works for me
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
A question for the "so-called" pro-life people:
- Thread starter Openmind
- Start date
works for me
Werbung:
Openmind..I think most adult woman in America has either had, or knows someone who’s had, an abortion. Legalised abortion and access to effective contraception were supposed to make abortion rare, but it’s actually now at plague proportions.Most adult women in America also know someone who regrets having an abortion. And most of us know of women with the mystery breast cancers, the women who now can’t have children, the women who are on substantial doses of antidepressants and have attempted suicide, the women who cry on certain hidden "anniversaries" they won’t talk about. Remember you brought this up over 1 case ...I am talking millions here.
Outlawing abortion, drugs, alcohol, speeding, or whatever doesn't necessarily put an end to it.
Abortion more common where it's illegal: Where are rates highest?
The question is not whether abortion is an acceptable form of birth control. Most of us would agree that it is not. The issue is how best to reduce the number of abortions.
Abortion more common where it's illegal: Where are rates highest?
The question is not whether abortion is an acceptable form of birth control. Most of us would agree that it is not. The issue is how best to reduce the number of abortions.
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
While I dislike generalizations I do not count any of them as personal attacks because they are not directed at one person but rather they generalize behavior to group. "Statements like right wingers are..." are not personal attacks.
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
I suspect the reference to her name to be a veiled personal attack (not reported).
But while you may not mind the personal attacks directed at you there are still rules and the existence of personal attacks directed at anyone effect all of us.
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
There are other explanations for that. And there is also data showing that in some countries where it is illegal less woman die. It seems to depend on the quality of health care in the country overall.
Also about 50,000 women in the whole world (with a population of about 7 bllion) die from illegal abortions. That is a dismally small percentage. Meanwhile almost 100% of the chldren slated for abortion die. In countries with better healthe care and better educated women the percentage is smallest. The best approach to protect both the life of children and the lives of mothers is to educate woman so that they are not subjected to dangerous and illegal procedures.
I dont have access to the data right now but if I am remembering correctly in the US less than 300 woman died from illegal abortions before roe v wade.
OK I could not resist and I found that stat:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns...0-000-women-a-year-die-from-illegal-abortions
In the last year before roe v wade (when medical care had advanced the most up to that point) the total njumber of woman who died from any abortion legal or otherwise was - 88. Not 88 thousand, not 88 hundred but a simple 88.
Today with better techology we should be able to reduce that number even more.
[/QUOTE]
Making it illegal will reduce the numbers in the US. It will also reduce the total number of woman who die from abortions counting both illegal and legal together. It will certainly reduce the number of babies that die. With better contraception a far greater number of woman would even avoid the difficulties of any kind of abortion whether it is to be avoided or not. And just why should legal abortions be avoided in your opinion?
Making it illegal will reduce the numbers in the US. It will also reduce the total number of woman who die from abortions counting both illegal and legal together. It will certainly reduce the number of babies that die. With better contraception a far greater number of woman would even avoid the difficulties of any kind of abortion whether it is to be avoided or not. And just why should legal abortions be avoided in your opinion?[/quote]
Abortions, legal or not, should be avoided for the reasons you have given.
What makes you think that outlawing abortions would reduce their frequency in the US, when other places where abortion has been outlawed actually have more of them?
clearly directed at members on this forum but agreed that its not the most the most blantant of hers.
A generalization is a logical error. It makes much more of a statement about the generalizer than it does about any of the subjects of the generalization.
but they are used all over.
a body in motion tends to remain in motion.
a law regarding inertia supported by observation and qualified as needed.
That is a scientific law. A body in motion does tend to remain in motion. In fact, never has any moving body stopped without some force acting to stop it.
A generalization is when you see one member of a political group, race, social group, or whatever acting in a particular way, and say, " See? All (insert name of group here) are the same way.
I have a cat who likes to attack dogs. Therefore, all cats attack dogs. That's a generalization.
some cats actually will attack dogs, BTW.
Pandora
Well-Known Member
But cats are not known to generally attack dogs, it would be an exception to the rule. Where with dogs they are generally known to chase cats. And we often are impressed with a well-trained dog who does not chase cats when given the opportunity.
Exactly my point. Dogs chase cats, therefore, this dog will chase the cat, is another generalization.
then why the word "tend" ? if its never happened then tend is unnecessary. if its the shorthand version of the expression (a body in motion absent external force will stay in motion then its poor shorthand.
generalization without qualification is suspect.
Werbung:
Pandora
Well-Known Member
Not all dogs but it happens more than it doesn’t so it’s safer to assume the worst when you see a dog eyeing your cat than it is to say... well I don’t want to generalize and then have a dead cat.
