Check this anti-abortion site out.

[Reactionary]

Pierson, the main flaw of your reasoning is that you assume humans to be rational and inherently good. Well, the fact is that they're not good, and they behave irrationally more often than not, and it's easy to prove that. Firstly, you claim that abortion rates go down as sex education and contraception are introduced. While I do believe that it plays a certain role, I think you're mixing correlation and causation here. The main factor is the society's stance towards the issue. A few years ago I participated in a discussion about this, however I defended the position that you're currently defending, and I lost. Here's why:


--------------------GDP per capita---------Abortions-----------Population--------------Abortions per capita
Norway--------------$53,471------------- 16,054 (2008)-------------cca. 5M-----------------0,00322
USA------------------$48,387-------------1,212,350 (2008)---------cca. 313M---------------0,00387
Croatia---------------$18,192-------------8,925 (2008)--------------cca. 4,3M---------------0,00208
Tajikistan------------$2,163--------------17,489 (2006)-------------cca. 7,6M---------------0,0023

Sources:
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/ ... index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... per_capita


What do you see? Not only that the standard of living (if we should consider GDP per capita standard of living) doesn't decrease the number of abortions, it turns out that it may even increase it. Although I don't think this example proves a positive correlation, I think it's enough to refute your hypothesis.

Explanation? People in more "developed" countries are more sexually "emancipated", so they engage in casual sex more often, which leads to more unwanted pregnancies, and therefore more abortions. Although birth control is widespread, guess what - people don't use it! That's right. People aren't as rational as you think them to be, and they often don't think about consequences. A majority of unwanted pregnancies is caused by unprotected sex, which we've already discussed. What I've wanted to point out is that it's hypocritical to appeal to "choice" when you chose not to use birth control when you could have, and you consented to unprotected sex.

You approve of murdering unborn children (you admitted yourself that abortion is murder), so it's highly absurd that you claim that you value life. That's nonsense. Education, health care, birth control and counseling are good ideas, but they won't stop humans from behaving like horny, irresponsible animals. As I said, that's a flaw in your reasoning. But a law, on the other hand, could. At least it would demonstrate that the State doesn't approve of such acts. I'll mention my robbery analogy again - you can't legalize robbery claiming that it's safer to let the robber do his job rather than try and stop him, because he may get hurt or killed by a security guard during the process. It just doesn't work that way - you propose taking the line of least resistance. Well, it's not my problem, nor the State's, that some may opt for an illegal abortion and risk their health if they couldn't do it legally. After all, it's their "choice".

P.S.
Pierson, may I add that the quotes in your signature show a fundamental misunderstanding of Theism. After over a month here, you should know better.

[BavarianWheels]

Explanation? People in more "developed" countries are more sexually "emancipated", so they engage in casual sex more often, which leads to more unwanted pregnancies, and therefore more abortions. Although birth control is widespread, guess what - people don't use it! That's right. People aren't as rational as you think them to be, and they often don't think about consequences. A majority of unwanted pregnancies is caused by unprotected sex, which we've already discussed. What I've wanted to point out is that it's hypocritical to appeal to "choice" when you chose not to use birth control when you could have, and you consented to unprotected sex.

So what you're saying is that along with abortion being made illegal, casual sex between consenting adults without some sort of protection should also be made illegal?

What about those cases of pregnancy that did involve protected sex, i.e. use of the pill and/or a condom, that resulted in a pregnancy for some fluke reason? If God knew us before we were born (and I believe He does), is not protected sex "murder" of that which would've resulted in conception had sperm met egg? Certainly God knows the potential human that could've/would've resulted...

How do you enforce it and what is the consequence(s)for it? Capital punishment? I'm afraid making abortion illegal would go the same route as Prohibition did...it may be illegal, but there will always be a market for it.

[jlay]

Wheels,

Potentialities are not the same as actualities. A sperm may certainly have potential. But a conjoined sperm and fertile egg is an actuality. Millions of sperm are re-absorbed into the male all the time.

[Reactionary]

So what you're saying is that along with abortion being made illegal, casual sex between consenting adults without some sort of protection should also be made illegal?

No. All I've been saying since I joined this discussion is that people should take responsibility for their actions.

What about those cases of pregnancy that did involve protected sex, i.e. use of the pill and/or a condom, that resulted in a pregnancy for some fluke reason?

