countries, a new study concludes.

From the second link:

“We now have a global picture of induced abortion in the world, covering both countries where it is legal and countries where laws are very restrictive,” Dr. Paul Van Look, director of the W.H.O. Department of Reproductive Health and Research, said in a telephone interview. “What we see is that the law does not influence a woman’s decision to have an abortion. If there’s an unplanned pregnancy, it does not matter if the law is restrictive or liberal.”

But the legal status of abortion did greatly affect the dangers involved, the researchers said. “Generally, where abortion is legal it will be provided in a safe manner,” Dr. Van Look said. “And the opposite is also true: where it is illegal, it is likely to be unsafe, performed under unsafe conditions by poorly trained providers.”

From link number 3:

Restricting the availability of legal abortion does not appear to reduce the number of women trying to end unwanted pregnancies, a major report suggests.

And link number 4:

This is not a coincidence. There's a direct connection between greater health coverage and lower abortion rates. To oppose expanded coverage in the name of restricting abortion gets things exactly backward. It's like saying you won't fix the broken furnace in a schoolhouse because you're against pneumonia. Nonsense! Fixing the furnace will reduce the rate of pneumonia. In the same way, expanding health-care coverage will reduce the rate of abortion.

At least, that's the lesson from every other rich democracy.

The latest United Nations comparative statistics, available at http://data.un.org, demonstrate the point clearly. The U.N. data measure the number of abortions for women ages 15 to 44. They show that Canada, for example, has 15.2 abortions per 1,000 women; Denmark, 14.3; Germany, 7.8; Japan, 12.3; Britain, 17.0; and the United States, 20.8. When it comes to abortion rates in the developed world, we're No. 1.

No one could argue that Germans, Japanese, Brits or Canadians have more respect for life or deeper religious convictions than Americans do. So why do they have fewer abortions?

One key reason seems to be that all those countries provide health care for everybody at a reasonable cost. That has a profound effect on women contemplating what to do about an unwanted pregnancy.

This was all in the links I provided, so why would you say that they're not saying anything about abortions in total? I'm not sure how much I can provide if you've not looked at what I've already linked to.

All of the quotes you put from your links are missing numbers except the last one. The last one is off topic from your argument. That has to do with health care.
Look at the chart in link 3. Did I read it correctly?
Sorry that I said abortions in total. By that I mean that on the chart it lists both safe and unsafe abortions per 1,000 women. I was saying that the total number of safe and unsafe abortions per 1,000 women aren't lower, in that chart, in places with banned abortions. It just has more unsafe abortions.

And they state that the overall rate of abortion is either higher or equal, none of the sources claim lower rates. This is roughly my argument- that making abortion illegal does not reduce rates of abortion, and certainly makes it more dangerous. I also think that there's evidence to suggest that it can result in higher rates of abortion, but that's kind of a tertiary point.

The last point was just me being intentionally annoying to BBS, who never reads people's arguments anyway, and I'd be surprised if he actually looked at the link. It was tangentially relevant, anyway, and disproved your less developed countries line, unless, of course, you feel that the higher abortion rate in the US is a sign of lower development.

I think I've argued a fair bit from the abortion shouldn't be made illegal side though. Perhaps you can provide some sources of your own on your side? That the law should be changed?

The argument has been stated from a couple of people as: If abortion is made illegal, then the rates of abortion will go up.
If I am wrong let me know.
You didn't directly answer my question regarding the chart in your link using actual numbers.


I can accept the dig to BBS. I don't agree that is disproves my line about less developed countries.
A few people mentioned countries that have bans on abortion had higher rates of abortion. I asked if those countries with higher rates were less developed. That seems to be true from the chart from your link. Again, unless I am reading it wrong.
The US does not have a ban on abortions therefore: nothing to do with my question.

Provide sources? I didn't make any claims until I saw your sources and then I only asked if I read them correctly. You made the claims and I asked if any of you knew whether those claims were from sources of low development, which is a fair question. I don't really feel the need to go search through pages of sources for a claim I didn't make.

[kentington]

afe or unsafe we have access to sex ed and contraceptives.

Telling kids to "just keep it in your pants until marriage" does not count as sex ed.

Seriously? I am getting annoyed with you. I try to take my time with my posts and think them through. I always try to see things from your point of view and treat you with respect. Please try to show some courtesy.

Sex ed teaches use of contraceptives. And the necessity of them, for self protection more than anything. This was my point.

