Abortion Referendum

[Vixen]

Vixen's psalm doesn't even say anything about a "moment of fertilisation". It describes a process of development in the womb, or in some figurative secret place.

13 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. 14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. 15 My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place, when I was woven together in the depths of the earth.​

Is this ancient text to be our moral guide anyway?

19 If only you, God, would slay the wicked! Away from me, you who are bloodthirsty! 20 They speak of you with evil intent; your adversaries misuse your name. 21 Do I not hate those who hate you, LORD, and abhor those who are in rebellion against you? 22 I have nothing but hatred for them; I count them my enemies.​

Enemies have to be dealt with. I love the way David introduces schadenfreude into his 23rd Psalm:

'Thou anointest my head in the presence of mine enemies'.

Take that, losers.

 

[catsmate]

Did the Supreme Court remove the Eighth Amendment because of medical circumstances?

Nope, they decided what it meant.

The majority opinion held that a woman had a right to an abortion under Article 40.3.3 if there was "a real and substantial risk" to her life. This right did not exist if there was a risk to her health but not her life; however it did exist if the risk was the possibility of suicide.

 

[catsmate]

Absolute rubbish.

So you are now denying that there is a medical risk in carrying a pregnancy to term?

 

[catsmate]

If having a baby is so incredibly life threatening, how come 85% of the population indulge in having children, the average (2.5) suggests people go back for a SECOND and even THIRD time. Yet lived to tell the tale. Fancy that.

And a quarter-of-a-million of them did

 

[Giordano]

I expect it would be quite similar to the electrical impulses of the heart and brain.

https://www.hrsonline.org/Patient-Resources/The-Normal-Heart/Electrical-System

https://www.news-medical.net/news/2004/06/03/2154.aspx

You might wish to read my post (for example) if you are interested in understanding what it is and what it isn't, instead of "expecting" from your imagination and incomplete understanding of biology. Of course the more one understands about the distorted lies one is fed by religious people with agendas, the less convincing the lies become and the more one starts to think for oneself. It is a known risk of learning stuff...

 

[Giordano]

If having a baby is so incredibly life threatening, how come 85% of the population indulge in having children, the average (2.5) suggests people go back for a SECOND and even THIRD time. Yet lived to tell the tale. Fancy that.

In the USA, the most recent figures I could find for maternal death rate for pregnancy/childbirth was 18.5 per 100,000 births. For abortion? 0.7 per 100,000. I calculate that as giving birth being a bit more that 25 times more risky than having an abortion, but you have best check that because you are better with numbers than I am.

So a lot of women don't live to tell the tale!

More broadly, this is another argument you have put forward in this thread that quotes someone's post, but doesn't address the point in the cited post at all but instead posts irrelevant data and distorted manipulations of numbers. People willingly indulge in very risky behaviors; noting that 85% of the population have children only means that many people are willing to take a risk to have children, or are ignorant of the risk, or are ignorant of how to have sex and not have children. And gosh, noting that the average couple has 2.5 children is even less a measure of the risk: you as an accountant must realize that even if 1 out of 10 childbirths killed the mom, the women not dying could have enough subsequent pregnancies and children (i.e. more than 2.5 per couple) to result in the 2.5 average. It is estimated that in the 1700s 1,200 per 100,000 women died as a result of pregnancy/childbirth (that is a damn high risk of dying!) and yet the average family was larger than it is now.

 

[Giordano]

Enemies have to be dealt with. I love the way David introduces schadenfreude into his 23rd Psalm:

'Thou anointest my head in the presence of mine enemies'.

Take that, losers.

So your bible tells you than God will spill oil on your head IN ADDITION to allowing your enemies to confront you? Are you certain you are reading this correctly as God supporting you? In the movie Carrie the last straw for the heroine was having a bucket of offal dumped on her head- you biblical quote sounds to me more like a threat than a solace.

You may wish to check your translation to understand the actual intent of those words...

 

[Giordano]

Enemies have to be dealt with. I love the way David introduces schadenfreude into his 23rd Psalm:

'Thou anointest my head in the presence of mine enemies'.

Take that, losers.

I'm not certain schadenfreude is the word you intend.

schadenfreude: enjoyment obtained from the troubles of others (Merriam-Webster).

Your "enemies" are not experiencing any trouble for you to enjoy - the posters questioning your point of view are not your enemies and are not having any troubles in doing so. Perhaps you mean solace? That your knowledge of having God's support gives you solace even though others question your views?

Also, "Take that, losers." Is that from the New Testament? It doesn't sound much like something Jesus would have said or urge a follower to say. Do you have the exact reference?

