View two pro-life university debates online in real time
Students for Life of America is hosting two important life issues debates this week at Harvard University and the University of St. Thomas. Both events will be live-streamed:
EVENT #1: Wednesday, November 14th, 8:00pm EST
Harvard Right to Life and Law Students for Life (an outreach of SFLA) will be hosting a debate with Professor Teresa Collett of the University of St. Thomas School of Law and Steve Aden of Alliance Defending Freedom at Harvard University. The debate has been entitled: “Should Roe Survive Another 40 Years?”
Pro-lifers can get more details and watch the event live here. For those in the Boston area, this event is open to the public.
SFLA president Kristan Hawkins says the event will be “a good starting point for what the pro-life movement must do in attacking the ‘everything is morally relevant’ culture we live in. The majority of Americans believe abortion is wrong, yet a majority still believe abortion should be legal. There is a disconnect here that we must resolved in order to abolish all abortions in our lifetime. Wednesday night will mark the beginning of this discussion.”
EVENT #2: Thursday, November 15th, 8:30pm EST
University of St. Thomas (Houston) Celts for Life and Students for Life of America will host discussion panel entitled, “What about Rape?” featuring Dr. Donna Harrison, former President of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists; Ryan Bomberger, Founder of The Radiance Foundation and person conceived in rape; and Rebekah Berg, a rape survivor who became pregnant as a result of rape.
This event will be live-streamed at www.whataboutrape.com. For those in the Houston area, the event is open to the public and will take place at 7:30pm CST in the Scanlon Room, Jerabeck at the University of St. Thomas.
Hawkins states:
We believe this discussion is one that must take place, especially after the historical presidential election our nation just witnessed in which pro-abortion President Obama and the Democratic party, time and time again, equated abortion with rape. Almost acting as if abortion would somehow end rape or end the trauma of the hideous crime against the woman. Because of this rhetoric and the tragedy of rape, too often, many pro-lifers feel un-equipped to answer the question of whether or not abortion should be legal after rape. Thursday’s discussion will take an honest look at difficult situation, the most traumatic event in any woman’s life, and discuss if abortion truly is the answer for those women who conceive as a result of rape.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Before any debate a video clip should be played showing what abortion actually is. I talked with a group of young men over and over again about abortion and what it does. Eventually they got upset with me and asked me to show them – I did. They were floored – they just couldn’t believe no one told them about this before. They took a stand and wrote a rap song you can listen to here:
http://www.thrufire.com/images/01%20Choose%20Life%202.mp3
(There’s a numeric mistake at the beginning…)
Chris I agree with your idea of showing a film of an actual abortion. They should also show a film of life developing so that everyone understands what a human being is.
Define the terms before the debate.
After watching these films there really isn’t much to debate about unless you have a prochoice debater who holds views like Mr. Singer.
Its nice to see a woman on the prolife side of the debate.
Tyler – I was going to write that – contrast life and death. Endowment for Human Development has some great materials (embryoscopies) that are very helpful in showing human development.
While the contrast is necessary, most people really don’t understand abortion, so context is necessary.
Steve Aden should work with the team at Life Training Institute to prepare. Center for Bioethical Reform would also be helpful in the debate prep.
I have a feeling though give the basic premise, this debate will be more legalese than exploration of principles.
How are these ‘debates’?
Trying to view the debate – nothing on ustream.
Hello Kyle
Unlike other legally unrecognized persons the aborted preborn are at huge disadvantage because they are aborted – they are not here to speak for their own right to life.
These debates always leave the dead-babies-r-us crowd looking so ignorant. I am surprised they even show up.
As far as I can tell, these events aren’t debates at all. I don’t see any pro-choice participants mentioned. If that’s the case then it’s simply a stunt.
Reality, they asked prochoice professors to show up but no one would.
To follow-up with my post from last night at 10:19:
I am thankful that the prolife community has individuals that are of the intellectual calibre of these two individuals. They were impressive and well informed speakers. It was a privilege to get to hear them speak.
Some thoughts on legalizing the right to life for the preborn:
This right should speak to the right the preborn have to existence, to having both biological parents in their life, medical care, and financial support.
The difficulties I see in re-legalizing the right to life surround defining the responsibilities of the pregnant mother during the pregnancy. Any law would have to clearly explicate the differences between miscarriages and abortions. Will miscarriages be investigated in case they are abortions? The law must consider this question and the appropriate responsibilities of the state to the preborn and the mother.
