Send a Message
to CosmoDog

Comments

46

Joined

Aug 18, 2007

CosmoDog's Favorites

CosmoDog Profile

Forums Owned

Recent Posts

Abortion

You have been warned!!

I didn't say 19 week gestational pregancies, I said 19 weeks premature, meaning a 21 weeks gestation. I'll revise that statement because I can't find the source data the article referred to (it was a dead link - no pun intended - that referenced 21 week gestation survival rates were increasing and "increasingly common"). However, according to the Child Health Research Project Special Report. "Reducing Perinatal and Neonatal Mortality." Meeting Report, vol. 3, no 1. Baltimore, Maryland, May 10-12, 1999, as NICU care has improved over the last 40 years, viability has reduced to approximately 24 weeks, although rare survivors have been documented as early as 21 weeks. So the proven viable gestational age (8 years ago when the study was published)is 24 weeks, not 21; 16 weeks early, not 19.  (Aug 24, 2007 | post #1076)

Abortion

You have been warned!!

(Continued from aboveThe fact is, the more I dig, the more I find that points to pro-life, or anti-choice, whatever you want to call it. Noted feminists like Susan B. Anthony were against abortion. Noted abortionists change their minds. High profile members of the seminal abortion rights movement lied to support their cause. Politicians flip on the subject to gain larger piece of the block vote. I came into this forum a week ago honestly on the fence about this issue. I've always held discussion of this issue at arm's length, but had a belief that abortion should probably be kept legal. Now I'm not so sure. I’ve not yet heard an argument that convinces me that abortion should remain legal in the same form it is today. I'm at a point in my life where I'm tired of rhetoric and want to get involved in something that is bigger than me. I firmly believe that I could post in here until my fingers bleed and only get these responses: A. Women need access to quality care [for an elective procedure that carries significant health risks, even when performed legally]. B. It’s not a life, it’s a zygote or a fetus [even though it is growing and moving and has different DNA than the mother] As an aside, not that I think this is evidence for this issue, but I found this timely based on the discussions in here. I have a friend who is absolutely outraged over the Michael Vick dog fighting scandal. She thinks that he should spend life in jail for sponsoring the wanton killing of these dogs. She’s also very pro-choice, based on the semantics above. I asked her if she found it ironic that she supports abortion based on the argument that the fetus is not human, but she’s upset by the killing of dogs, which are decidedly not human. Her response: “Well, this is totally different.” But I digress. C. If you're pro-life you are at the least incapable of seeing another point, at worst you are a liar [even if you ask for better information but receive little that is convincing] D. A baby is not a baby until it is born [even though babies born as early as 19 weeks premature are now routinely surviving outside of the womb] I’ve read books that have stated that these are the primary arguments you will get when you engage in this discussion. I didn’t think that was true. I thought there has to be more than that, but I haven’t heard it here. There’s a lot of politically correct mumbo jumbo about “I don’t judge” and “I don’t think I’m superior.” I disagree. I think everyone here judges the others and thinks their ideas are superior, or they wouldn’t be here espousing them in the first place. What makes me different? I’m long winded and I’m trying to support what I say with evidence. I’ve not once based the validity of my arguments by calling someone an idiot, moron, Christian, pagan, liar, or based their worth on whether or not they can spell. I think I've reached a couple of people in here with what I've been trying to say, and that makes this worthwhile.  (Aug 24, 2007 | post #1055)

Abortion

You have been warned!!

