Serious Questions about Pregnancy and Abortion

Pregnancy and its complications is the leading cause of death for women 15-19, according to the fifth annual State of the World's Mothers report, a survey put out by an international charity. Page not found | Save the Children InternationalBeyond that, preganancy is one of the leading causes of death in all countries among all women, according to the UN's Reproductive Health Fact Sheet: Page 404I don't see it as accurate to say that pregnancy is the number-one-with-a-bullet cause of death for all women, but clearly, pregnancy is a significant risk for all women no matter where you live, but most especially in the developing world.

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.

Yeah, Holmes, I guess your attack thread is completely right on. Pregnancy is absolutely safe for literally every woman, every single time; abortion is dangerous and will make you kill yourself; and women who want to determine what human beings are allowed to live within them should be ashamed of themselves for being sluts.I guess I'm curious - if you find the danger that pregnancy represents to health an unreasonable justification for abortion, what justification do you find reasonable? I don't recall you offering such a justification in any of your posts. Or do you even support the rights of women to decide who is allowed to take up residence inside their bodies in the first place?

Then I don't see the utility in a precise specification of the risk. If any at all is sufficient, then what's the purpose of this thread aside from simply allowing you to, once again, portray yourself as the superior arbiter of what is true or untrue?I simply don't see what's going on here that you expect to be interesting. If you say so. Honestly I don't see that as a discussion that goes anywhere - like all discussions that are basically about what words mean. How boring! And how impossible to arrive at any sort of consensus. I don't see the difference. A human being is residing within the uterus of another. That's what gestation entails for the mother. Why would a human being have the right to do that against the permission of the owner of the uterus?

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. 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? 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? 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! 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. 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?

I have no position on claim #2. 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? No, those were me. I don't see anywhere in those statements the claim you referred to in your OP. Oh, ok.When did you poll the population of the United States? What does that have to do with anything? 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? 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? 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?

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. 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. 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. 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. Here's the context you've dishonestly chosen to omit, quote miner: 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? 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. 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. 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. Ah, yes. Ad hominem. Just wouldn't be a Holmes post without it, eh?

Proven that it isn't. Can you provide evidence for your assertion, or not? 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? 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. Explain how. I never asserted the law was a consensus, so here you are again putting words in my mouth. 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? 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. 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. 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?

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?

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? 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? 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? 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. 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. 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. I never said that abortion was completely unavaliable in the developing world. One more of your distortions. Doesn't show what claim? Answer carefully. And what is your position on the state of evidence of the former? I'm not interested in anything related to the latter, remember. 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?

I still don't know what the hell you're talking about. I mean, gosh, here's an idea, genius - you could have replied to my post with the question.Why don't you try that now? Reply to this paragraph with the question and I'll try to answer it as best exemplifies my position. Sure. I'm telling you that I didn't even refer to "consensus". There's absolutely no reasonable implication of "consensus" in that post. Moreover, now that I've told you over and over again that I didn't say "consensus", there's absolutely no reason for you to read "consensus" in anything that I wrote there.Clear? Perhaps most people feel that they are above the law in this regard. Who am I to say? I'm certainly not the one who presumes to speak for the majority of Americans on any given issue. That would be you, remember?I was asked how I determine legal personhood. I responded with what the law says - at birth. How do I determine personhood outside of the law? I don't know, and I don't care to. That's a discussion of what words mean, and I find that tiresome in the extreme. As I've made clear.Nothing in the above about "consensus." But we do agree on the facts. We agree that a study was done, and that certain results were found, and that they were reported.All we disagree on is what conclusions that study supports. And as you say, more than one point of view can emerge on that point. So what are we still arguing about? No, that's your opinion. Your problem is that you simply can't understand how there could be any way to determine what is supported by facts other than the way you do it.Get over yourself, Holmes. There are other ways to think besides the way you do. It's possible to do think in ways you haven't thought of. Your arrogance is truly breathtaking - your amazingly self-centered position that you are the final arbiter of what can be known, what can be concluded from a certain set of facts.I'm sorry, but that is not your role. Plausible that abortion causes more deaths than pregnancy given the same medical conditions for both?Why is that plauisble? What's your evidence that this is true? That might or might not. Religious factors might or might not. You don't just abort by mind power, you need access at least to drugs to dialate the cervyx, anesthetics, and a curette. "Abortion with a coat hanger" makes a pretty gruesome talking point but it's not my understanding that it's actually possible to do that. If you believe that, that's fine. I don't know how we would possibly compare two amounts of risk that have not been numerically established, but simply approximated with words like "leading" or "major" or whatever.I don't see that as a position I can disagree with without a discussion about what words mean, which I simply won't be a part of. So consider your position uncontended. I don't see a problem with that position. I don't disagree with it. If abortion has a commensurate risk of depression or other mental issues, that's definately something we should take into account in formulating our abortion policy. I don't recall any chest-beating. I believe that one should form morals based on reality, on real situations that real people are in, and not on myths. Science is our best tool for perceiving that reality, don't you agree? Your endless distortions - impossible to believe, by the way, that you're doing it by accident at this point - make it all but impossible to debate evidence with you. The second evidence is presented to support one's contention, you attack your opponent for not supporting an entirely different position. When they challenge you to show where they advanced that new position, you quote them promoting a yet different position, prompting a dispute about what position you originally accused them of promoting! It's impossible to debate with you, Holmes, because you simply refuse to grapple with anything but your strawmen. Oh, wait, I forget - you're simply looking in your crystal ball and responding to arguments they haven't even made yet! Funny that, every time you do that, it turns out that wasn't the argument they were going to make ever.I'm sorry, Holmes. I liked the Coffee House much better before you came out of your little hole. I don't plan to reply on any Coffee House thread until you return to it. Apparently I'm safe in the threads that discuss what you never, ever participate in - the debate on evolution vs. creationism.