Any new law will also have to consider accidental or unexpected pregnancies in young mothers. Ideally the new law will mandate financial and emotional support be provided by local governments – that funding be increased to pregnancy crisis centres and that pregnancy crisis centres become capable of providing support to young families before and after birth. The after birth care should be provided until the mother/family is on their feet economically or the child enters school. (If there is a small government solution to providing temporary help for single parents and poor parents I would like to hear it – perhaps giving more grants to volunteer organizations that help young families.)
The law should consider expanding the sex education provided to children so that they understand the virtue of chastity and waiting until they are married before having children because marriage provides the most secure (financial and otherwise) environment in which to raise a child.
Medical emergencies when the mother’s life is at risk should also be considered by this law and perhaps they should even be defined so that it is clear to doctors that their obligation to the Mother’s life and health has not been reduced or minimized by their new obligation to the embryo and fetus.
The law should also be introduced with a parallel law that increases the penalties for rape. However, it should be clearly stated that at no time does the state grant a right to a Mother to kill the child conceived in a rape. The child conceived in a rape is a unique person under the law and deserves the same protection of the law.
The law should also address liberty/mobility issues of the mother during the pregnancy. Can a mother drink alcohol, fly, do various sports since all of these activities can put the preborn child’s life at risk. In my opinion, the law needs to be clear that protection of the preborn does not abridge the Mother’s liberty in any other way other than her “liberty” to directly and intentionally kill the baby. Some common sense will have to be applied since the ingenuity of those who wish to kill is boundless (for example, some foolish people may resort to coat hangers to kill a preborn child).
The new law should also address the responsibilities of Fathers, especially Bio Dad. The new law should reiterate his financial and other parental responsibilities to the child pre and post birth.
Reality, why would a pro-abortion point of view be presented in a debate about prolife policies and beliefs? We wouldn’t include a KKK voice in a debate on race, would we?
No pro-choice Harvard law professor would accept the challenge of a debate.
Yes, discussing how and why to protect innocent human life is a stunt. In Reality’s world.
Tyler (8:58 am) may seen necessary (and may it be), but there are multiple caveats that make this particular ‘solution’ non-legislatively-binding. For instance, there is a large home-birth movement some of which means a ‘Birth Without Violence`(Leboyer)and could also mean a Lotus Birth. Choosing these options should never be legally imposed.
One option is a `citizen-school` where people are taught the best-practices options, without the penalty system (to impose compliance) that is part of the legal system.
Just looked up Leboyer (Birth Without Violence) – that was different and intersting. It seems to have a good and positive message.
“No pro-choice Harvard law professor would accept the challenge of a debate.”
It’s almost like Harvard professors have better things to do with their time than debate students.
Tyler and Kyle, astronomers wouldn’t turn up at a psychic fair to debate astrologers.
These were not debates, they were staged performances.
Tyler and Kyle, astronomers wouldn’t turn up at a psychic fair to debate astrologers.
What makes you say that? Anti-Roe law professors seem perfectly willing to debate it.
If you don’t like the way the event was staged, blame your guys for staying home.
Rubbish Navi. Who staged the events? Were they neutral? Which pro-choice people did they invite?
It’s obvious these events were a sham, organised and run simply as anti-choice promotional theatre.
I don’t know anything about this one. But abortion proponents ducking debates isn’t exactly an uncommon occurrence:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/blog/canadas-mainstream-pro-aborts-running-scared/
“I don’t like the people who are running the event” sounds like a pretty lame excuse for not debating, but I guess that’s just me.
“…anti-choice promotional theatre.”
*yawn* Said it before, I’ll say it again: I’m not “anti-choice”. I personally love choices. Choices are great. I’m against ABORTION, because I’m against children being killed regardless of their age/location/dependence, and abortion kills them.
Yeah, like I said Navi, astronomers don’t debate astrologers, particularly when the event is staged at a psychic fair.
Which is analogous of what took place with these events.
Until you support all available reproductive choices for women xalisae, you are anti-choice.
Until you support all available reproductive choices for women xalisae, you are anti-choice.
You must’ve been cheering on Susan Smith the whole way, “Reality”. If not, you’re just as “anti-choice” as I am. <3
I support women in every “reproductive choice” they could want. I oppose abortion, which kills a child after a woman has ALREADY REPRODUCED. Just like Susan Smith did!
“I support women in every “reproductive choice” they could want” – you simply don’t.
It’s almost like Harvard professors have better things to do with their time than debate students.
Or more likely it’s that they are too arrogant to admit that the students have become the teacher.
“I support women in every “reproductive choice” they could want” – you simply don’t.
Yes, I do. You support them BEYOND simple “reproductive choice”. The fact that “Nuh-uh!” was basically all you had to offer as a rebuttal shows exactly that.
