Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,912 Year: 4,169/9,624 Month: 1,040/974 Week: 367/286 Day: 10/13 Hour: 1/1


EvC Forum ⇒ Side Orders ⇒ Coffee House ⇒

Serious Questions about Pregnancy and Abortion

Thread ▼ Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Serious Questions about Pregnancy and Abortion
2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5881 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006

Normal Thread Display
Message 7 of 53 (346605)
09-05-2006 4:08 AM 		Reply to: Message 6 by crashfrog
09-05-2006 12:32 AM

I 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.
​
One could also take this view. Pregnancy is not a significant risk factor for women in developing countries. Not having access to proper medical care is a significant risk factor to all people in developing countries. Living in a developing country is a significant risk factor to one's health in general.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by crashfrog, posted 09-05-2006 12:32 AM crashfrog has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Silent H, posted 09-05-2006 5:38 AM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied
 Message 11 by crashfrog, posted 09-05-2006 8:29 AM 2ice_baked_taters has replied
  
2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5881 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006

Normal Thread Display
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 5881 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006

Normal Thread Display
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
  
2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5881 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006

Normal Thread Display
Message 41 of 53 (347528)
09-08-2006 10:41 AM 		Reply to: Message 35 by JavaMan
09-07-2006 7:55 AM

Re: The smugglers
Similarly, meaning is a human invention. Nothing in the universe has meaning in itself, only in relation to us (not because we're sooooo important, but because we are the only thing we're aware of that assigns meaning to things). So things have meaning for me, and they have meaning for you, but they don't have meaning in themselves.
​
You are incorrect when you say we are the only thing that assigns meaning. Or that meaning is a human invention. Many animals show effects from being separated from the herd or the loss of another. Coco the gorilla conveys meaning all the time through sign language. We are simply arrogant enough to assume we are the center of everything. That tendancy is a historical fact. It is more likely that all living things experience meaning on some level. Since we are infants as the history of species on this planet go, countless living things that experienced meaning came along eons before our sorry asses.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by JavaMan, posted 09-07-2006 7:55 AM JavaMan has not replied
  
2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5881 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006

Normal Thread Display
Message 52 of 53 (349798)
09-17-2006 2:15 PM

Thank you jar. Though good comments were made by intelligent people it was getting kinda nuts.
  
Date format: mm-dd-yyyy
Timezone: ET (US)
  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024