[dwilhelmi]

I never made the claim that making abortion illegal does in fact decrease the rates

* cough... cough... * ahem.

My stance (making something illegal causes occurrences of said activity to decrease) is the logical, expected conclusion. Most people would agree that if you outlaw something, it happens less. That is why you outlaw things. If you claim that outlawing an activity makes said activity increase (the opposite of the expected outcome), then the burden of proof lies with the person making said claim.

In short, my proof is that if outlawing an activity did not decrease occurrences of an activity, nothing would be outlawed, ever. Therefore, outlawing an activity must have some kind of reduction effect.

waiting to see how you explain yourself out of this one.

OK then, I never made the claim that factual evidence supports my opinion that making abortion illegal would cause abortion rates to go down. I don't have any studies to show, only the fact that most common logic would tend to dictate that things being illegal reduces how frequently they are done.

My point here is that the claim was made implying that factual evidence shows that making abortion illegal does not cause abortion rate to decrease. So far, the only factual evidence that has arisen to support that is full of currently unaddressed holes. I at least can admit that my stance is based off of opinion rather than scientific evidence. You claim fact, you prove it - that's how it works.

[BigBallinStalin]

All this shows is that in less developed countries unsafe abortions are higher, not abortions as a total. Also, these are places where abortions happen because they can not have another child because of poverty. Also, contraceptives are not as easy to obtain. Look at the chart on your third link. I may be reading it wrong, if so let me know.

Also, shouldn't we have a far smaller number of total abortions per 1,000 women than less developed countries? Safe or unsafe we have access to sex ed and contraceptives.

From the first line of the first link:

Abortion rates are higher in countries where the procedure is illegal and nearly half of all abortions worldwide are unsafe, with the vast majority in developing countries, a new study concludes.

From the second link:

“We now have a global picture of induced abortion in the world, covering both countries where it is legal and countries where laws are very restrictive,” Dr. Paul Van Look, director of the W.H.O. Department of Reproductive Health and Research, said in a telephone interview. “What we see is that the law does not influence a woman’s decision to have an abortion. If there’s an unplanned pregnancy, it does not matter if the law is restrictive or liberal.”

But the legal status of abortion did greatly affect the dangers involved, the researchers said. “Generally, where abortion is legal it will be provided in a safe manner,” Dr. Van Look said. “And the opposite is also true: where it is illegal, it is likely to be unsafe, performed under unsafe conditions by poorly trained providers.”

From link number 3:

Restricting the availability of legal abortion does not appear to reduce the number of women trying to end unwanted pregnancies, a major report suggests.

And link number 4:

This is not a coincidence. There's a direct connection between greater health coverage and lower abortion rates. To oppose expanded coverage in the name of restricting abortion gets things exactly backward. It's like saying you won't fix the broken furnace in a schoolhouse because you're against pneumonia. Nonsense! Fixing the furnace will reduce the rate of pneumonia. In the same way, expanding health-care coverage will reduce the rate of abortion.

At least, that's the lesson from every other rich democracy.

The latest United Nations comparative statistics, available at http://data.un.org, demonstrate the point clearly. The U.N. data measure the number of abortions for women ages 15 to 44. They show that Canada, for example, has 15.2 abortions per 1,000 women; Denmark, 14.3; Germany, 7.8; Japan, 12.3; Britain, 17.0; and the United States, 20.8. When it comes to abortion rates in the developed world, we're No. 1.

No one could argue that Germans, Japanese, Brits or Canadians have more respect for life or deeper religious convictions than Americans do. So why do they have fewer abortions?

One key reason seems to be that all those countries provide health care for everybody at a reasonable cost. That has a profound effect on women contemplating what to do about an unwanted pregnancy.

This was all in the links I provided, so why would you say that they're not saying anything about abortions in total? I'm not sure how much I can provide if you've not looked at what I've already linked to.

All of the quotes you put from your links are missing numbers except the last one. The last one is off topic from your argument. That has to do with health care.
Look at the chart in link 3. Did I read it correctly?
Sorry that I said abortions in total. By that I mean that on the chart it lists both safe and unsafe abortions per 1,000 women. I was saying that the total number of safe and unsafe abortions per 1,000 women aren't lower, in that chart, in places with banned abortions. It just has more unsafe abortions.

And they state that the overall rate of abortion is either higher or equal, none of the sources claim lower rates. This is roughly my argument- that making abortion illegal does not reduce rates of abortion, and certainly makes it more dangerous. I also think that there's evidence to suggest that it can result in higher rates of abortion, but that's kind of a tertiary point.