 

[Zivan]

Vixen's psalm doesn't even say anything about a "moment of fertilisation". It describes a process of development in the womb, or in some figurative secret place.

13 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. 14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. 15 My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place, when I was woven together in the depths of the earth.​

Not only that, it is actually describing quite an advanced state of development.

The Hebrew word translated as "my inmost being"/"my reins", actually means "my organs", (heart, mind, kidneys....) and also indicates having feelings/emotion. Which = advanced development. Just like in English using the words "heart" and "mind" are used to indicate feelings/emotions.

So definitely not talking about a "fertilized egg".

 

[GlennB]

Enemies have to be dealt with. I love the way David introduces schadenfreude into his 23rd Psalm:

'Thou anointest my head in the presence of mine enemies'.

Take that, losers.

Ah yes, David. Not a nice man. A voyeur and adulterer (arguably a rapist) who arranged the death of Bathsheba's husband, so he could get his hands on Bathsheba at his leisure.

Meanwhile there are still no nerves in a recently fertilised egg, nor any 'flash'.

 

[JesseCuster]

I expect it would be quite similar to the electrical impulses of the heart and brain.

https://www.hrsonline.org/Patient-Resources/The-Normal-Heart/Electrical-System

https://www.news-medical.net/news/2004/06/03/2154.aspx

You weren't asked what you 'expected' the ''electrical nerve impulse at the moment there is a fusion of ovum and spermatozoa' to be like?

You were asked what it was. Given that the cell formed by a sperm and ovum has (obviously) no nervous system or nerve cells, how can it produce an 'electrical nerve impulse'?

Those links you provided have nothing to do with an 'electrical nerve impulse' produced when an ovum and sperm get it on together. I suspect this these are just random links you found via a quick Google search and which you posted to make it look like you're making sense.

 

[Craig B]

Enemies have to be dealt with. I love the way David introduces schadenfreude into his 23rd Psalm:

'Thou anointest my head in the presence of mine enemies'.

Take that, losers.

You think David wrote the psalms? Are you for real, or joking, or a Biblical literalist of the most primitive kind?

Did David write this piece of Schadenfreude (happy shall he be ...)? Hint; it's about the exile in Babylon, which happened several centuries after David died. "Take that, losers, cos enemies have to be dealt with. The Bible tells us so."

Psalms 137:8 O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. 9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.​

 

[catsmate]

In the USA, the most recent figures I could find for maternal death rate for pregnancy/childbirth was 18.5 per 100,000 births. For abortion? 0.7 per 100,000. I calculate that as giving birth being a bit more that 25 times more risky than having an abortion, but you have best check that because you are better with numbers than I am.

So a lot of women don't live to tell the tale!

More broadly, this is another argument you have put forward in this thread that quotes someone's post, but doesn't address the point in the cited post at all but instead posts irrelevant data and distorted manipulations of numbers. People willingly indulge in very risky behaviors; noting that 85% of the population have children only means that many people are willing to take a risk to have children, or are ignorant of the risk, or are ignorant of how to have sex and not have children. And gosh, noting that the average couple has 2.5 children is even less a measure of the risk: you as an accountant must realize that even if 1 out of 10 childbirths killed the mom, the women not dying could have enough subsequent pregnancies and children (i.e. more than 2.5 per couple) to result in the 2.5 average. It is estimated that in the 1700s 1,200 per 100,000 women died as a result of pregnancy/childbirth (that is a damn high risk of dying!) and yet the average family was larger than it is now.

Jeebus but things are getting bad with US maternal care, the last my hers I crunched only had termination as 14 times safer.

 

[Vixen]

In the USA, the most recent figures I could find for maternal death rate for pregnancy/childbirth was 18.5 per 100,000 births. For abortion? 0.7 per 100,000. I calculate that as giving birth being a bit more that 25 times more risky than having an abortion, but you have best check that because you are better with numbers than I am.

So a lot of women don't live to tell the tale!

More broadly, this is another argument you have put forward in this thread that quotes someone's post, but doesn't address the point in the cited post at all but instead posts irrelevant data and distorted manipulations of numbers. People willingly indulge in very risky behaviors; noting that 85% of the population have children only means that many people are willing to take a risk to have children, or are ignorant of the risk, or are ignorant of how to have sex and not have children. And gosh, noting that the average couple has 2.5 children is even less a measure of the risk: you as an accountant must realize that even if 1 out of 10 childbirths killed the mom, the women not dying could have enough subsequent pregnancies and children (i.e. more than 2.5 per couple) to result in the 2.5 average. It is estimated that in the 1700s 1,200 per 100,000 women died as a result of pregnancy/childbirth (that is a damn high risk of dying!) and yet the average family was larger than it is now.