If that was the question you were referring to, I answered it completely by accident. You certainly gave no indication that that was the question you were so breathlessly adamant that I answer, which is why I asked you to clearly and consisely ask the question.You ask a lot of questions. A lot of them are rhetorical. If there's a specific question that you want me to address, especially if you're going to make a big deal about me not doing so, then you need to be very clear what that question is. Simply saying "the question" isn't specific enough in posts where you have 20 or 30 sentences that end in question marks.Something for you to work on. I'm glad that you consider the question answered at this point. I can't imagine why you have to be such an insufferable ass about it. Because you're wrong. It wasn't implied. The proof of that is that I wrote the statement, and here I am telling you what I meant - not "consensus."I apologize if somehow I wasn't clear on that point. I don't understand why my unambiguous statement about what I meant at that time isn't sufficient to clear up this confusion. I was asked how I determine personhood in a context that I understood to be legal. We were, after all, talking about laws in the past couple of posts. A apologize for the confusion if that's how you mistook my statements. Keep in mind though that they weren't written to you - you weren't the intended audience - and so I wrote keeping in mind what I believed 2B would understand from reading them, not what you would understand.So I don't feel particularly compelled to defend myself against your interpetation of what was said. You made a mistake because you weren't the intended audience, so naturally you mistook my meaning. You have some reason to dispute the reported data? I'm talking about the literal numbers returned by the study. Not the assumptions, not the conclusions, not the interpretations. The data. You dispute the data? Each individual element? The study reports, internally, that "so-and-so died from complications of pregnancy" or whatever, you assert that she did not?That's what I meant by "results." Not the interpretation, but the elemental data contained within the study.Surely you're not the only one allowed to determine what conclusions are supported by evidence? No, it doesn't. Obviously there are a large number of ways to perform an unsafe abortion. There's also a large number of unsafe things someone might do assuming that it will cause an abortion, like throw themselves down a flight of stairs. But most people are smarter than that. Given the choice between a tumble down some stairs and giving birth, most people choose to continue their pregnancies, I assume.A large number of people will choose not to have abortions if they know it's not safe. Thus, the reason why abortion is rarer in the developing world is because it's so much harder to do it safely.How does that undercut any argument? Holmes, I've done that over and over again over the years. All you do is shrug it off as a "misunderstanding." Sometimes you admit to it, sometimes you don't. Clearly I can see you're doing it a lot more often than you realize.Why don't you realize that? If you want to defend yourself against these charges, start with the catalogue of your distortions in the global warming thread, which you were never able to satisfactorily address. Because you brought them up! Nice distortion, but you seem to have forgotten that you were replying to a post by RAZD which, to a large part, merely referenced a post of mine. How was that not, at least indirectly, writing to me? That's why I responded - you were attacking my argument.Of course, to appear superior to me, now you have to distort the actual history. True to Holmes form in every way. A revealing act of projection. Where have I ever claimed to be "the master"? The fact that you read that into my statements is a pretty clear indicator that's actually your goal, as I've repeatedly stated - for some bizzarre reason, you're compelled to come out on top of every encounter. It's unthinkable for you to admit that your opponent might have a good point about something, might know better than you except on subjects beneath your interest, might have a valid way of thinking that you didn't think of, first. If you can address points honestly and avoid distorting positions, telling falsehoods about your opponents, and resist your pathological need to come out on top in every encounter, I invite your participation.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

