More Evidence: Giving Birth is More Dangerous Than Abortion
The propaganda mill that churns of false claims abortion continues is spite of clear evidence it is lying. The risks of giving birth are greater than having an abortion.
The darkest side of anti abortion politics is the lack of effort to get better care of women. Many fewer women would die if they received proper medical care. The U.S. has a rate of survival down with third world countries, the worst among wealthy countries. The resources are here to lower the death rate. There is no interest. All the political money flows to anti abortion.
One irony is that anti abortion zealots often accuse women's choice groups of being raciest. That is because early women's rights focused on poor women. Today we can see clearly it is anti abortion that can be accused of being raciest. Women of color are more likely to die in child birth than white women. This could be equalized by sending better health care to areas where these poor women live. But there are no political juices in anti abortion to do this. Their passion is in paraded in front of clinics that provide abortion and passing laws to make abortion illegal. It is inevitable deaths of women will be even more frequent.
What can anti abortion groups do to right this wrong. They could pledge to cut in half the amount spent in anti abortion and spend it lobbying for better health care for women. I know this would be hard because those who send in money do not care about women either. So money sources might dry up.
It is sad to contemplate the picture of a poor pregnant women. I'm just speculating here, but think of a young woman who has not had regular physicals and may not be in perfect health. She does not want to be pregnant but is. She does have the resources to see a doctor regularly, does not have a good diet and knows the meager income she has will end when she cannot work. On top of that, she lives in a state too distant from abortion services to use them.
Such a woman should be of concern to us all. I wish there was more political help for her.
Jon's utopia is abortion replaces childbirth (because it is safer for the woman). SMH
ReplyDeleteWhere does that leave us survivors?
Huge markets for infant products dries up, causing lay-offs worldwide. Another year passes and products for 1-2 year-olds dries up. More lay-offs.
School Boards start planning for a radical change to education delivery. In 4 years, there is no need for HEAD START, Pre school education. Food, clothing and now student shortages result in more lay-offs.
20 years after the last birth, there are no more elementary, secondary or much of any education. Unemployment, looting and rioting are common.
Social Security checks stop arriving since the whole system is bankrupt.
New cars? Hardly. Roads or any infrastructure being replaced, upgraded, or new getting built?
30 years out from "no more births allowed" and we have world War 3. People fight for every scrap of food. If a culture can abort every child it can euthanize its elderly; ill or healthy.
After 30 years, even Jon is dead. Me, too. Our children and their posterity may actually understand that God exists and He knows how to fix our dilemma.
It seems some humility and common sense will lead us to love the gifts of children and our aged as we should before we self-inflict extinction and the horror that would accompany it.
Matt "Jon's utopia is abortion replaces childbirth."
DeleteI know it must be a sad time for you seeing things you have believed your entire life and no doubt repeated to other a gazillion times are not true. These include, "Abortion is dangerous for women" and "Abortion harms women psychologically." There is no way to recover from this defeat but to divert attention from beliefs that have been proven false. It is called the Red Herring technique of arguing.
What you avoid at all costs is allowing women to decide on the risks and rewards they want to take on in their lives. Whenever this is presented to you, instead of agreeing with such a practical and realistic idea, you divert the discussion by claiming those making this case are murderers and/or against all births.
Today you use the same technique with a sudden interest in the economics of demography. Suddenly having children is good for the economy and having none is bad. Legal abortion has nothing to do with no children. We will not see you applying the economics of children to women will we? You believe the cost of raising a child is the punishment for sex. When women are punished for having sex by being forced to give birth at every pregnancy they will get the abstinence message from the church and stop all sex except when they want a child.
As for the economic impact of more children ask China about that. China's path to becoming an economic super power began with a draconian one child policy. With that policy women and the army of people formerly employed in raising children went into the workforce producing goods. It raised a generation of children with more education than previous generations and now the country is tech competitive. Of course, not everything about the policy turned out well but the economic success is undeniable.
It would be refreshing to see you deal with real facts and the real world. Unfortunately, it will never happen.
Rather than defend your essay today you launch the oft-repeated personal attacks, misrepresent my argument and set up a strawman which you pummel until the Oz scarecrow would have long since been scattered to all 50 States.
DeleteYou and I and most sane people believe in restricting the liberty of US citizens to do countless number of things; some to their own body, some to others and some untethered to bodies.