Poor logic. Just because some women die in childbirth, it doesn't mean an abortion would have prevented it, as you would need to foretell this would have happened.

You might be able to assess such a risk if a woman is known to be prone to dangerous pre-eclampsia, post-partum haemorrhage, small pelvis, etc., etc. Forearmed with the knowledge, steps can be taken to prevent it.

 

[Vixen]

You think David wrote the psalms? Are you for real, or joking, or a Biblical literalist of the most primitive kind?

Did David write this piece of Schadenfreude (happy shall he be ...)? Hint; it's about the exile in Babylon, which happened several centuries after David died. "Take that, losers, cos enemies have to be dealt with. The Bible tells us so."

Psalms 137:8 O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. 9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.​

He only wrote the early ones. (Not #1 though AFAIAA.)

 

[Vixen]

Not only that, it is actually describing quite an advanced state of development.

The Hebrew word translated as "my inmost being"/"my reins", actually means "my organs", (heart, mind, kidneys....) and also indicates having feelings/emotion. Which = advanced development. Just like in English using the words "heart" and "mind" are used to indicate feelings/emotions.

So definitely not talking about a "fertilized egg".

You can have an abortion in England & Wales up to 24 weeks. That is six months.

Are you claiming a six-month foetus is not a sentient being?

 

[ddt]

If having a baby is so incredibly life threatening, how come 85% of the population indulge in having children, the average (2.5) suggests people go back for a SECOND and even THIRD time. Yet lived to tell the tale. Fancy that.

The average numbers are still low, according to the Guardian, 8.8 deaths on 100,000 live births, in the UK. That means the probability the mother survives childbirth is 0.999912. The probability to survive three childbirths therefore is 0.99974 (rounded to 5 decimals). I note, again, a failure to do some elementary maths from our supposed accountant.

Driving a car also carries the risk of deadly accident. Yet scores of people daily step in their car to drive to work. And humans are bad at assessing risk. More people are afraid to fly or to use an elevator than to use a car, yet those two other transport modes are much safer.

But that was not what catsmate asked of you. What level of risk, identified during pregnancy, is in your opinion sufficient to make abortion an option? And why do you evade that question with a hyperbole?

You were asked what it was. Given that the cell formed by a sperm and ovum has (obviously) no nervous system or nerve cells, how can it produce an 'electrical nerve impulse'?

Or, to put it in math terms: an electrical nerve impulse requires two (nerve) cells, one sending the impulse and another receiving it. The fertilized egg is only one cell. Another failure at kindergarten math.

 

[ddt]

Enemies have to be dealt with. I love the way David introduces schadenfreude into his 23rd Psalm:

'Thou anointest my head in the presence of mine enemies'.

Take that, losers.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalm+23&version=KJV:

23 The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want.

2 He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters.

3 He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake.

4 Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.

5 Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over.

6 Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the Lord for ever.

The least you could do is check the correctness of your Bible quotes. Loser.

(others have already dealt with the incorrect use of the word schadenfreude).

 

[Giordano]

Poor logic. Just because some women die in childbirth, it doesn't mean an abortion would have prevented it, as you would need to foretell this would have happened.

You might be able to assess such a risk if a woman is known to be prone to dangerous pre-eclampsia, post-partum haemorrhage, small pelvis, etc., etc. Forearmed with the knowledge, steps can be taken to prevent it.

Actually the statistics I presented mean exactly that! Of course the relative risk of bringing a pregnancy to birth vs aborting it depends on each woman's individual circumstances, but on average abortion will be 25 X safer than childbirth for the average woman. That is how statistics work. That for most women who otherwise would have died in childbirth an abortion would prevent it. And the much greater risk of childbirth is despite these numbers representing the USA and not a very poor third world country. The 25 X higher risk is in the presence of access, at least in theory, to the type of medical care you suggest in your second paragraph.

Frankly the USA could do a lot better in reducing maternal mortality, but even in countries with truly free and even access to medical care abortions are safer than childbirth.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Just because some women die in childbirth, it doesn't mean an abortion would have prevented it, as you would need to foretell this would have happened.

Well I'm pretty sure, and bear with me because this gets really technical, they can't aren't going to die in childbirth if they never have to give birth to the child. I'm pretty sure that's how cause and effect works.

You really don't have to be a soothsayer to make that statement.

I eagerly await how amazingly wrongly you're going to take this and what level of absurdism your reply takes.