In talk.abortion, Papa Jack
<papajack@stic.net>
wrote
on 12 Apr 2004 11:27:50 -0700
<6f9e1b49.0404121027.33366e2d@posting.google.com>:
The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote
in message news:<c6rok1-dol.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net>...
Papa Jack <papajack@stic.net> wrote:
The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:
IBen Getiner <lappcatt@aol.com> wrote:
=======================================================================
IBen Getiner cited:
http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/monica/m131.jpg
=======================================================================
Ghost wrote:
You sure have a lot of pictures. Do they prove anything?
Items:
[SNIP]
[2] Ray is fond of quoting a piece, which is admittedly a
little dated, that strongly suggests that about 585,000
women worldwide die from various botches relating
to pregnancy. Newer data suggests that from 350-400
women in the United States will die from various
botches related to pregnancy, and about 35-40 of them
will die from pregnancies with abortive outcomes.
(The CDC does not specify whether these outcomes are
spontaneous or induced.) I would hope for an update
from the appropriate UN agency, at some point, but
it's clear that pregnancy has a mortality rate that
is about 10x greater than abortion, for most women.
It is also clear that the United States has a good,
but not great, record regarding pregnancy mortality.
=======================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
I've shown evidence several times that the "dated" CDC
info is very suspect -- put together when that depart-
ment was dominated by abortionists.
=======================================================================
Ghost wrote:
The 585,000 comes from a UNICEF document, IIRC.
=======================================================================
Papa Jack remarked:
Do you really believe UNICEF reputation should give
any of us a "warm fuzzy" feeling?
Anything but. I would hope for independent confirmation.
I have already commented on its staleness -- it's getting on
9 years old now. The UN is not exactly the cleanest of
organizations.
Besides, I was clearly remarking about the lack of
reliability of the United States maternal vs. abortion
mortality rates. It's been shown before that there
were more abortion-related deaths in some states
than the CDC used to report for the entire U.S..
Per year? An interesting thought.
=======================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
Anyway, even if we disregard the untrustworthy nature
of the data you're using, think about what you're advo-
cating. You are saying the killing of unborn children
is justified because if MIGHT be safer for the pregnant
women to abort than to give birth -- even the mature
healthy ones.
=======================================================================
Ghost wrote:
0.9M unborn babies versus about 60 sacrificial women,
plus our liberties to enforce a country-wide abortion ban.
=======================================================================
Papa Jack remarked:
Please clarify what you're trying to compare.
Deaths of citizens versus deaths of proto-citizens, obviously,
given current mortality data and estimates on fertility rates.
The computation is somewhat simplistic as I can't compute
second-order effects (e.g., abortion ban leads to desperate
woman seeking abortion outside US using non-sanctioned
procedures, increasing mortality -- or, worse, using a
vacuum cleaner not according to Hoover... :-) )
Are you saying we could save 60 women if we would
just abort ALL 4,000,000 pregnancies each year?
That sure would solve the overpopulation "problem."
Actually, we might save more like 320-340 women by doing so.
However, that's not the point; if we enact a near-total
abortion ban (only medical exceptions allowed), the computed
loss of life, given current rates, would be about 60 women,
given the data I currently have, which is:
[1] 400 deaths for all pregnancies in the US, per year.
[2] 5.4 million pregnancies (4.5 million live births + 0.9 million
abortions).
The computation 400 * 0.9 / (4.5 + 0.9) = 66.7. However, there
is the unknown factor of spontaneous miscarriages (which would
show up in the denominator) and the unincorporated factor of
deaths of pregnancies with abortive outcome, which is called
out separately in the CDC data but does not split the problem
further into induced versus spontaneous. This computation is at
best a very broad estimate.
Hence the tradeoff. I cannot give an exact comparison as this
is a hypothetical, of course.
I should note here that Brazil has 1 in 12 women die during pregnancy.
However, the differences are so many I can't state that this proves
much of anything (the US rate is more like 1 in 8,900, according to
the above data -- which is a little off anyway).
=======================================================================
Ghost wrote:
Unless you had a brilliant idea on how one could enforce
such a ban without ensuring that the women don't abuse
their unborn children somehow -- or is that not the
objective?