I've explained what I meant. But we agree that there's some data there, right? That the study was done? I'm trying to find some level of agreement here but your relentless contrarianism isn't making that very easy. I don't see how, and I don't see support for your contention that the risk is "incredibly low." A one in two thousand chance of death still seems fairly high to me. That's definately something I would describe as "dangerous", if it killed one out of every one or two thousand. ...what? I'm sorry but I don't understand how this is a valid response. What do you mean "keep doing that"? And who said anything about women being desperate? Yes, obviously, desperate people do dangerous things. But who said every woman who is thinking about abortion is desperate?Once again, you're grappling with strawmen instead of with my arguments. And how is any of this on-topic? No, I didn't. Your "mistake", again. Who said you had to do it in this thread? Do it in that thread. That's an unsatisfactory response. If they're bogus, prove it. If you're not interested in or able to do that, you hardly get to act like you've responded. Responding to a reference to another post? You're damn right that's a response to the original post. Call it "the commutative property of posting", if you like.I certainly precieved your post as an attack on mine. Why do you find that so unreasonable? Ah, right. Another of your old tricks - "You thought I was insulting you, but really I was just kidding." Do you ever notice how your little "jokes" don't ever seem to be funny? You just need to stop acting like an asshole. I mean it really is just that simple. If your egregious personal behavior didn't always become the topic of conversation, we could probably make some progress. You could, you know, actually argue in support of something instead of doing nothing but attacking your opponents on the most specious grounds possible.Just stop acting like an asshole. I'm not calling you an asshole, just telling you to stop acting like one. What's so hard about that?I mean the first think you could probably stop doing is replying to posts line-by-line. I reccommend that you attempt to respond to people and include no more than three quoted sections. That should allow your posts to be a little less schitzo, have a little more flow and cohesion, be less confusing, and get your point across clearer. As it is it's all but impossible to follow you, or percieve any attempt for points to build on each other, because every quoted section completely interrupts the flow.Seriously, try it.

He asked me when I believed life began, and how I came to that determination.I told him that I didn't know when life began, I didn't particularly care, but for the purpose of civil interaction, I go with what the law says. And, indeed, if I thought it was neccessary to disregard the law, my implication was that I should have a very good reason to do so, and I don't. WTF? How does this bear any relation to my argument? Do you think a new thread means all past transgressions are wiped clean? Your past behavior is quite relevant to your future behavior in this thread. I don't see the conundrum. You can stop it any time you like, by discontinuing egregious behavior. The choice is yours, Holmes, at any time. It's always about your behavior, Holmes, because your behavior makes it impossible to talk about anything else. 10 quoted sections in this post, Holmes.14 in the post before that.16 in the post before that.14 in the post before that.10 in the post before that. How far back do you want to go? Let's start at the beginning. My first post in this thread has one quote section. Your reply has 6. My reply to that has none. Your reply to that has 3. (Good job!) My reply to that has 3. Your reply? 3. My reply? 6. Your reply? 8. My reply? 8. Your reply to that? 13!But, you know. Pretend like you're not writing schitzo, incoherent posts where points simply can't be followed because they're broken up by your quote boxes. I'm sure you have some other, totally rational explanation why almost nobody here apparently wants to talk to you.

The same. If he's going to disregard the law, then he should have a very good reason, too. Aren't we a society of laws? The evidence indicates that you don't believe that, considering your habit of chasing down the minor lose ends of other threads into new ones, and referring to old threads in new.I mean, your behavior in the other abortion thread, where you accused Schraf of inconsistencies with positions offered in other threads, proves that you don't see a new thread as something new. Well, except when that position affords you an opportunity to duck responsibility for your bad beahvior, I see. You've had every opportunity to change. I used to let this stuff go, which you seem to forget. But apparently brief reminders weren't sufficient to get you to amend your egregious behavior. Pinning you down with the evidence of your dishonesty and distortions seems to be the only tactic left. Allow me to explain. It's about your behavior because you're a participant in the thread, and the way that you interact with others, being inherently dishonest, makes it impossible to discuss anything but your dishonesty. It's a fundamental consequence of the fact that your "style of debate" makes actual debate with you impossible. In fact, I did just that, and reported the results, which proved that you were not correct. Not sure what part of that was wrong, or how you think I could have fucked up counting quotes. It's pretty obvious, don't you think? How can I possibly do that, Holmes? According to you each new thread wipes the slate clean.Sorry. If we play by your rules, we have to discuss the behavior in the thread in which it occurs. Hey, don't look at me. You're the one who demands that the record be cleared for himself and no one else. Of course, you could simply sidestep the entire issue by recitfying your behavior.It's really just that simple. We can stop talking about your behavior the minute I have reason to believe it has improved, or you stop replying to my posts. It's entirely in your hands. If it bothers you so much, deal with it.