The same as about unprotected sex - no sex is 100% safe, but if everyone who didn't want children used birth control, there would be a lot, lot less "unwanted" pregnancies.

If God knew us before we were born (and I believe He does), is not protected sex "murder" of that which would've resulted in conception had sperm met egg? Certainly God knows the potential human that could've/would've resulted...

I don't think this even deserves a response.

How do you enforce it

By law.

and what is the consequence(s)for it?

What is the consequence for committing a murder?

Capital punishment?

I don't support capital punishment.

I'm afraid making abortion illegal would go the same route as Prohibition did...it may be illegal, but there will always be a market for it.

So let it be. There will always be people who break laws, doesn't mean we should legalize everything.

[jlay]

If you are using someone else's body to live, be it an adult, child, or fetus, and the individual doesn't want you there, are you not violating their bodily autonomy?

A fetus is not violating body autonomy. That is ridiculous. Perhaps you should look up the definition of violation. If a mother doesn't want her unborn child then that is an unfortunate burden, but not a violation. A violation implies a transgression or intent to harm. The child is innocent and is not violater. Other than just making the ridiculous statement, you've failed to prove it. And you can't. I noticed you conveniently did not address the question about protecting the innocent. And also failed to address partial birth abortion.

Pierson, we have a great group of moderators, and if they think I am being malicious they will let me know.

Again, I strongly encourage you to read Roe vs. Wade, this has been settled.

Yeh, well bud, slavery was once a 'settled' legal matter as well. Legal does not equal morally right. Thank God those who stood in opposition to slavery didn't take your stance when it came to the law.

Abortions aren't rare, why? I don't agree with your answer.

How could you disagree? I said 'MANY" people. Not all, not even most. Just that many do not see the unborn as a person. You may disagree, but I challenge you to disprove.

To be perfectly honest, I have no real objection to preventive contraception, other than the pill. I am not going to get wrapped up in abstinance only education as I think it should be a multi-faceted approach. However it isnt' THE answer. I think the last post demonstrates some flaws in your reasoning regarding both contraception and criminalization. It may be part of the answer, but I'd say a very small one. As people who are educated and have access still have unprotected sex.

Regarding the other. It all boils down to a "It's OK to kill my unborn baby if__________________." (Fill in the blank.)
-Roe V. Wade says so.
-I can't get maternity leave.
-I can't get day care.
-I'm being violated by a unborn child.
-I'm having a bad hair day.

As of right now, you can write in anything you want to, and it makes no difference.

BavarianWheels wrote:I'm afraid making abortion illegal would go the same route as Prohibition did...it may be illegal, but there will always be a market for it.

Wheels. That is another illogical statement. So, we should remove all laws simply because people will break them?

[Pierson5]

Pierson, the main flaw of your reasoning is that you assume humans to be rational and inherently good. Well, the fact is that they're not good, and they behave irrationally more often than not, and it's easy to prove that. Firstly, you claim that abortion rates go down as sex education and contraception are introduced. While I do believe that it plays a certain role, I think you're mixing correlation and causation here. The main factor is the society's stance towards the issue. A few years ago I participated in a discussion about this, however I defended the position that you're currently defending, and I lost. Here's why:


--------------------GDP per capita---------Abortions-----------Population--------------Abortions per capita
Norway--------------$53,471------------- 16,054 (2008)-------------cca. 5M-----------------0,00322
USA------------------$48,387-------------1,212,350 (2008)---------cca. 313M---------------0,00387
Croatia---------------$18,192-------------8,925 (2008)--------------cca. 4,3M---------------0,00208
Tajikistan------------$2,163--------------17,489 (2006)-------------cca. 7,6M---------------0,0023

Sources:
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/ ... index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... per_capita

The problem here is the sample size you are comparing. We've addressed this issue earlier. It's called cherry picking information. When we take a look at the data as a whole:

"The global abortion rate was stable between 2003 and 2008, with rates of 29 and 28 abortions per 1000 women aged 15—44 years, respectively, following a period of decline from 35 abortions per 1000 women in 1995. The average annual percent change in the rate was nearly 2·4% between 1995 and 2003 and 0·3% between 2003 and 2008. Worldwide, 49% of abortions were unsafe in 2008, compared to 44% in 1995. About one in five pregnancies ended in abortion in 2008. The abortion rate was lower in subregions where more women live under liberal abortion laws (p<0·05)."

