4 ms·

Sorry to pick up on your specific examples, but I don't know why you are classifying alcohol deaths as under-estimated and abortions as over-estimated(?). For

Sorry to pick up on your specific examples, but I don't know why you are classifying alcohol deaths as under-estimated and abortions as over-estimated(?). For the record, the National Center for Drug Abuse Statistics reports there are about 95,000 alcohol-related deaths in the United States annually[0], while the CDC reports over 600,000 abortions per year.[1] It's true that someone who reads PR/marketing material is more likely to die from being hit by a drunk driver than by being aborted, but I don't think that's the point you're trying to make. [0] https://drugabusestatistics.org/alcohol-related-deaths/ https://drugabusestatistics.org/alcohol-related-deaths/ [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/06/24/what-the-data-says-about-abortion-in-the-u-s-2/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/06/24/what-the-da...

jpgvm 4y ago
Abortions aren't deaths. Even if they were I wasn't looking to draw comparisons, these were just examples of things people don't have informed opinions on.
- dane-pgp 4y ago
  > Abortions aren't deaths. ... people don't have informed opinions Well, you've definitely proven your point.
  - jpgvm 4y ago
    No, you have proven mine. Abortions aren't deaths any more than pulling out constitutes murder. It's just a bunch of cells like any other until it becomes able to sustain life independently at which point abortion is essentially illegal everywhere in the world except in seriously extreme circumstances. Attempting to define it otherwise takes some fairly substantial mental gymnastics. If I have to amputate my arm did I "kill" my arm? Or did I remove a piece of myself that was malfunctioning? Sure it was a bunch of cells and those cells are "dead" I guess. Is a baby part of the mother or is it special because some of the DNA was donated externally? If it's special is it a parasite? What distinguishes it from viral infections that introduce foreign RNA? So no. I don't think I'm uninformed. It's fairly clear cut at this point but apparently most of the world thinks we should declare it ambiguous because it goes against cultural indoctrination of a significant portion of the population. Exactly the sort of pandering that has led us to the edge (or potentially past) of no return on climate change.
    - dane-pgp 4y ago
      > until it becomes able to sustain life independently You mean get a job and earn a living, or just forage in the woods for berries? > at which point abortion is essentially illegal everywhere in the world except in seriously extreme circumstances. Assuming you mean "at fetal viability" (the RvW standard), I think you may be surprised to learn that 6 states plus DC allow abortions at any stage of development and for any reason.[0] > If I have to amputate my arm did I "kill" my arm? Does your arm have distinct DNA from the rest of your body? Was your arm going to naturally develop into a healthy individual with their own rights and desires? > Is a baby part of the mother or is it special because some of the DNA was donated externally? Thank you for correctly using the term "baby". I ask your question back to you in the context of a hypothetical law allowing the abortion of newborns. Would your answer change if this hypothetical law only applied to newborns with life expectancies less than 5 years? > What distinguishes it from viral infections that introduce foreign RNA? The baby has human DNA (and RNA). That seems relevant if we are asking whether the baby should have human rights or not. > I don't think I'm uninformed. It seems like you've thought about your position a lot, which is great, but I'm not sure if you've fully considered enough of the possible counter-points to it. Thank you for sharing your position with me, though. [0] https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/state-indicator/gestational-limit-abortions/ https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/state-indicator/ges...

jpgvm 4y ago

Abortions aren't deaths. Even if they were I wasn't looking to draw comparisons, these were just examples of things people don't have informed opinions on.

dane-pgp 4y ago
> Abortions aren't deaths. ... people don't have informed opinions Well, you've definitely proven your point.
- jpgvm 4y ago
  No, you have proven mine. Abortions aren't deaths any more than pulling out constitutes murder. It's just a bunch of cells like any other until it becomes able to sustain life independently at which point abortion is essentially illegal everywhere in the world except in seriously extreme circumstances. Attempting to define it otherwise takes some fairly substantial mental gymnastics. If I have to amputate my arm did I "kill" my arm? Or did I remove a piece of myself that was malfunctioning? Sure it was a bunch of cells and those cells are "dead" I guess. Is a baby part of the mother or is it special because some of the DNA was donated externally? If it's special is it a parasite? What distinguishes it from viral infections that introduce foreign RNA? So no. I don't think I'm uninformed. It's fairly clear cut at this point but apparently most of the world thinks we should declare it ambiguous because it goes against cultural indoctrination of a significant portion of the population. Exactly the sort of pandering that has led us to the edge (or potentially past) of no return on climate change.
  - dane-pgp 4y ago
    > until it becomes able to sustain life independently You mean get a job and earn a living, or just forage in the woods for berries? > at which point abortion is essentially illegal everywhere in the world except in seriously extreme circumstances. Assuming you mean "at fetal viability" (the RvW standard), I think you may be surprised to learn that 6 states plus DC allow abortions at any stage of development and for any reason.[0] > If I have to amputate my arm did I "kill" my arm? Does your arm have distinct DNA from the rest of your body? Was your arm going to naturally develop into a healthy individual with their own rights and desires? > Is a baby part of the mother or is it special because some of the DNA was donated externally? Thank you for correctly using the term "baby". I ask your question back to you in the context of a hypothetical law allowing the abortion of newborns. Would your answer change if this hypothetical law only applied to newborns with life expectancies less than 5 years? > What distinguishes it from viral infections that introduce foreign RNA? The baby has human DNA (and RNA). That seems relevant if we are asking whether the baby should have human rights or not. > I don't think I'm uninformed. It seems like you've thought about your position a lot, which is great, but I'm not sure if you've fully considered enough of the possible counter-points to it. Thank you for sharing your position with me, though. [0] https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/state-indicator/gestational-limit-abortions/ https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/state-indicator/ges...