Hormonal birth control, tubal ligation, IUDs, condoms, IVF (with stipulations), surrogacy (again with stipulations)-all of these are choices about REPRODUCTION, and I support them! Things like abortion and infanticide have nothing to do with A WOMAN’S REPRODUCTION, but the termination of her child’s life once she has ALREADY REPRODUCED, and those, I cannot support.
It is a fact that some women in certain circumstances choose to terminate pregnancy prior to delivery. This has always happened and always will. Sometimes it is legal and sometimes it isn’t. But it is a choice which is available, one which you don’t allow. Therefore you are anti-choice.
What about this lady, would you have given her a choice? – http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/1114/1224326575203.html
Whups. Forgot NFP. I support that, too. THAT is also a choice about whether or not to reproduce and how to go about it. Abortion is not. That is an after-the-fact (crappy) attempt at damage control.
I’m familiar with the story. If it would’ve saved her life, then yes, by all means. At this point in time though, that’s debatable. I do think it’s deplorable that this story has been actively leveraged as an excuse by pro-abortion groups to legalize abortion in Ireland. If abortion actually would’ve save this mother’s life, the law in Ireland actually provides for that ALREADY. Sounds to me though, that it wasn’t lack of abortion that was responsible, but the failure of doctors to recognize that her waters had broken and infection had already long set in. The INFECTION killed her. Not a lack of abortion. Nice try, though.
Now that we have that red herring all cleared up, let’s go over the euphemistic crap you spouted earlier in the post:
It is a fact that some women in certain circumstances choose to terminate pregnancy prior to delivery.
“Prior to delivery” of what or who? And what does that accomplish? Does it kill a new human organism who has already been produced? Is that new human organism the biological child of his or her mother (the pregnant woman)? If yes, please see my earlier statements so you can ponder why you’re wrong and I am right. THAT’S A FACT.
This has always happened and always will. Sometimes it is legal and sometimes it isn’t.
Yeah. I hear wife beating has been going on for a long time, too. Maybe we should start giving women classes on how to take a punch instead of making it illegal to beat us.
But it is a choice which is available, one which you don’t allow.
Yep. And hopefully it’ll be illegal in my lifetime, so my daughter can get some justice. Speaking of my daughter though…
Therefore you are anti-choice.
Now you’re changing the definition of “anti-choice” on me. When we first started this little square dance, you said that one is only “anti-choice” if they oppose any choices pertaining to reproduction. I showed you that I didn’t, told you how abortion was a choice made AFTER reproduction has already occurred, and now you’ve moved the goalposts.
By that same token, I’d have my daughter tell you that YOU are “anti-choice” because you oppose(d) her right to be born and eventually make choices.
According to your logic every woman who has had a fertilized egg fail to implant and which subsequently flushed itself from her body without her even being aware of it – is a parent!
There’s no such thing as a “fertilized egg” because the egg ceases to exist as an egg once penetrated by the sperm. The cortical reaction fires off to prevent polyspermy. it can’t reset an allow another, after that point there is a continual process which is nothing less than the growth of a human being. Medically and scientifically, what was once two cells have become one.
So yes – after the cortical reaction (which takes place in milliseconds) the two providing humans, the male who provided the sperm and the female who provided the oocyte are parents.
You couldn’t even begin to discuss implantation without the cortical reaction taking place, so you’re acknowledging an aspect of development while denying the basis for it’s causation!
Just as everyone every conceived doesn’t live to old-age, it’s possible for the nascent human being to encounter an obstacle to her nutrition and safety and yes, naturally die.
A good deal of this has been made available on http://www.ehd.org
“According to your logic every woman who has had a fertilized egg fail to implant and which subsequently flushed itself from her body without her even being aware of it – is a parent!”
Yes, that is the Catholic argument. Good job.
“that’s debatable” – she was given zero chance when she could have had a chance.
“I do think it’s deplorable that this story has been actively leveraged as an excuse by pro-abortion groups to legalize abortion in Ireland” – ha, that’s rich coming from the “oo, an ambulance drove past a clinic” brigade.
“Now that we have that red herring all cleared up” – nice try, but your “obama is vain and egotistical because he’s written 7 autobiographies” attempt to invalidate what has happened won’t work
“of what or who?” – a developing fetus. I’d be less than happy if a car manufacturer pointed to a stack of components and said “look, we’ve produced a new car for you!”. I’d say “well you may be in the act of producing it, but you haven’t produced it yet”
“I hear wife beating has been going on for a long time, too” – we have laws against it because society has determined that it is indeed wrong. Not so abortion.
“And hopefully it’ll be illegal in my lifetime” – good luck with that.
