Legal Abortions in selected countries for 1990.

Russia 4103425
United States 1429577
India 596345
Japan 456797
United Kingdom 184092
Italy 161285
France 161129
Cuba 147530
Germany1 145267
Bulgaria 144644
Hungary 90394
Canada 71092
Poland 59417
Sweden 37489
Norway 15551
Israel 15509
Finland 12232
New Zealand 11173
Greece 1216
Iceland 714

Tubley, your figures are meaningless, whats your point?

MJ, the Catholic Church uses every method in can, to restrict women in South America from having access to family planning, as they do in the West. The net result is that desparate women undertake desparate measures, hundreds of thousands die in the process.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3194680.stm

Of course Catholic dogma is clearly flawed. In nature sex is
quite normal and natural, all those hormones have an effect on
creatures of whatever species. The warped attitude to sex,
is Catholic dogma and no more. Basing all this guidance on
some old testament text of a few spilt seeds is patently ridicilous.
Here we have Martin, telling us exactly the opposite, ie don't take
the OT too literally.

At the end of the day, women and their partners, have to decide how
many children they can feed and clothe. Denying them that right in much of the third world, something that is taken for granted in the first world, is a disgrace. Women are dying in their hundreds of thousands because of Church policies. The Catholic Church should be ashamed of itself.

Bosk, Professor or garbologist - education doesn’t guarantee all utterances are pearls of wisdom.

No worthy Professor discourages debate based on credentials alone…innovation and genius is not restricted to academia.

Your analogy indicates some with too much time and insufficient work to occupy their minds…being paid for the privilege.

The ludicrous presumption baby would die if she disconnected the blood supply begs the question… What was baby’s blood-supply before the ‘date’?

Countless billions in grants, are frittered away on such waffle for debate or thesis, while more pressing issues remain ignored because they require greater effort, a moral stand or a step outside-the-square.

Academics often preach creativity, while practicing conformity.

Take a look throughout history at any creative genius who steps outside the square in any profession…they are invariably treated with derision by their own, until the success of their creation is proven to the general public and they instead become heroes, AFTER THE FACT.

(1985 WA ‘cure-cause’ for stomach ulcers discovered…ridiculed by medical profession. 2005 – recognition gained world-wide.)

The Bible is berated, yet the theories-writings of others are consumed avidly as worthy of serious and prolonged debate, because the promoter has academic qualifications…again enlightened or creative debate is neither confined to, nor guaranteed by, academia alone.

Additionally, the professors involved in Bosk’s ‘debate’ were paid to teach…and secondly, they weren’t confined to 350 words…neither applies on these threads…

I don’t disregard arguments based on the writers ‘credentials’ but on the validity or otherwise of its content.

During mass killings throughout history, many supported the perpetrators and their brutal methods (whether out of fear, agreement or convenience)…few stood ‘against the mob’…history proved the few correct in every instance, as it will again. The wheel turns full circle.

Yabby, extremes of nature, corruption and-or greed by corporations or governments who don’t allow workers a living wage, kill millions, civil disobedience inevitably follows when desperation for basic sustenance is denied. ‘Where injustice becomes law, resistence is inevitable…’ Nelson Mandela.

Remember Poland Yabby, that’s what happens when influences of Catholicism change the oppression of government, peacefully. Brazil too, Michael, well said.

(tbc)

(Cont…)

Bernard Nathanson wasn’t Catholic, Yabby…he was an abortionist who accepted he ‘had overseen the killing of many thousands of babies and became a pro-life advocate.

There’s been involvement from Christians-and-non-Christians-alike in pro-life advocacy and pregnancy assistance…

Instinctive or learned behaviour IS POSSIBLE in humans, Yabby…but humans exercise free-will and virtues, not possible in other species.

Yabby, should we seek genetics of ‘good mothers’, allowing only them to bear children? The jury is still out in academia on 'nature or nurture'...

Having had considerable experience with babies-children in my life, I approached motherhood with confidence and little apprehension. Mothering has been second-nature because of the life-time of experiences and example I had. A friend with minimal contact-experience with babies or their care, was extremely apprehensive and overwhelmed by the prospect of having sole care of her baby for much of each day…she couldn’t face many tasks initially. Support and her determination to develop an understanding of her children’s needs and meet them, has made her the wonderful mother she is today.