You approve of murdering unborn children (you admitted yourself that abortion is murder), so it's highly absurd that you claim that you value life. That's nonsense. Education, health care, birth control and counseling are good ideas, but they won't stop humans from behaving like horny, irresponsible animals. As I said, that's a flaw in your reasoning. But a law, on the other hand, could. At least it would demonstrate that the State doesn't approve of such acts. I'll mention my robbery analogy again - you can't legalize robbery claiming that it's safer to let the robber do his job rather than try and stop him, because he may get hurt or killed by a security guard during the process. It just doesn't work that way - you propose taking the line of least resistance. Well, it's not my problem, nor the State's, that some may opt for an illegal abortion and risk their health if they couldn't do it legally. After all, it's their "choice".

Please read the discussion on the previous pages. We've talked about the whole "murder" semantics thing. Education, health care, etc... I agree, it won't STOP people from behaving irrationally. And criminalization does? When comparing the two solutions, mine has been shown to come out on top (reduced abortion rates). I've addressed your "robbery" analogy before. I think we can agree that criminalization works for some issues and not others (e.g. prohibition, abortion).

P.S.
Pierson, may I add that the quotes in your signature show a fundamental misunderstanding of Theism. After over a month here, you should know better.

Let's try to stay on topic

Pierson, we have a great group of moderators, and if they think I am being malicious they will let me know.

Doesn't matter if the moderators think it's malicious or not, I think you can agree those comments add nothing to the quality of the discussion.

Regarding the other. It all boils down to a "It's OK to kill my unborn baby if__________________." (Fill in the blank.)
-Roe V. Wade says so.
-I can't get maternity leave.
-I can't get day care.
-I'm being violated by a unborn child.
-I'm having a bad hair day.

As of right now, you can write in anything you want to, and it makes no difference.

Wrong. It all boils down to:
We can reduce the number of abortions by ____________ (fill in the blank.)
- Supporting what I proposed earlier
- Criminalization (doesn't work)

I'm off to class, I'll take the time to respond to your other points later. Take care everyone.

[inlovewiththe44]

What about those cases of pregnancy that did involve protected sex, i.e. use of the pill and/or a condom, that resulted in a pregnancy for some fluke reason? If God knew us before we were born (and I believe He does), is not protected sex "murder" of that which would've resulted in conception had sperm met egg? Certainly God knows the potential human that could've/would've resulted...

God only knows us before we were born because we have actually been born. He can't know someone who will never be.

[Danieltwotwenty]

Doesn't matter if the moderators think it's malicious or not, I think you can agree those comments add nothing to the quality of the discussion.

They added some humor to the discussion, which for such a serious discussion can be warranted sometimes.

I think you need to lighten up.

[BavarianWheels]

What about those cases of pregnancy that did involve protected sex, i.e. use of the pill and/or a condom, that resulted in a pregnancy for some fluke reason? If God knew us before we were born (and I believe He does), is not protected sex "murder" of that which would've resulted in conception had sperm met egg? Certainly God knows the potential human that could've/would've resulted...

God only knows us before we were born because we have actually been born. He can't know someone who will never be.

So you would say God cannot know how different scenarios in life would play out? Sure throws a limitation on all-knowing doesn't it?

...So aborting a pregnancy means a woman or couple is not really aborting a person since it's not been born...?

[Reactionary]

The problem here is the sample size you are comparing. We've addressed this issue earlier. It's called cherry picking information.

I could have picked another four countries instead of those I did, and the results wouldn't have been any different.

"The global abortion rate was stable between 2003 and 2008, with rates of 29 and 28 abortions per 1000 women aged 15—44 years, respectively, following a period of decline from 35 abortions per 1000 women in 1995. The average annual percent change in the rate was nearly 2·4% between 1995 and 2003 and 0·3% between 2003 and 2008. Worldwide, 49% of abortions were unsafe in 2008, compared to 44% in 1995. About one in five pregnancies ended in abortion in 2008.

So despite the increase of sexual "awareness", abortion rates still don't change significantly. 1/5 pregnancies ending in abortion is still way too much and can't be attributed solely to a lack of education and health care.

The abortion rate was lower in subregions where more women live under liberal abortion laws (p<0·05)."