“Now you’re changing the definition of “anti-choice” on me” – no I’m not. You tried that by claiming that from the moment of fertilization takes place something has been reproduced. I don’t know about you but I’m not sure that what exists at that time qualifies as a viable ‘reproduction’.
“I showed you that I didn’t,” – no, you claimed that you didn’t.
“told you how abortion was a choice made AFTER reproduction has already occurred” – go on then, have someone deliver a six week fetus and see how well it does. It’s a bit short of being a ‘reproduction’.
Now, I’m sure you’re very busy running around telling every second woman on the planet that she’s a parent because she has ‘reproduced’ even though she’s not aware of ever being pregnant. That’d be brilliant ‘fly on the wall’ stuff!
Re: Irish Times Story
Ireland is Catholic country and Catholic doctors are obligated to care for the life of the mother so if the doctors identified ssepticaemia they would have treated the mother, but they do not kill the baby to do so. This tragically could be the natural course of life for these two individuals. Deaths that were not preventable by moral means.
Another possiblility is that the presiding doctor was prochoice (or a Catholic in Name Only) and malevolently let the Mother die on purpose in an effort to slander the Catholic countr, and the Irish medical community’s policies in order to advance her/his proabortion agenda. Once you are a militant prochoicer all human life regardless of age and location loses its inherent value and can be used as a means to end. What is one mother death when prochoicers have killed so many preborn babies?
Another possibility is that the doctor knew about the septicaemia and was simply negilent and did nothing to help the mother. I think this is highly unlikely.
Finally, an abortion would not have prevented Ms. Halappanavar from getting septicaemia and saved her life.
“This tragically could be the natural course of life for these two individuals.” – what, like cancer and heart attacks?
“Deaths that were not preventable by moral means” – so fetus first, woman nowhere then.
“Once you are a militant prochoicer all human life regardless of age and location loses its inherent value and can be used as a means to end.” – what complete codswallop.
“What is one mother death when prochoicers have killed so many preborn babies?” – its the forced-birthers who have caused the unnecessary deaths of multitudes of women around the world. Women who may have gone on to give birth to any number of babies.
There may have been no guarantee that an abortion would have saved her life, but the refusal to allow her one removed the possibility.
Reality, didn’t you used to post on Live Action’s blog under the moniker Tom? Just wondering.
I just took a quick look at the site Navi and it doesn’t seem familiar. I doubt it but if I had then it would have been at least three years ago.
I am so sick of the name wars. Tell you what, Reality. I’ll own anti-choice if you own pro-abortion.
“Tell you what, Reality. I’ll own anti-choice if you own pro-abortion.”
Come to think of it, wouldn’t pro and anti abortion be the most neutral terms, given that abortion is what’s being supported and opposed and that’s the literal meaning of the prefixes pro and anti?
I also support a womans choice to continue a pregnancy and either keep or adopt out Jack, not just abortion. I support all choices, so I’m pro-choice. I’ve actually provided support for those who choose to continue to delivery and keep.
But maybe JDC is on to something.
All right then, it’s settled. We are anti-abortion and you are pro-abortion. Now no one will ever argue about what to call each other again.
I only said that JDC may be on to something, I don’t know that you can declare it settled. There will still be some who will insist on using the same terms that get used now.
Apart from which, abortion is the only pregnancy outcome that you are ‘anti’ but abortion is not the only pregnancy outcome I am ‘pro’, so the terms are out of balance.
First, I was being sarcastic lol. People will always, always argue about what to call the other side. I don’t see why people can’t just call them what they want to be called, otherwise it’s an endless argument about stupid crap. I call you guys pro-choice, I like to be called pro-life. I do think that pro-abortion is a perfectly rational term, and I think it’s amusing that you all seem to shy away from it. You’re pro-abortion being legal, you want it as a viable option. That’s pro-abortion.
The terms are only out of balance if you don’t consider the fetus and its interest in the matter.
But honestly I don’t care if people want to call me anti-choice, I’ll just agree that yes, I’m anti-killing gestating humans. I’m totally anti that choice.
Good to hear you have the capacity for sarcasm after the ‘but you’re really a christian’ assaults that you have had to fend off recently Jack.
The rationale is like I said Jack, I am ‘pro’ more than just abortion. I consider the choices equally valid. So to apply the label ‘pro-abortion’ could lead some to infer that that is all I support – and we know that happens enough as it is!
And as you say, you are ‘anti’ the choosing of one of the options which are available to pregnant women.
It’s all just semantics and vainglorious power positioning some of the time anyway.
It seems to me the protests over being called “pro-abortion” were on a lot shakier ground than our protests over being called “anti-choice”. There are a gazillion choices and nobody is for all of them. But to be “okay” with something means you are not against it, and thus to some degree for or “pro” it.