The last point was just me being intentionally annoying to BBS, who never reads people's arguments anyway, and I'd be surprised if he actually looked at the link. It was tangentially relevant, anyway, and disproved your less developed countries line, unless, of course, you feel that the higher abortion rate in the US is a sign of lower development.

I think I've argued a fair bit from the abortion shouldn't be made illegal side though. Perhaps you can provide some sources of your own on your side? That the law should be changed?

The argument has been stated from a couple of people as: If abortion is made illegal, then the rates of abortion will go up.
If I am wrong let me know.
You didn't directly answer my question regarding the chart in your link using actual numbers.


I can accept the dig to BBS. I don't agree that is disproves my line about less developed countries.
A few people mentioned countries that have bans on abortion had higher rates of abortion. I asked if those countries with higher rates were less developed. That seems to be true from the chart from your link. Again, unless I am reading it wrong.
The US does not have a ban on abortions therefore: nothing to do with my question.

Provide sources? I didn't make any claims until I saw your sources and then I only asked if I read them correctly. You made the claims and I asked if any of you knew whether those claims were from sources of low development, which is a fair question. I don't really feel the need to go search through pages of sources for a claim I didn't make.

Good point, kennington; however, with Symmetry, you might have to because he is very lackadaisical when it comes to defending his own claims.

show

[Symmetry]

All this shows is that in less developed countries unsafe abortions are higher, not abortions as a total. Also, these are places where abortions happen because they can not have another child because of poverty. Also, contraceptives are not as easy to obtain. Look at the chart on your third link. I may be reading it wrong, if so let me know.

Also, shouldn't we have a far smaller number of total abortions per 1,000 women than less developed countries? Safe or unsafe we have access to sex ed and contraceptives.

From the first line of the first link:

Abortion rates are higher in countries where the procedure is illegal and nearly half of all abortions worldwide are unsafe, with the vast majority in developing countries, a new study concludes.

From the second link:

“We now have a global picture of induced abortion in the world, covering both countries where it is legal and countries where laws are very restrictive,” Dr. Paul Van Look, director of the W.H.O. Department of Reproductive Health and Research, said in a telephone interview. “What we see is that the law does not influence a woman’s decision to have an abortion. If there’s an unplanned pregnancy, it does not matter if the law is restrictive or liberal.”

But the legal status of abortion did greatly affect the dangers involved, the researchers said. “Generally, where abortion is legal it will be provided in a safe manner,” Dr. Van Look said. “And the opposite is also true: where it is illegal, it is likely to be unsafe, performed under unsafe conditions by poorly trained providers.”

From link number 3:

Restricting the availability of legal abortion does not appear to reduce the number of women trying to end unwanted pregnancies, a major report suggests.

And link number 4:

This is not a coincidence. There's a direct connection between greater health coverage and lower abortion rates. To oppose expanded coverage in the name of restricting abortion gets things exactly backward. It's like saying you won't fix the broken furnace in a schoolhouse because you're against pneumonia. Nonsense! Fixing the furnace will reduce the rate of pneumonia. In the same way, expanding health-care coverage will reduce the rate of abortion.

At least, that's the lesson from every other rich democracy.

The latest United Nations comparative statistics, available at http://data.un.org, demonstrate the point clearly. The U.N. data measure the number of abortions for women ages 15 to 44. They show that Canada, for example, has 15.2 abortions per 1,000 women; Denmark, 14.3; Germany, 7.8; Japan, 12.3; Britain, 17.0; and the United States, 20.8. When it comes to abortion rates in the developed world, we're No. 1.

No one could argue that Germans, Japanese, Brits or Canadians have more respect for life or deeper religious convictions than Americans do. So why do they have fewer abortions?

One key reason seems to be that all those countries provide health care for everybody at a reasonable cost. That has a profound effect on women contemplating what to do about an unwanted pregnancy.

This was all in the links I provided, so why would you say that they're not saying anything about abortions in total? I'm not sure how much I can provide if you've not looked at what I've already linked to.

All of the quotes you put from your links are missing numbers except the last one. The last one is off topic from your argument. That has to do with health care.
Look at the chart in link 3. Did I read it correctly?
Sorry that I said abortions in total. By that I mean that on the chart it lists both safe and unsafe abortions per 1,000 women. I was saying that the total number of safe and unsafe abortions per 1,000 women aren't lower, in that chart, in places with banned abortions. It just has more unsafe abortions.