OK, first I'll need you to state the source of that information.
Second, in statistical analysis you need to be sure to neutralize effects caused by other factors.
Third, the correlation, if it exists (I recognize that there might be a weak correlation) is very remote as we've seen.

Please read the discussion on the previous pages.

Cut the patronizing attitude.

We've talked about the whole "murder" semantics thing. Education, health care, etc... I agree, it won't STOP people from behaving irrationally. And criminalization does? When comparing the two solutions, mine has been shown to come out on top (reduced abortion rates).

Reduced maybe, but how significantly? Again, 1/5 of pregnancies ending with abortion is too much. You present a false dilemma because I never said that we shouldn't provide the people with education, health care, counseling etc. - in fact, I'm a proponent of welfare state so your objection is invalid. I'm saying that abortion shouldn't be a "safety net" for those who behave irresponsibly, and that the State should make that fact clear.

I've addressed your "robbery" analogy before. I think we can agree that criminalization works for some issues and not others (e.g. prohibition, abortion).

No, you didn't. And no, we can not agree. Drinking alcohol is a choice that falls under bodily autonomy, i.e. you can do with your body what you want as long as it doesn't affect others. This doesn't apply to abortion, and that's where the discussion should end. Regardless of how individuals respond to a certain law, the right to life should be protected whenever it's possible. It's all a matter of approach. Your approach involves conforming to an occurrence that we've concluded it's negative, instead of trying to fix it. That's not a very encouraging message to send - "Hey, don't have an abortion, there are better solutions... The nearest abortion clinics are (there) and (there)."

Should I make another analogy?
"Please don't rob banks, Mr. Robber. We'll give you free educational materials and lectures about why you shouldn't rob banks."
"Cool story, bro, but I still need the money."
"We'll provide you with health insurance, subsidies, even cash..."
"I think I'll pass on that. I don't have to tell you why - it's my personal choice after all."
"Oh... Sorry for disturbing you, Mr. Robber."

P.S. How long did the Prohibition last? From 1919 to 1933 - therefore, about 14 years. Abortion used to be illegal until the 1970s, and you claim that the society can't work without it?

[inlovewiththe44]

Bav, thinking of future events doesn't entail knowing anything. It's pure speculation based upon events that we have experienced. Also, once a sperm and egg unite, this is when personhood commences. At least in my view. Would you consider an egg and a sperm two separate individuals? I wouldn't: they're two halves of a whole. They have HALF the chromosomes of a person. Therefore, contraception does not destroy a person because there is no person there to destroy.

[BavarianWheels]

Bav, thinking of future events doesn't entail knowing anything. It's pure speculation based upon events that we have experienced. Also, once a sperm and egg unite, this is when personhood commences. At least in my view. Would you consider an egg and a sperm two separate individuals? I wouldn't: they're two halves of a whole. They have HALF the chromosomes of a person. Therefore, contraception does not destroy a person because there is no person there to destroy.

God's omniscience is really just speculation?

[Pierson5]

I think you need to lighten up.

I'm not angry or mad. Only that this is an ongoing thing with Jlay, and I thought it should be addressed. Telling someone they are sick and weren't held enough as a child hardly classifies as humor in my book. I guess we just have different senses of humor in that regard.

So despite the increase of sexual "awareness", abortion rates still don't change significantly. 1/5 pregnancies ending in abortion is still way too much and can't be attributed solely to a lack of education and health care.

The rates are tapering off, that's true. BUT, they are still going down. I would hardly say it's weakly correlated (25% reduction rate 1990-2005). There may be other factors, that's true. I don't ever recall saying a lack of education and health care were the only factors, merely that when introduced to the problem, they reduce the rates. I also think "religious values" is another factor. In a country that is predominantly religious (which pushes for abstinence education, and not contraception), it looks to me that this might play a role in the progress of reducing the abortion rate. If we look at say, a predominantly non-religious society, we can see there might be a correlation there:

Abstract
This article gives a review of the main factors that are related to the low abortion rate in the Netherlands. Attention is payed to figures on abortion and the use of contraceptive methods since the beginning of the 1960s up to the end of the 1980s. The strong acceptance of family planning was influenced by changing values regarding sexuality and the family, the transition from an agricultural to a modern industrial society, rapid economic growth, declining influence of the churches on daily life, introduction of modern mass media and the increased general educational level. The introduction of modern contraceptives (mainly the pill and contraceptive sterilization) was stimulated by a strong voluntary family planning movement, fear for overpopulation, a positive role of GPs, and the public health insurance system. A reduction of unwanted pregnancies has been accomplished through successful strategies for the prevention of teenage pregnancy (including sex education, open discussions on sexuality in mass media, educational campaigns and low barrier services) as well as through wide acceptance of sterilization. The Dutch experience with family planning shows the following characteristics: a strong wish to reduce reliance on abortion, ongoing sexual and contraceptive education related to the actual experiences of the target groups, and low barrier family planning services.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7971545
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religions_by_country

Granted, I am only comparing the United States to the Netherlands, and thus am falling into the same trap as you have (small sample comparison). But keep in mind, I am merely pointing out this is something to consider, not an end all proof or disproof of my, or your, solutions. I'm sure you could cite a non-religious region with high abortion rates. If there is a study looking at the data as a whole, that would be interesting. Maybe I'll search if one has been published later.

OK, first I'll need you to state the source of that information.
Second, in statistical analysis you need to be sure to neutralize effects caused by other factors.
Third, the correlation, if it exists (I recognize that there might be a weak correlation) is very remote as we've seen.

First, it was published in the Lancet. Which is why I told you to go back and read the previous pages. I cited it at the very beginning of this discussion. I'm not trying to be patronizing, but you jumped into the middle of a discussion and brought up arguments that have already been discussed. I don't feel like repeating myself, that's all.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lance ... 8/fulltext

Second, you are correct, you DO need to be sure some affects are neutralized. This is a difficult thing to do in population studies, but I trust sources like the Lancet and Pubmed have done their best.

I'm sorry I can only address half of your arguments at a time (I'm actually at work right now ), but I hate to let weeks go by without responding (like my other thread)

[inlovewiththe44]

Bav, thinking of future events doesn't entail knowing anything. It's pure speculation based upon events that we have experienced. Also, once a sperm and egg unite, this is when personhood commences. At least in my view. Would you consider an egg and a sperm two separate individuals? I wouldn't: they're two halves of a whole. They have HALF the chromosomes of a person. Therefore, contraception does not destroy a person because there is no person there to destroy.

God's omniscience is really just speculation?

I didn't say that. If something never happens, it can never be "known". Just like God can't create a four-sided triangle, he can't know something that never existed: it's inherently impossible because it's nonsensical. C.S. Lewis discussed this in many books, including the Problem of Pain. Going along with that, I'm not sure a little person who has not reached the outside world never existed. It's still in the mother's womb, from the moment of conception, so God could know this little being, because it exists. Also, I'm not sure if God speculates like we do, or thinks about the future or what could have been like we do. Because He knows all space and time, why would He need to speculate? There would be no need for Him to contemplate what might have been, because it really doesn't matter what might have been. But all of this might be pure speculation from me, trying to understand how a being that exists outside of time and space might behave.

[BavarianWheels]

Bav, thinking of future events doesn't entail knowing anything. It's pure speculation based upon events that we have experienced. Also, once a sperm and egg unite, this is when personhood commences. At least in my view. Would you consider an egg and a sperm two separate individuals? I wouldn't: they're two halves of a whole. They have HALF the chromosomes of a person. Therefore, contraception does not destroy a person because there is no person there to destroy.

God's omniscience is really just speculation?

I didn't say that. If something never happens, it can never be "known". Just like God can't create a four-sided triangle, he can't know something that never existed: it's inherently impossible because it's nonsensical. C.S. Lewis discussed this in many books, including the Problem of Pain. Going along with that, I'm not sure a little person who has not reached the outside world never existed. It's still in the mother's womb, from the moment of conception, so God could know this little being, because it exists. Also, I'm not sure if God speculates like we do, or thinks about the future or what could have been like we do. Because He knows all space and time, why would He need to speculate? There would be no need for Him to contemplate what might have been, because it really doesn't matter what might have been. But all of this might be pure speculation from me, trying to understand how a being that exists outside of time and space might behave.

So your thinking is that God had no idea or forethough of His "perfect" creation, but ONLY knew the situation we find ourselves in right now? God has no way of knowing the potential future, but only the reality future? In other words, God can ONLY KNOW that which WILL happen, but cannot know that which might happen if...?