You didn’t even begin to address the argument I made about my daughter.
Duly noted.
“that’s debatable” – she was given zero chance when she could have had a chance.
Then that’s malpractice, and yeah, if termination could’ve helped her, I hope it comes out in the investigation and that the doctors are held accountable, SINCE TERMINATION TO SAVE A MOTHER’S LIFE ISN’T ILLEGAL ANYWAY. Luckily, we’re talking about ELECTIVE ABORTION, which roughly 99% of abortions ARE.
“I do think it’s deplorable that this story has been actively leveraged as an excuse by pro-abortion groups to legalize abortion in Ireland” – ha, that’s rich coming from the “oo, an ambulance drove past a clinic” brigade.
Yes, how dare we be aghast that veterinary clinics are more strictly regulated than abortion mills here in the states. But I’m glad you brought that up. This is ONE woman that MIGHT have had a case of a medically-necessary abortion. ONE. Now…how often do ambulances show up at abortion mills?
“Now that we have that red herring all cleared up” – nice try, but your “obama is vain and egotistical because he’s written 7 autobiographies” attempt to invalidate what has happened won’t work
Personally, I thought it was pretty effective, if not moot anyway, since I wouldn’t have prevented her from obtaining a termination if she needed one for medical reasons.
“of what or who?” – a developing fetus. I’d be less than happy if a car manufacturer pointed to a stack of components and said “look, we’ve produced a new car for you!”. I’d say “well you may be in the act of producing it, but you haven’t produced it yet”
Me too. But that’s not my argument, since we’re not talking about my crusade to save the spermatozoa. Egg/sperm = components. We’re not talking about components after conception has occurred, buddy. Nice try though, champ. P.S. Realtin, is that you?! “a developing fetus”, “a developing neonate”, are BOTH the same organism! You using the medical term and inserting the word “developing” in doesn’t change what the organism IS.
“I hear wife beating has been going on for a long time, too” – we have laws against it because society has determined that it is indeed wrong. Not so abortion.
Yeah. Funny thing about abortion law-society never determined abortion was okay. That was kinda just foisted upon us by the SCOTUS without really considering all the parties involved. As a matter of fact, some of the SCOTUS members who wrote the decision actually admitted that if they DID consider all the parties involved, the case for legal abortion would really just fall apart. That’s not justice. Thanks for pointing out how unjust legal abortion is, though.
“And hopefully it’ll be illegal in my lifetime” – good luck with that.
Thanks. ^_^
“Now you’re changing the definition of “anti-choice” on me” – no I’m not. You tried that by claiming that from the moment of fertilization takes place something has been reproduced. I don’t know about you but I’m not sure that what exists at that time qualifies as a viable ‘reproduction’.
I tried no such thing. Don’t blame your ignorance of human reproduction on me.
“I showed you that I didn’t,” – no, you claimed that you didn’t.
Far more than just a claim, buddy. Let me cite Scott Gilbert’s Developmental Biology textbook (9th edition) for you!
“Traditional ways of classifying catalog animals according to their adult structure. But, as J. T. Bonner (1965) pointed out, this is a very artificial method, because what we consider an individual is usually just a brief slice of its life cycle. When we consider a dog, for instance, we usually picture an adult. But the dog is a “dog” from the moment of fertilization of a dog egg by a dog sperm. It remains a dog even as a senescent dying hound. Therefore, the dog is actually the entire life cycle of the animal, from fertilization through death.”
…
One of the major triumphs of descriptive embryology was the idea of a generalizable life cycle. Each animal, whether an earthworm, an eagle, or a beagle, passes through similar stages of development. The major stages of animal development are illustrated in Figure 2.1. The life of a new individual is initiated by the fusion of genetic material from the two gametes—the sperm and the egg.”
This excerpt holds true for any sexually reproducing animal. Human beings included. ;)
“told you how abortion was a choice made AFTER reproduction has already occurred” – go on then, have someone deliver a six week fetus and see how well it does. It’s a bit short of being a ‘reproduction’.
Lack of survival due to immaturity doesn’t change what/who an organism is. That you think it would is laughable. See? I’m laughing at your ignorance. Ha ha.
Now, I’m sure you’re very busy running around telling every second woman on the planet that she’s a parent because she has ‘reproduced’ even though she’s not aware of ever being pregnant. That’d be brilliant ‘fly on the wall’ stuff!
Not really. That would be rather foolish. Do you go around claiming you can turn yourself invisible when no one’s looking at you or filming you? I’m not religious. I don’t believe in making claims that can’t be proven. I’m not about to start in this case.
xalisae, I have to agree with you. It does seem, in this situation, Reality is ignorant of human development. Reality is no Peter Singer. Reality your arguments are making you appear obtuse.
