Are we a country who likes to glorify murder?
Forums › General Discussion › Are we a country who likes to glorify murder?-
In fact most of your argument has consisted of hurling insults at me personally, insulting everyone who would agree with me, and all of my evidence. It's making it quite impossible to attempt to have a logical discussion with you. I have to agree with you on one thing. This certainly isn't an issue with two equally informed sides.
-
My hostile tone is intentional, as you seemed to be intentionally trying to deceive me with unsupported conclusions from a biased source. If, as you say, you are merely passing it along with no idea that you yourself had been duped then I apologize. The first clue that your website's analysis is questionable is the opening sentence: "A new report from the World Economic Forum (WEF) shows that countries with restrictive abortion laws are often the leaders in reducing maternal mortality..."
The WEF report makes no such claim or correlation, it is simply raw data. The author of the deceptive article cherry-picked the data and interpreted it's meaning to benefit their cause, while committing the gross logical error of assuming correlation equals causation. Well, two can play that game. Since the original conversation was about abortion in the US, let's focus on that. From a respected pro-life website:
http://www.lifenews.com/2012/01/19/report-louisiana-most-pro-life-washington-most-pro-abortion/
...
-
...The national pro-life legislative group Americans United for Life report ranks Louisiana as the most pro-life state, with Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Nebraska and Arkansas rounding out the top five. At the other end, Washington ranks as the most pro-abortion state, with California, Hawaii, Vermont and Montana in close contention.
From the National Women's Law Center - Maternal Mortality Ratio
http://hrc.nwlc.org/status-indicators/maternal-mortality-rate-100000Louisiana - 17.9
Oklahoma - 20.2
Pennsylvania - 10.1
Nebraska - 9.0
Arkansas- 16.0
Pro-Life average - 14.64Washington - 9.0
California - 12.5
Hawaii - 13.9
Vermont - 2.6
Montana - 10.1
'Pro-Abortion' Average - 9.52So according to the very same guidelines your article laid out, it can be stated that in the US pro-life states are responsible for higher maternal mortality than 'pro-abortion' states. The opposite of your conclusion based on the WEF data. So which conclusion is correct? One? Both? I say neither, it's more complicated than that.
-
First off. When I mentioned that article I openly admitted the obvious bias but pointed out the the actual numbers were true and from a reliable source. Thank you for actually bringing some material to the table. I also agree that just because something correlates even if it a global correlation doesn't mean it is causation. However, it is certainly a fair possibility because in the countries I cited, the differences in legislation are substantial. In The States the law is pretty much the same, besides minor details regarding counseling, requiring or not requiring a physician to perform the abortion, etc. but interesting figures. (Kudos Vermont) 👍
-
☠ƝཐϮཐڪ☠И↭山↭Я☠ wrote:
If we weren't made to eat animals why are they made out of meat? 😳Meat is Murder 😂😂😂
-
So...correlation does not equal causation...unless it supports your preconceptions. Phrases like 'certainly a fair possibility' mean absolutely nothing relative to a logical discussion. Do me a favor. Find for me a link to the 2009 WEF report that your biased article refers to. I can only find it referenced in every pro-life corner of the internet, but conspicuously lacking a citation. Specifically the one that compiles raw data regarding maternal mortality ratios worldwide by nation. As a bonus you could provide me with a complete list of 'pro-life' countries, whatever that means to you, or criteria by which you would judge a country to be 'pro-life'. You chose this particular field to do battle on and I'm more than happy to oblige you, I just need to be looking at the same numbers and criteria you are.
-
I happened across this fact sheet from 2011 with a concise list of all UN member nations' abortion laws as well as maternal mortality rates among other metrics:
http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/2011abortion/2011wallchart.pdfI'll go through the 4 regions mentioned in your biased article one at a time. Let's start with Northern Europe. Ireland, clearly the most pro-life country in the region, also has the lowest MMR. But also impossible to ignore is that Iceland, Denmark and Sweden, all staunchly 'pro-abortion', score an MMR of 5. The difference is almost statistically insignificant when you consider the region's MMR ranges from 3 to 20. This clearly makes Ireland too close to call regarding your theory of correlation between abortion laws and MMR. Also notice that actual abortion rates do show Ireland as the lowest, but do not seem to exhibit any noticeable correlation to MMR.
-
Moving on to Eastern Africa. Your article specifically compares Mauritius to Ethiopia. Mauritius is considered to be in East Africa and does indeed have the lowest MMR coupled with strict pro-life laws. What you may not know is that Mauritius is an island tourist destination off the coast of East Africa. It is unique in the region in many ways, sustaining a vibrant economy while the rest of East Africa struggles with relative poverty. Statistically it is an outlier or anomaly and should not be seriously considered to indicate a trend for that reason alone. For a more accurate look at the region, consider Somalia and Ethiopia. Somalia is just as pro-life as Mauritius with all the same restrictions but LEADS the region with a staggering MMR of 1200. Ethiopia is the most pro-choice country in the region and is near the bottom of the pack with an MMR of 470. This runs completely contrary to your asserted correlation.