=======================================================================
Papa Jack remarked:
You know better, Ghost. I've repeatedly posted the below excerpt
from the GOP Platform -- which I wholeheartedly support:
http://www.partyplatform.com/republican2000.html
"...As a country, we must keep our pledge to the first guarantee
of the Declaration of Independence. That is why we say the unborn
child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be
infringed.
Totally meaningless until compiled down to specifics. Might as well
blather about the sanctity of God in the human family. What does
it all mean?
We support a human life amendment to the Constitution
and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth
Amendment's protections apply to unborn children.
A little clearer, but how does one enforce those protections?
Remember that a woman is going to want to abort that baby.
Stop her! Quick!
Our purpose
is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right
against those who perform abortions. We oppose using public reve-
nues for abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate
it.
Different although related issue.
We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional
family values and the sanctity of innocent human life.
Second-order issue. Basically, a judge has to go by the law.
The Supreme Court ultimately decides based on the Constitution
(ideally, although some interesting failures have occurred in the
past, Roe vs. Wade being one of them, according to some; a more
recent one might have been putting Bush in the White House, although
an alternate construal would simply have them not getting involved
in what was basically a state-based dispute).
"Our goal is to ensure that women with problem pregnancies have
the kind of support, material and otherwise, they need for them-
selves and for their babies,
Support: someone's gotta pay. Did you want to advocate some sort of
fund to ensure that a woman can give birth? (Estimated cost:
0.9M * $5K = $4.5B/year -- and that's an absolute minimum as
other factors such as ob/gyn care and increased feeding and
possibly support while she is unable to be employed may be issues
as well).
not to be punitive towards those
for whose difficult situation we have only compassion. We
oppose abortion, but OUR PRO-LIFE AGENDA DOES NOT INCLUDE
PUNITIVE ACTION AGAINST WOMEN WHO HAVE AN ABORTION.
Why not? Do we support murderers? Do we shower crazed
psychopaths carrying shotguns, sniper rifles, grenades,
mortars, gasoline cans (presumably filled with fuel) and
a very ugly expression as he's walking down the street
randomly aiming any of these weapons at people, cars,
and such, and shouting incoherently?
No -- presumably, were such a crazy to wander into a town
loaded as described, a SWAT sniper would shoot him on
sight, after some delay and possible attempts to negotiate
with the nut. (There is a controversy regarding "suicide
by cop" but in this case one would say the community --
as represented by our boys in blue -- would be more than
justified in stopping what could be a considerable threat.
Of course we should try at least to talk to him, first.)
Most murders are not this extreme, but shooting something with
a gun is liable to get one a few very hard questions -- and shooting
some*one* with a gun, absent provocation (e.g., confronting said
crazed psychopath loaded down with shotguns, sniper rifles, grenades,
etc. etc.), would likely get one a vew years of very hard time.
Is abortion murder, or is it not? If it's murder, why do the
women get off easy? Is it because it's justifiable homicide?
Is it because the foetus is less of a person?
If abortion is *not* murder (and at least in the law, it currently
isn't -- although California's Penal Code is interesting), then
what should be the penalty for violating the law in that case?
Currently -- none. In the future, assuming Roe vs. Wade is in
fact overturned (or overridden by aforementioned Amendment),
I for one do not know -- but it's clear that the law is to be
followed, and that penalties ensue for not following it; a cursory
reading of California Penal makes that quite clear, mandating
for instance a 3 year minimum sentence for certain forms of
second-degree murder.
We salute
those who provide alternatives to abortion and offer adoption
services,
There are no alternatives to abortion apart from continuing the
pregnancy. Of course, pending resolution of the 60-vs-0.9M
question, it is far from clear which one "costs" more at this time.
How much is a human life (unborn or born) worth? That is a rather
interesting and fundamental question -- and it's far from clear
that it can be answered in absolutist terms. After all, we're
spending blood (about 3,400 pints, at last count) in Iraq. One
hopes the outcome is worth it.
and we commend congressional Republicans for expanding
assistance to adopting families and for removing racial barriers
to adoption...."