On the name game, some pro-aborts have begun to call us “pro-birth”. This is also inaccurate; it suggests that we oppose c-sections. The most accurate thing would be to say that we are against intentionally killing children who are in the womb, since it’s already illegal to kill children outside the womb. I’ve heard it said that we don’t care about “born” children. But it’s not legal to kill “born” children, is it? Well, maybe it’s OK in Chicago.
“You didn’t even begin to address the argument I made about my daughter.” – I have absolutely no intention of dragging your daughter into this as your propaganda tool.
If the lady’s death was due to poor choices by the doctors it sounds like their choices were highly influenced by their fear of the law.
What’s that ratio of maternal deaths caused by delivery compared to abortion? Ah yes, about 9 to 1, thats right.
According to your logic, if you were walking down the street and saw someone up a ladder with a paintbrush in one hand and a can of paint in the other and a partially painted wall in front of them, you would say “I see you’ve painted your house then.”
You keep asserting that anyone who is in even the earliest stages has ‘already reproduced’. Therefore you also asert that they are ‘already a parent’, as has been claimed by others before. So even if a woman’s pregnancy fails so early that she isn’t even aware of having been pregnant – you would tell her that she has ‘already reproduced’ and is a parent.
“a developing fetus”, “a developing neonate”, are BOTH the same organism” – yes, ‘developing’, not ‘developed’.
“Funny thing about abortion law-society never determined abortion was okay” – yet 80% believe it is in at least some circumstances, so apparently they have.
I have no problem with what Gilbert says. Yes, a human fetus is a human. Just like a dog fetus is a dog. As Gilbert says – Each animal, whether an earthworm, an eagle, or a beagle, passes through similar stages of development. Development – the act of developing.
“This excerpt holds true for any sexually reproducing animal. Human beings included.” – now you’re getting it – ‘reproducing’, ‘ing’ not ‘ed’.
“Lack of survival due to immaturity doesn’t change what/who an organism is.” – certainly not, but it determines the stage it has achieved whilst developing. It has not fully developed.
“That would be rather foolish” – well yes it would. Yet here you are telling women that even if their pregnancy fails so early that they aren’t even aware of having been pregnant they have ‘already reproduced’ and are a parent!
I have absolutely no intention of dragging your daughter into this as your propaganda tool.
I’m not “dragging” her. I don’t have to. She’s chomping at the bit to join the fight for basic human rights for gestating human beings herself now that she knows the truth about what I went through being pregnant with her. Would you like her to ask you the questions she has for people like you herself? But once again, your lack of response for her is absolutely noted!
If the lady’s death was due to poor choices by the doctors it sounds like their choices were highly influenced by their fear of the law.
Or her death is being used as a “propaganda tool” by your side, since very little has been actually substantiated. Knowing what the abortion rate of female children in the Indian population is like, I don’t doubt for a second dear old dad might’ve jumped on board with this thinking about how much easier legal abortion would’ve made things for him if they found out she was expecting a girl and that’s what ended up leading to all of this.
What’s that ratio of maternal deaths caused by delivery compared to abortion? Ah yes, about 9 to 1, thats right.
That’s funny. The last study out of Denmark in September of this year says differently.
In this study the researchers reviewed medical records for almost half a million women who had their first pregnancies between 1980 and 2004. They compared these records with the death register and the abortion register. Because they wanted to control for the unknown effects of previous pregnancies, the researchers focused on maternal mortality associated with first pregnancy only.
The results were conclusive: women who gave birth to their children had lower pregnancy-associated mortality rates than women who had early or late abortions. This was true for every time period measured—from 180 days to 10 years.[i]
Specifically, the researchers found that when other factors are held constant, early-abortions (before 12 weeks gestation) account for an 80% greater risk of mortality in the first year and a 40% greater risk of mortality over 10 years compared to the risk for women who gave birth.[ii]
The Danish study compliments similar data coming out of Chile and Ireland, within the last year. All three studies point to the same conclusion—legalizing abortion does not decrease maternal mortality rates. Abortion is not safer than childbirth. Rather, the reverse is true. Childbirth is safer.
The Chilean study compared the rates of maternal mortality for the time when abortion was legal in Chili and after it was made illegal. The study found that the maternal mortality ratio decreased by almost 70 % in the fourteen years after abortion was made illegal.[iii]
The Irish study compared maternal mortality rates in Ireland (where abortion is illegal) to England and Scotland (where abortion is legal). Researchers found that maternal mortality rates in Ireland were much lower than in England or Scotland.