First, I apologize if this a duplicate. My reply did that disappearing thing… You're inferring that if the data come from a pro-life source they're not accurate. They tend to cite physicians and experts in their field, so they have a modicum of credibility at the least. What's funny to me is that people so readily believed people like Dr. Nathanson when he was pushing a pro-abortion agenda but they put no stock in him now. Maybe he can't be trusted at all, but that doesn't change the fact that he put a lot of bad data into circulation in the '60's that is still being referenced today. While I was putting that post together I was jotting down numbers and didn't copy all of the URLs I visited. I'm not sure what was so 'outrageous' about what I said, but next time I'll be sure to get the URL for you. Some of the data came from the URLs I listed in later posts, some from WHO and CDC sites, some from Aborting America (Nathanson's book). Third, I did visit "pro-choice " cites but didn't find any hard numbers. I found a lot of vague phrases like "thousands and thousands" of deaths attributed to illegal abortion. And if you think the rhetoric on pro-choice sites is by any measure less than what is on the pro-life sites, you're kidding yourself. Pro-choice sites emote about the rights of the woman, the health issues they face, etc. Pro-life sites provide cleaner numbers (on the surface, anyway) and shocking quotes from abortionists like this: "Dr. Joseph Randall of Atlanta had a different experience. Randall, the operator of a clinic, estimates he performed 32,000 abortions. Like Levatino, he used the D & E procedure. After the operation, “you have to reassemble that baby — arms, legs, head, chest — everything [to be sure no pieces remain in the mother]. That’s when it got rough, even for old-timers like me,” Randall recalled.” Inflammatory? Yes. Designed to elicit a reaction? Yes. Effective? Yes. Show me a pro-choice site that goes into detail about the entire procedure and I’ll believe that site is not biased. Lastly, read this thread carefully and you'll see that neither side really cares what the other thinks or says, so don't pretend that my beliefs are tainted if I'm pro-life and yours are not if you’re pro-choice. You still haven't helped me with anything to effectively tell the other side of the story. Several other people have provided some information, but it lacks the evidence I'm looking for or it refers to data from the 1930's, the 1900's and even farther back when the death rates of EVERYTHING (BOCTAAE) were higher and life expectancies in general were much lower. As medicine and technology have changed, that older data becomes irrelevant. Thank you, though, to the people have provided those sources - I still have to look at some of them. (Continued)  (Aug 24, 2007 | post #1054)

Abortion

You have been warned!!

But, approxiamtely 50% of the babies who are aborted are girls, and they are decidedly in need of quality care and are exceptionally vulnerable. This is a point I have a hard time reconciling with your core belief of quality care for women.  (Aug 24, 2007 | post #1053)

Abortion

Before Roe v. Wade, did 10,000 women a year die from ille...

She was questioning how he accounted to 75,000 abortions.  (Aug 23, 2007 | post #14)

Abortion

You have been warned!!

I also said that I received much of my information from the web. I openly asked for better sources and reputible data from anyone who disagreed. You've provided neither. I "couch" my opinions with information I've located, you insult people's intelligence. Everyone has their method of debate.  (Aug 23, 2007 | post #978)

Abortion

Before Roe v. Wade, did 10,000 women a year die from ille...

Well said.  (Aug 23, 2007 | post #12)

Abortion

Before Roe v. Wade, did 10,000 women a year die from ille...

Here's his accounting method: "We were inundated with applicants for abortion," says Nathanson. "To that end, I set up a clinic, the Center for Reproductive and Sexual Health (C.R.A.S.H.), which operated in the east side of Manhattan. It had 10 operating rooms, 35 doctors, 85 nurses. It operated seven days a week, from 8 am to midnight. We did 120 abortions every day in that clinic. At the end of the two years that I was the director, we had done 60,000 abortions. I myself, with my own hands, have done 5,000 abortions. I have supervised another 10,000 that residents have done under my direction. So I have 75,000 abortions in my life. Those are pretty good credentials to speak on the subject of abortion."  (Aug 23, 2007 | post #11)

Abortion

Before Roe v. Wade, did 10,000 women a year die from ille...

Something that is often neglected when we go back in time is that the death rates for nearly everything have dropped as technology and medicine has evolved. A burst appendix used to be death sentence. A compound fracture of the leg meant almost certain amputation.  (Aug 23, 2007 | post #8)

Abortion

You have been warned!!

So there's no spellchecker in here. Can we all get past that? See y'all later, off to work now.  (Aug 23, 2007 | post #946)

Abortion

You have been warned!!