I used ALL CAPS on the part which states "...OUR PRO-LIFE AGENDA
DOES NOT INCLUDE PUNITIVE ACTION AGAINST WOMEN WHO HAVE AN
ABORTION" to stress this part.
IOW, the targets are the abortions who run those sleazy abortion mills.
An interesting choice of words. Would you advocate shooting
those who perform abortions and then the shooters walking scott free
for justifiable homicide?
=======================================================================
Ghost wrote:
Bear in mind that consumption of alcohol is child abuse, while
the child is still in the womb at some stage in the process.
=======================================================================
Papa Jack replied:
That's not the point, Ghost. You're just trying to set up the
same old stale "slippery slope" fallicy which implies we must
all be Nazis to enforce these horrible civil rights violations --
or whatever.
Maybe. But it's clear that, if the justification for banning abortions
is to save the children, that more can be done along those lines.
After all, if one is to save the children, one has to ensure that
they are in fact saved from alcohol, as foetal alcohol syndrome
is quite well known.
=======================================================================
Papa Jack wrote:
http://www.cdc.gov/epo/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00054602.htm
"...in the United States, the annual maternal
mortality ratio * remained approximately 7.5
maternal deaths per 100,000 live births dur-
ing 1982-1996."
Expressed as a percentage, this risk would be .0075% --
so, ergo, we know that 99.25% of births are NOT fatal.
That's pretty darn good odds, Ghost.
=======================================================================
Ghost wrote:
Excellent odds. Are they worth our liberties?
=======================================================================
Papa Jack remarked:
What liberties?
The woman's liberty for self-determination, mostly.
The only "liberty" under discussion is the "liberty" of
women to kill their unborn children.
That is an alternate formation, perhaps. It's interesting you
use "kill" and not "murder", though -- perhaps a word in the
middle is called for? After all, abortion is a deliberate act,
with meditation aforethought (24 hours is mandated in some states);
in California malice can be implied, and of course it results
in the death of a foetus, which is prosecutable under California
law except that the woman consented to having her foetus killed.
Remove that clause (187(b)(3)) and California becomes pro-life,
or at least anti-abortion.
Frankly, I beleive that's an extremely barbaric "liberty"
based on a philisophy of "ME," "ME," "ME," "ME," "ME."
selfishness.
You're welcome to attempt to prove that a woman, by having sex,
engages the requirement that she support an entity which does
not exist at the time of the act (except as a separate pair
of sperm and egg).
=======================================================================
Papa Jack remarked:
Another way to view this risk is to note that 28.4
persons per 100,000 died from pneumonia in 1988. And,
much worse, 204.4 persons per 100,000 died from cancer
in 1994.
http://www.healthsentinel.com/Vaccines/DiseaseAndRelatedData.htm
So can you really rationalize the slaughter of almost a
million unborn children per year because the process of
giving birth in the U.S. is ONLY 99.75% safe?
Hmmm.
=======================================================================
Ghost wrote:
I'd like to know the details on how we should stop it.
=======================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
See the GOP Platform section quoted above -- particularly
the part which states:
"Our goal is to ensure that women with problem
pregnancies have the kind of support, material
and otherwise, they need for themselves and for
their babies..."
Let's expand the money, time, and attention given to
the Crisis Pregnancy Centers nationwide to give effective
and compassionate help to women who experience problem
pregnancies.
That won't stop all abortions. It may stop a substantial fraction
thereof. Also, which option(s) do you prefer?
[1] Expansion of Planned Parenthood.
[2] Conversion of Planned Parenthood into a CPC.
[3] Cancelling of Planned Parenthood's medical facilities for
the purpose of procuring abortions, but otherwise
allowing continuance of operation.
[4] Total shutdown of Planned Parenthood.
Also, which option do you prefer?
[1] A general increase in taxes for a ~ $5B fund ($4.5 to help the women,
$500M for general administration). This would show up as a
roughly $50 increase in average income taxes, for instance..
[2] A spending cut of $5B.
[3] Doing nothing, exhorting charities to pay the $5B.
[4] Doing nothing, letting the women abort.
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
