Sams,
I don’t know too many scientists who refer to Wikipedia, as there are groups of people who launch attacks on Wikipedia and change the data, similar to hacking.

Reminds me of what the corrupt NARAL organization did to abortion statistics in the US. They hacked the abortion statistics, as well as vilifying anyone who questioned the necessity to have so much abortion, calling them extremists or right wing and so on.

It was all done to add more money to the bank accounts of abortionists. Abortion loving feminists went along with it also, and still do.

HRS: "I don’t know too many scientists who refer to Wikipedia, as there are groups of people who launch attacks on Wikipedia and change the data, similar to hacking."

I'm pretty sure then you don't know any scientists at all. There are plenty contributing to Wikipedia by the way. Most people are doing the right thing, and what few hacks there are are usually repaired rapidly, but you must always be cautious when using any such information source. Fortunately, I already know the definitions, but used Wikipedia to borrow some nice wording. You should learn the classical fallacies, although I think there is about as much chance of that happening as a Teflon frying pan absorbing a fried egg. The phrase "Teflon intellect" springs to mind.

"Reminds me of what the corrupt NARAL organization " .. rant .. rant

Isn't this the third or fourth re-bleat, er, repeat? Does somehow repeating something make it true?

Sorry people, I posted the above on the wrong abortion thread, I've let Graham Young know and hope he'll delete that (and this) post for me.

It was a post for you, HRS, I've posted the same in the correct discussion so you can reply there if you want to.

Sams,
I’d recommend Dictionary.com rather than Wikipedia, as Dictionary.com normally references several sources when defining a word, and will often reference a number of science dictionaries.

“Does somehow repeating something make it true?”
This reminds me of the repeated mantra from pro-abortion lobbyists that the foetus is not human.

Celivia,
I’ll solve the abortion problem for you.

Dentists carry out a number of programs to reduce tooth decay, and doctors and nurses carry out various programs to reduce heart disease, cancer rates etc. That is all good, but I haven’t heard of too many abortion clinics that carry out programs to reduce the rate of abortion.

Relying on academics to reduce the rate of abortion is obviously a waste of time, as most appear feminist, but the government could put increased pressure on the actual abortion clinics to reduce the rate of abortion. If an abortion clinic cannot demonstrate that it has in place significant programs to reduce the rate of abortion, then that abortion clinic loses its licence to operate.

Programs run by abortion clinics to reduce the rate of abortion could include counselling of women who have had an abortion to reduce the chances of a repeat abortion, contraception education, keeping better statistics, running better research programs etc.

It seems quite fair, ethical and responsible for a government to put increased pressure on the abortion clinics to reduce the rate of abortion, as much of the money going to abortion clinics is taxpayer money. However abortion clinics, pro-abortion lobbyists, academics or feminists would probably object to this in some way, thereby ensuring the abortion rate stays the same or increases.

martin, re:fair dinkum, thankyou for a rigorous analysis of my points. thought so.

lets have a real think about it, sex before marriage viewed as immoral by some, hows that work in practise? homosexuality, hows that by you? certainly likely to have a similar disapproval rating than abortion, but does that make disapproval morally right.

The thing you might like to think about is how all this immorality affects you. How are you personally affected by someone you don't know terminating a pregnancy you didn't know about for reasons you know nothing about.
On the flipside a woman(or 90000) is expected to endure and complete pregnancy to salve your personal feelings of morality. Fair dinkum.

Back on Thursday, 3 July 2008 I posted some challenges to assertions by ScienceLaw which I note, ScienceLaw has conveniently ignored.

Doubtless ScienceLaw has no comeback to my expressed views so I will accept silence as ScienceLaws surrender to a superior argument.

Now Martin Ibn Warriq “If abortion is allowed now, in a decade or two what about involuntary euthanasia of you or me? We aren’t pretending to ourselves that we might escape the effects of an increasingly callous society are we? If society is so accepting of killing its inconvenient young children, what about killing its inconvenient elderly or not so elderly?

Fools.”

The ‘fool’ is Martin. He obviously confuses voluntary actions with state endorsed policy.

Btw, a fetus or embryo is not a young child.
Less ‘foolish’ folk acknowledge the transition, marked by the moment of birth, as separation from the mother dependency and the recognition of the individual “young child”.

Martin “Pro abortion positions are incoherent, and our reason is repelled by them.”

But ‘pro-choice’ is not “Pro-Abortion”.

I count myself among the many who are ‘pro-choice’ but have never met anyone who is “pro-abortion”.

More foolishness, I fear.

“But leave the little ones alone!”

Leave the pregnant woman alone to decide for herself which burdens in life she wishes to accept and which she wishes to relinquish.

Her Body, not yours.
Her Choice, not yours.