And they state that the overall rate of abortion is either higher or equal, none of the sources claim lower rates. This is roughly my argument- that making abortion illegal does not reduce rates of abortion, and certainly makes it more dangerous. I also think that there's evidence to suggest that it can result in higher rates of abortion, but that's kind of a tertiary point.

The last point was just me being intentionally annoying to BBS, who never reads people's arguments anyway, and I'd be surprised if he actually looked at the link. It was tangentially relevant, anyway, and disproved your less developed countries line, unless, of course, you feel that the higher abortion rate in the US is a sign of lower development.

I think I've argued a fair bit from the abortion shouldn't be made illegal side though. Perhaps you can provide some sources of your own on your side? That the law should be changed?

The argument has been stated from a couple of people as: If abortion is made illegal, then the rates of abortion will go up.
If I am wrong let me know.
You didn't directly answer my question regarding the chart in your link using actual numbers.


I can accept the dig to BBS. I don't agree that is disproves my line about less developed countries.
A few people mentioned countries that have bans on abortion had higher rates of abortion. I asked if those countries with higher rates were less developed. That seems to be true from the chart from your link. Again, unless I am reading it wrong.
The US does not have a ban on abortions therefore: nothing to do with my question.

Provide sources? I didn't make any claims until I saw your sources and then I only asked if I read them correctly. You made the claims and I asked if any of you knew whether those claims were from sources of low development, which is a fair question. I don't really feel the need to go search through pages of sources for a claim I didn't make.

From my PoV, the argument generally made is that making abortion illegal will make it stay at the same level, or perhaps increase. That last bit is what's been latched on to by posters who oppose abortion, rather than dealing with the general thrust of the argument- that making it illegal will not decrease rates of abortion.

I apologise if I got you wrong on this. I'll take my tone down a notch.

Strictly speaking, there does seem to be a strong correlation between rates of development, but that last article I posted was comparing developed nations and relative levels of access to abortion, and healthcare in general.

[kentington]

From my PoV, the argument generally made is that making abortion illegal will make it stay at the same level, or perhaps increase. That last bit is what's been latched on to by posters who oppose abortion, rather than dealing with the general thrust of the argument- that making it illegal will not decrease rates of abortion.

I apologise if I got you wrong on this. I'll take my tone down a notch.

Strictly speaking, there does seem to be a strong correlation between rates of development, but that last article I posted was comparing developed nations and relative levels of access to abortion, and healthcare in general.

Thanks for that. I generally get the feeling you aren't out to just win an argument either. We all have our moments when we want to win though.

The correlation between the rates of development shows us that we have no idea what will happen if it was banned and everything from here on out is just speculation. Thus, it can't be said that if you ban abortion the rates will go up. It also can't be said that the rates will go down. I don't remember who actually made that specific claim, but I do remember reading it.

[pmchugh]

Thanks for that response and the civility.
If I get you right, your last statement is saying that DNA is not enough for humanity just as Symmetry had posted? I can agree with that, but as to your point we disagree with the point, when is it human?
Do you agree that a point can be established that is more accurate than the system currently used? As far as when it is able to be aborted.

Separate question; I don't want to google the details of abortion, because I don't want to know all of them. Does anyone know if the (insert your word for human/cells) is killed/terminated before being removed from the body?

I don't necessarily think there is a better system. Asking when someone becomes a person is the same to me as asking when a person becomes an adult. Legally it was, for me, at 18 years of age. At the time, I considered myself an adult by 16. In hindsight, I was probably closer to being an adult at 22. Who knows when I'll think I'm an adult when I get to 70. Everyone develops differently. Most of us don't acquire anything beyond chimp capabilities until late infancy. If we're using chimps as a marker, that leaves us in an awkward situation. Birth is a pretty convenient cutoff, but, since life's a process, I figure extending the cutoff back a couple of months is not a bad thing. I don't think we can say much else about where life or personhood is definitively established, so I'm forced to err on the side of maternal rights over the developing child's. It's going to be a trade-off somewhere, unfortunately, there's no way around it. It's harsh, but, hey, we don't seem to have much trouble treating non-human animals even worse, so I'm sure we can handle it. Short answer: nah, I can't think of a better system, even if this one sucks.

To answer your second question, I don't think early pregnancies are subject to euthenasia, though late ones probably are. This is probably due to, ah, engineering-related concerns.

I think I agree most with this. Although I am not sure if I come down on the same side of the divide as you I think your opinion is the most sensible of those presented.