In most of the US, men and women cannot engage in prostitution. They can't engage in killing their own pet, most of the time, but they can work at a beef slaughterhouse.
They can't steal even if they belong to a religious group which allows theft.
Your warped view of personal rights has nothing to do with women's rights.
Even children know where babies come from and that it is wrong to intentionally kill a baby still unborn (or born!).
Your argument is paper thin but appeals to some who can't quite think through to the truth.
Matt--"..can't quite think it through to the truth."
ReplyDeleteRational people do not think for a moment one fertilized cell is a "baby." Only people who accept religious propaganda as fact can believe such an absurdity. They are the ones who "...can't quite think it through to the truth."
Boom. We were all (4 of us) were waiting for the 1 fertilized cell argument. It comes when you are done making logical arguments about reality, i.e. when women know they are pregnant. Ooops, did I type p-r-e-g-n-a-n-t? I meant to say "with child".
DeleteInsult religion. Insult God. Insult people who have beliefs. I'm fairly certain those of us who believe in God have contributed our fair share to art, science, and anything else mankind has aspired to over the centuries. In fact, you might say - well, not you, it was Christianity that forged arts and science in western civilization. I'd love to have a live debate with you over Christianity's role in western civilization. Then we can dovetail directly into the absurdity of atheism and the logic of Divine Creation.
For now, we can stick to those women who are "with child" and who has the right to kill them (hint: no one).
BTW, if abortion is safer than childbirth and 'not driving or riding' is safer than driving or riding, have you contemplated an economy without cars, trucks, planes and trains? How would women's health be affected if the USA were to adopt the 'walk, not drive' philosophy?
Matt--"...have you contemplated an economy without cars, trucks, planes and trains?"
DeleteYou should put out a shingle, "MATT, CONSULTANT: LEARN HOW TO USE THE RED HERRING TECHNIQUE IN ARGUMENTS."
Women themselves make choices to drive, walk or bicycle. They make these decisions based on their time, money and health. People like you do not want them to make choices and decisions about their pregnancies. You, especially men, and even more especially male Catholic clergy, are smarter, more responsible and know what God wants better than women. Just admit it, anti abortion is about controlling women.
Jon; Have you "consulted" the thousands and thousands of women who have not chosen to abort, without the influence of men, husbands and clergy, and are thankful and joyous for the opportunity to bring forth children, even if not anticipated.
DeleteI know for a fact, there are" "men friends" and husbands that would approve abortions in spite of the mother's choice to go full term. For the un married, there is the matter of child support. A more self centered position. Then there is the four V situation; "Viggle it in, Viggle it out, Vipe off, and Vamoose. More self centered.
Your black and white is not so black and white.
"you believe that the cost of raising a child in the woman's punishment for having sex". I don't think that Matt believes any such nonsense. Jon apparently believes it though.
ReplyDeleteA red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important question. It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or audiences toward a false conclusion.
ReplyDeleteAnalogy is a cognitive process of transferring information or meaning from a particular subject (the analog, or source) to another (the target), or a linguistic expression corresponding to such a process.
I used analogy to drive my point home about the absurdity of abortion being healthier than childbirth. The analogy is to cars where one can avoid dying from car accidents by never entering a car and avoiding being anywhere near a car. I have not used a red herring argument to my knowledge.
On the other hand, you throw out red herrings predictably and usually with minor prompting. One can expect your "one fertilized egg" red herring argument to arise when you want to change the subject or are knowingly defeated in your present argument, as you are today.
Let me give you an analogy which will gnaw at you and probably produce a red herring. If a woman can do with her own body what she pleases, then why was slavery every an issue when the master's use of his property was none of anyone else's business? The analogy is stark. A slave owner cannot use his property as he pleases because he cannot own and control another human being. Likewise, a woman cannot control the DNA-separate human life within her as she pleases because she cannot own and control another human being. No slavery equates to no abortion; even if the slave is a single fertilized cell. At one time in our country, the status of a human being - slave or not slave - was determined solely by the status of his mother, at the moment of conception. No argument sufficed for the freedom of the child within her.
Matt: as you and I both know he will wiggle out of your argument by saying that there is nothing prior to birth that can be enslaved. just a clump of cells or a potential human being. something that miraculously becomes a human being at birth.
ReplyDelete