Chile has the lowest maternal mortality rate in Latin America, and Ireland has the lowest maternal mortality rate in the world.
[i] David C. Reardon and Priscilla K. Coleman, Short and long term mortality rates associate with first pregnancy outcome: Population register based study for Denmark 1980-2004, 18(9) Medical Science Monitor, 71-76 (September 1, 2012), at 72.
[ii] Id. at 73.
[iii] Koch E, Thorp J, Bravo M, Gatica S, Romero CX, et al., Women’s Education Level, Maternal Health Facilities, Abortion Legislation and Maternal Deaths: A Natural Experiment in Chile from 1957 to 2007, PLoS ONE (May 4, 2012), at 9.
So…there’s that. Nice try, though!
According to your logic, if you were walking down the street and saw someone up a ladder with a paintbrush in one hand and a can of paint in the other and a partially painted wall in front of them, you would say “I see you’ve painted your house then.”
No, I really wouldn’t. Did you even actually READ the citation from the textbook I posted earlier?! Your logic, along with your analogy, is faulty. The point of amphimixis is the POINT at which at least one new organism is created through sexual reproduction. That is a chemical occurrence, not a process. If you wanted to be accurate in your analogy, the POINT at which the person painted the last stroke and began descending the ladder would be amphimixis, and yes, THEY WOULD’VE JUST PAINTED THEIR HOUSE. Loving the faulty analogies. That IS you, isn’t it, RC. I knew it.
You keep asserting that anyone who is in even the earliest stages has ‘already reproduced’.
Yes. As was stated in the DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGY TEXTBOOK I QUOTED EARLIER. You’re going to have to bring something to the table a little more potent than your disagreement and derision.
Therefore you also asert that they are ‘already a parent’, as has been claimed by others before.
Yes. Because they have parented a new human organism.
So even if a woman’s pregnancy fails so early that she isn’t even aware of having been pregnant – you would tell her that she has ‘already reproduced’ and is a parent.
I’d also apparently have super powers of omniscience. Go me! In all seriousness though, we’re discussing ELECTIVE ABORTION, so even if I did have the magical super power to know somehow when a woman has miscarried a very young child, it would be absolutely irrelevant because that’d be a miscarriage AND elective abortion really only effects embryos who have already implanted who are typically just a smidge older than what you’re talking about. The longevity of a child really has no baring on who or what that child is or was, and who that child’s parents are/were. This statement goes down in history as one of the more frivolous things you’ve said. Ever.
If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound? Absolutely. If the tree moved, it vibrated air molecules, and sound was produced, even if nothing was around to receive it. You seem to be confusing the fact that something happened or not with the affect or lack thereof on other parties. The mother not knowing that the child was miscarried is the same as the tree falling without anyone around to hear it. It happened, it was so, but in the grand scheme of things, it really didn’t matter, so whether or not it happened is “6 in one, or a half-dozen in the other”. Personally, I wouldn’t tell a mother something like that had happened, since I’d want to spare her feelings.
“a developing fetus”, “a developing neonate”, are BOTH the same organism” – yes, ‘developing’, not ‘developed’.
Yes. And level of development is relevant to who/what an organism is how exactly? I must’ve slept through that part of Biology. Certainly didn’t say anything about it in the DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGY, 9TH ED. EXCERPT I POSTED. We as organisms aren’t fully-developed until we are ADULTS, dude. You are totally RC. I freaking KNOW you are. You have his same flimsy arguments almost verbatim.
yet 80% believe it is in at least some circumstances, so apparently they have.
I believe you’ve already been taken to task about that statement on another thread. Tsk, tsk.
Development – the act of developing.
Yeah. Someone has to exist and be alive before they’re capable of developing, dude. That’s part of the definition of being alive. Growing. And once again, my children are also still developing, and they’ll continue to develop for a long time. That doesn’t change who/what they are.
now you’re getting it – ‘reproducing’, ‘ing’ not ‘ed’.
You DO realize that when I said “sexually reproducing” I was talking about us as a species and not individuals, right? Really, dude? Really?
certainly not, but it determines the stage it has achieved whilst developing. It has not fully developed.
Aaaaand, once again…an organism doesn’t have to be fully-developed to be considered a living organism of a given species. My children don’t have to be full-developed to be my children. I don’t understand why you insist on beating this dead, useless rhetorical horse of yours.
well yes it would. Yet here you are telling women that even if their pregnancy fails so early that they aren’t even aware of having been pregnant they have ‘already reproduced’ and are a parent!
See above. Just because it’s not necessary to say such a thing, and I wouldn’t do it, doesn’t mean it isn’t true, even if there is no way to know. I could’ve possibly parented many more children than just my two living children I have currently, but trying to ponder the infinite needlessly is a fool’s errand.