That is from one of my replies yesterday. I found some people who were pro-life but converted to a pro-choice stance. I almost didn’t post this because I know it will be instantly dismissed as partisan, but Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Joe Lieberman and John Kerry were all once pro-life. Prior to their runs at the White House they changed to pro-choice. The Clinton/Gore ticket received the full endorsement and support of NOW (which is on record as saying a woman's right to abortion is more sacred than her right to vote), but while in office Clinton signed a ban on partial birth abortions. Did he switch his stance purely for political gain to help get eleceted? His words and actions are inconsistent, so how strong is his belief? Obviously not very strong either way. Anyway, I just wanted to put this out there since I said I couldn’t find anyone who switched from pro-life to pro-choice. If anyone has any other notable examples I’d like to see them.  (Aug 23, 2007 | post #945)

Abortion

You have been warned!!

Thanks for the feedback! That makes it worth the effort.  (Aug 23, 2007 | post #934)

Abortion

You have been warned!!

I didn't say that religion doesn't impact people's beliefs. In Nathanson's case, his change predated his Catholic baptism by 23 years. I agree that someone beliefs can skew their perspective, but when you're trying to decipher a complex issue, it one writes off someone's input based on their religious beliefs, or lack thereoef, you're only skewing the issue even more based on your prejudices and assumptions. Empirically (looking at voting preferences) it's a risky statement to assign religion to the cause. The majority of people who vote for Democrats are pro-choice. In the last election 38% of Protestents voted for Kerry; 52% of Catholics voted for Kerry and 75% of Jews voted for Kerry. Is religion a factor in being pro-abortion or anti-abortion? Absolutely. Is it the only factor? Not by a long shot.  (Aug 23, 2007 | post #933)

Abortion

You have been warned!!

So presenting confirmed facts (deception on the part of the central figures in the genesis of the legalization of abortion) - facts which were not presented in this thread to this point - is not raising the discourse? Offhandedly dismissing that information is also "same old" tactics. So far I can count on the following responses: A. Keep it legal because they're going to do it anyway. I'm encouraged by this line of reasoning. "Officer, there's no point in giving me this speeding ticket. I'm just going to speed anyway." By this logic, does everyone who believes that the main reason for keeping abortion legal also believe that marijauna, cocaine and herion? People are just going to do it anyway, and without regulation, people will continue to die from coke cut with bleach. B. Emotion based arguments designed to scare people into belief. Back alley butchers wildly swinging rusty implements; emergency rooms "overwhelmed " with mained, infected women. Powerful images, but there's no data to support it (at least none has been provided here). I can't find any information that says "We had an average of 6 cases per night where women presented with symptoms of having been pregnant and aborted or miscarried the child." Surely an established emergency room has this kind of data, but I've been unable to find a source for it. Maybe your flying monkeys took it.  (Aug 23, 2007 | post #930)

Abortion

You have been warned!!

I knew this would come up. :-) Here's what he says about changing his beliefs: "I am often asked what made me change my mind. How did I change from prominent abortionist to pro-life advocate? In 1973, I became director of obstetrics of a large hospital in New York City and had to set up a prenatal research unit, just at the start of a great new technology which we now use every day to study the foetus in the womb. A favourite pro- abortion tactic is to insist that the definition of when life begins is impossible; that the question is a theological or moral or philosophical one, anything but a scientific one. Foetology makes it undeniably evident that life begins at conception and requires all the protection and safeguards that any of us enjoy." His decision was based on physical evidence, not theology. He was baptised Catholic in 1996 - 23 years after he changed his position. Don't fall into the trap (not that you would)of "Oh, he's Christian. His opinions are irrelevant." Discounting someone based on their religious affilliation is sticking one's head in the sand and letting something unrelated to the data distort the system. It's also taking a narrow view of people, which is what the "left" always accuses the "right" of doing. If he was pagan would it matter? Don't distort the system, let the data speak.  (Aug 22, 2007 | post #882)

Q & A with CosmoDog

Read My Forum Posts Because:

I'm interested in the responses

Blog / Website / Homepage:

http://the-baying-hound.blogspot.com/

I Believe In:

America