That’s not genetic, Yabby, neither are many of the other attributes of motherhood. Her initial difficulties don't make her a worse mother than I, nor does anyone’s genetic inheritance…

Your suggestions to that effect are offensive and ignorant of the requirements for successful parenthood.

I hope you aren’t in a position to advise new parents…the results could be catastrophic…

I’ve no obligation to prove existence of anything at all…as I’ve stated, the debate’s on abortion…deliberate killing of a tiny human life…I don’t support such killing.

If you do - the onus is on you to prove that you are ‘more equal’ than another human and therefore have the right to kill by whatever means, however barbaric.

You and other anti-lifers are yet to provide such proof.

Tubley’s figures are as relevant as yours are inaccurate...hundreds of thousands of women aren’t dying from ‘policies’ of the Catholic Church…but many more than that are cared for by Catholics like Mother Teresa’s Sisters of Charity.

Respecting his inability to respond (Not my doing), I’ll ignore Col’s final post.

Meg
Quote "The ludicrous presumption baby would die if she disconnected the blood supply begs the question… What was baby’s blood-supply before the ‘date’?"

@ points
1) your objection is irrelevant given the purpose of the analogy which is to examine the principle that abortion is always wrong when it it takes a human life. I've provided you with a situation when it would NOT be wronf to take a human life. yet you dismiss my argument for such a trivial objection. Is this really thereason Meg?

2) All I need do to ensure the argument is valid is that it follows the principle of analogy I have previously supplied. The argument does this. Therefore it follows that the argument is valid.

3) Because you have requested it I supply a reason for the child's condition. A freak accident & a genetic condition has brought about his need at just these last few hours. There you go Meg satisfied. I await your next stalling tactic with great anticipation.

Now to deal with a lie of yours. In a previos post you had dismissed the argument I had provided because it was illogical. Now you claim you were engaged in debate. Debate may be defined as reasoned argument Meg. Dismissing someone's argument without giving reasons is NOT a reasoned argument. It is a display of sheer prejudice. So your claim is lie #1.

Lie #2
In your last post you you FINALLY gave your reasons why the analogical argument was illogical. [As I have noted above your reasons are foolish & invalid]. But you then go on to say you couldn't have given it before because of the 300 word limit. So why can you do it now? Have they increased the word limit? This is a lie Meg.

It has become increasingly obvious to me that you will do anything rather than answer the question. Could it be because you have no answer & refuse to admit it? I see little point in continuing a discussion with someone who has so cavalier a regard for the truth.
farewell.

Yabby
“MJ, the Catholic Church uses every method in can, to restrict women in South America from having access to family planning, as they do in the West. The net result is that desparate women undertake desparate measures, hundreds of thousands die in the process.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3194680.stm”

The non exclusive focus of the story is on the following woman:

“One Peruvian woman who narrowly survived such an operation described her experience to Outlook.

"When I found out I was pregnant I was desperate," she said.
She explained how she had been separated from her children's father, but had fallen pregnant to her new partner after being given misleading advice on how to use the contraceptive pill.”

Neither abortion, nor contraceptive pills, nor sex outside of marriage are condoned by the Catholic Church. The story doesn’t blame the Catholic Church.

In non-Catholic Australia the decision to allow an abortion is with the doctor not the recipient. From the comments in the article it seems that South America is similar and the contraceptive pill is clearly available. The main difference seems to be many more women seeking abortions and the bizarre methods of their 'backyard abortions'.

”Of course Catholic dogma is clearly flawed.”

It is a fair bet that you will disagree but the dogma comes from a higher authority than secular opinion.

“In nature sex is quite normal and natural, all those hormones have an effect on creatures of whatever species. “

If you don’t think Catholics have sex look at the size of the families.

” Women are dying in their hundreds of thousands because of Church policies.”

Again if they complied with Church policies they wouldn’t have sex outside of marriage, wouldn’t take the contraceptive pill, and wouldn’t have an abortion if the contraceptive pill failed. If they complied with Church policies they would be alive.

Bosk,

” … 300 word limit. .. This is a lie Meg. “

I would have thought it was a typo.