I thought Reality was supposed to be the smart troll.
“I thought Reality was supposed to be the smart troll.”
I’m still convinced he’s trying to win some sort of most ironically named commenter award. If so he is going about it in a very smart way.
OK xalisae, if you really want to go there. If you had chosen to have an abortion then – nothing. But you chose not to have an abortion, your choice – excellent. The fact that you have indoctrinated your daughter is also your choice. Reminds me of those youtube clips of kinder spouting tracts of religious rhetoric. Gee, I wonder where they got that from.
“The last study out of Denmark in September of this year says differently.” – actually no, it doesn’t. The infamous Dr. Coleman has an established track record of trying to turn correlation into causation. As someone has stated – “It is a fundamental tenet of science that one cannot infer cause from a correlation between two variables. Consider, for example, the strong correlation that exists between the number of bars in a city and the number of churches in a city. How can we explain this finding? Some may conclude that religion drives people to drink. Others may conclude that drinking drives people to religion. The most likely explanation, however, is that the correlation is spurious”
The various Chilean studies are simply a number of anti-choice claims supporting and building on each other. No science.
The Irish study you cite basically says that womens’ health services in Ireland have improved dramatically over the last 40 years. This has happened at the same time that abortion has been pretty much illegal. To draw the conclusion that the illegality of abortion has contributed to the improvement in womens health is laughably spurious.
So…there’s that. Nice try, though!
“I believe you’ve already been taken to task about that statement on another thread. Tsk, tsk.” – someone else’s wishful thinking does not amount to fact.
“You DO realize that when I said “sexually reproducing” I was talking about us as a species and not individuals, right? Really, dude? Really?” – you seem confused, that’s a shame.
“but trying to ponder the infinite needlessly is a fool’s errand.” – yet here you are.
OK xalisae, if you really want to go there. If you had chosen to have an abortion then – nothing. But you chose not to have an abortion, your choice – excellent.
Not nothing. The organism that is/was my daughter would’ve been killed. It’s really sad that a 10 year old can grasp that and you can’t. But I guess it’s a little different when YOU are the organism in question, eh? Also, I’ve said this before and I will say it again-I made no such choice. There was no choice to make. I don’t fight so vehemently against abortion for other women while thinking it would’ve been just peachy-keen for me to get one. I’m no hypocrite, and I’m not a child-killer, either. I’m all about taking away a single choice from us, but only b/c it is not a legitimate choice to make. Killing is not a legitimate solution to one’s problems. She’s not “indoctrinated”-s a matter of fact, I’ve taken great pains to hide this from her, and the only reason she knows now is because she found some of my writings and asked me about it. Sad that you have to blame her rightful anger over one of her parents wanting her dead at a certain point in her life on indoctrination, though. But, it is funny you mention that about religious kids being made to quote scripture. My daughter actually is a believer, and I’m not. I encouraged her to find answers on her own, and to never stop looking and considering such things. Never made her do anything in regards to religion, though. If she ever decides to shed her beliefs, I’d have no problem with that. If she decides to keep them, that’s great too. Unlike you, I actually know how to respect others who differ in their beliefs (*most of the time. I’m only human, and I do have bad days).
As far as the studies go, the numbers are what they are. You don’t like that they are what they are. Too bad.
you seem confused, that’s a shame.
I’m not confused. Your attempt to protect your delusion is causing you to feign ignorance about basic scientific terms and the English language.
yet here you are.
But by opposing abortion, I’m not pondering the infinite. These are REAL events, involving REAL people, that REALLY happened, as evidenced by my daughter’s life. Once again, you attempt to confuse the hypothetical with the actual. Frantic obfuscation and figurative arm-flailing to soothe your nearly non-existent conscience. I love-SIMPLY LOVE-the fact that my daughter’s life seems to be a source of discomfort for you. I can’t wait until she’s a bit older to go head-to-head with you herself and those like you, R.C. She’ll slap the self-soothing postulates right out of your thick little skulls.
oh, 2 new things I’ve learned about the Halappanavar case that I didn’t know before but which support my hunch that the infection was a result of dirty-dealings:
1.) her husband is being uncooperative with the investigation.
2.) she was a dentist, which means she had at least rudimentary medical training, so she would’ve KNOWN that infection was setting in or had set in. I find it weird that rather than immediately requesting treatment for what she must’ve known was an infection, she was just holding out for that abortion.
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/irish-pm-accuses-savita-halappanavars-of-being-uncooperative/1034301/
My guess: she was pregnant with a female child, and either tried to get rid of her kid herself, or tried to get help doing so, and it went sideways.