Originally posted by sh76As the article, which provides no source (or I'm not looking well enough) also states, the difference might also be due to a difference in illegal abortion rates. But even if that wouldn't explain it - 15% of total pregnancies end in abortion?! Sheesh, have you guys never heard of the pill?
Incidentally, regarding KN's point earlier about what factors decrease abortions, apparently, a state's pro-life attitude does decrease abortions.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/pro-life-states-have-lower-abortion.html
Originally posted by sh76The ones we ascribe rights to under the law.
Which fetuses have human rights and which ones don't?
One big problem with abortion is this: before conception, there is no person, and after birth there is definitely a person, so at what point does a non-person become a person? That's the thing no one can decide on.
Most Christians believe that a zygote has a spirit, so abortion at anytime is wrong. Some countries only allow abortions only in the first trimester, some allow abortions into the second trimester, and some don't have any restrictions at all. Some think that once the fetus develops a nervous system and can conceivably perceive pain, abortion is no longer a viable option, implying that feeling is intrinsic to personhood. Some think that once the fetus develops working lungs and becomes viable outside the womb (the limit of viability being the point at which the unborn baby has a 50% chance of survival outside the womb), abortion is no longer a option, implying that the ability to sustain one's self is intrinsic to personhood, etc...
There are good arguments for, and convincing counterarguments to, all of the above being considered the true litmus test of personhood. However, at some point lawmakers must make a practical decision on where to draw the line between non-person and person, taking into account the fact that if a fetus is granted personhood at some point the rights of that unborn baby may be in conflict with the rights of the mother.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThe sources are embedded in the article. Red bold text is hyperlinked to the sources on that site.
As the article, which provides no source (or I'm not looking well enough) also states, the difference might also be due to a difference in illegal abortion rates.
Nate (an avowed liberal, by the way), always mentions caveats. He's a statistician; that's what statisticians do. The fact that he wrote the article shows the he believes there is a correlation that is unlikely to be explained away by other factors.
Originally posted by FMFYou put yourself in that position, now deal with it, king of hypocrisy.
Ok, don't answer the question, by all means.
You're new "King of hypocrisy" line of attack is killing me. Killing me, I tell you.
Was my use of the word "infanticide" to describe an abortion an example of "easy-labeling"? My use. Or your use. Whoever it was.
Originally posted by no1marauderYes, it does. They were killed, but if it was legal, it wasn't murder. Of course there is a popular definition of murder (broadly speaking, just killing) and a legal definition, but usually it's clear which one you mean. Or perhaps you also think that soldiers who kill another soldier are all murderers?
I'm not interested in semantics. Just because the Holocaust was legal under German "law", doesn't mean those people weren't murdered.
But it's a good thing you don't care about semantics, so we can establish that calling abortion "murder" is not an argument for or against anything.
Originally posted by no1marauderSo you wouls say that John Brown was morally justified for murdering slave owners? I would not. In addition, I would also say the same for Scott Roeder.
I'd say John Brown was morally justified in using physical force to try to end slavery.
I'd say any slave who killed his master was morally justified.
So are you saying Scott Roeder was morally justified in killing Dr, Tiller?
2 edits
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYou know, killing vermon is not murder, right? That's how the Nazis rationalized it.
Yes, it does. They were killed, but if it was legal, it wasn't murder. Of course there is a popular definition of murder (broadly speaking, just killing) and a legal definition, but usually it's clear which one you mean. Or perhaps you also think that soldiers who kill another soldier are all murderers?
But it's a good thing you don't care about sema ...[text shortened]... e can establish that calling abortion "murder" is not an argument for or against anything.