-
Guyana and Chile in South America are compared next in the article: "Chile, with constitutional protection for the unborn, outranks all other South American countries as the safest place for women to bear children. The country with the highest maternal mortality is Guyana, with a rate 30 times higher than in Chile." This statement is factually correct, except my chart is showing 10 times instead of 30 times higher MMR in Guyana. What is important is what is left out. Uruguay, which has substantially more liberal abortion laws, has a MMR only one point higher that that of Chile. Uruguay beats several other pro-life South American countries' MMR's decisively. This alone makes the asserted correlation in Chile far from decisive.
-
Finally, the article compares Sri Lanka and Nepal in South-Central Asia. This is an easy one. Afghanistan has the very same pro-life laws in effect as Sri Lanka, yet somehow LEADS the region AND all UN nations with an astronomical MMR of 1400. Funny that your biased article failed to mention that. It's as if they were not interested in informing you at all, and were rather trying to dishonestly push an agenda.
-
http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GenderGap_Report_2008.pdf it's 181 pages so its quite time consuming to peruse all the facts. You brought up some interesting information regarding each of these nations. You quite persuasively led me to believe that there most likely is no discernible correlation to the number of maternal deaths compared to whether or not it is prolife or pro choice. That fact quells my argument as much as it does the argument that a push towards lenient abortion laws particularly in Africa will help pull that statistic up. Also this article is quite informative and seems to sidestep many comparative issues we find ourselves running into when comparing one countries rates to another's. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/21/opinion/sunday/douthat-the-texas-abortion-experiment.html?_r=0
-
And that's how you fact check, ladies and gentleman. ^By taking all sides of the coin into account and checking citations even if you happen to believe the conclusiveness of the "facts" right off. After all, that's what citations are there for.
For some reason everyone thinks numbers don't lie. Well, they lie all the time when they look something like this:
1 _ 5 9 _ _ 3 4 _ 3 _ 😴
The human condition is never black and white. The idea that illegal abortions leads to a significantly lower MMR is absurd. We don't even have to look outside this country's history to know that.I'm still wanting to rip apart your obtuse ideological denial about over population or the lack there of. Maybe I'll have time to research it this weekend efficiently.
-
So I finally convince you that your 'Abortion causes maternal mortality' stance is based on a demonstrably dishonest article and your response is to throw another poorly written, intellectually lazy opinion piece at me? Do you really want to continue this game? It's obvious that you hold your beliefs for moral reasons, not intellectual ones. These pretend academic arguments are insulting to science, insulting to logic and most of all, insulting to the truth. I don't pretend to know what the truth is about abortion any more than you, but at least I'm not being shady and bastardizing the honest pursuit of knowledge that surrounds it. I'd love to entertain myself picking to pieces every bit of supposedly honest information you think you know about abortion if you'd like, but I think the more adult thing for you to do is admit that you blindly believe what you believe and you neither posess nor require any science or logic to defend it. No shame in that.
-
Regarding the NYT editorial piece you linked to...The main thing that jumps out at me is that his central premise is a classic straw man:
"One possible answer is that Texas will make a forced march into squalor, misery and patriarchal oppression."
The economic repercussions of a Texas' new abortion restrictions are pretty low on the list of concerns of the law's opponents. Their main concern is the willful endangerment of women's health via the forced closing of all but 5 women's health clinics in the state, a fact that he conveniently ignores.
The author spends the rest of the article poorly attacking this straw man he created, employing other fallacies along the way. The most glaring of which is his intentional confusion of cause and effect regarding the relationship between abortion law and women's health to poverty. He never really touches on the societal costs of drastically limiting access to abortion in the state... -
...that LEADS the nation in teen pregnancies, but rather chooses to focus on his economic straw man. There are very few facts given and when they are they lead him to unfounded conclusions. The entire article could be logically condensed down to one statement: "I don't know what's going on in Texas and I'm too lazy to find out." That's basically what this article you find informative is saying. Next?
-
★punchy★ wrote:
Mhuirt1 wrote:
It costs far less to house and feed someone for 40 years than to execute them. There are a surprising amount of legal fees involved in the state murdering a guilty criminal. Yes, it is murder even if the state does it. Let's not pretend here.Kill them all and let God sort them out! That's my opinion! As far as the death penalty goes if your guilty you deserve to die not be housed and fed at the expense of others til you die!
If guilty bullet in the head and bill the family . It costs a lot for death penalty because you let it. Appeal appeal appeal years in jail appeal . If they are guilty way beyond reasonable doubt like those mad gunners in American schools or the ones that shot that Australian that was jogging down the wrong road. Bag over head and bullet in brain . Cpl hundred in costs for cleaning pure and simple
-
@Midgard
Think about it this way. What in the expanse of human history has led to this type of justice system. Mind you I'm not advocating its perfection. But, really, what in our history has led us to this way of doing things? And when you decide what that is then decide why you'd want to go back in history to something we've already experienced for thousands of years. You know, ideally we should move forward, not backwards.
-
America is not a country.
-
☣ 🎸ӈɪƖƖßıƖƖγ🎸☣ wrote:
What is it then, hillbilly?:PAmerica is not a country.
![[][]](https://www.globalsupremacyapp.com/img/app/ajax-forbutton.gif)
©2021 MeanFreePath LLC