We have the statistics that we have; and we have the facts that we have. We don't have ALL of either one.
Insisting that we may draw no relevant observations, simply because we are not privy to the entire INFINITE set of information--well, that is an example of weaselling , and I am not going to humour it any longer.
Another example of weaselling is this example, where I said: "for instance, I have not opposed the stats of 34 and 39 that you now consider important to your cause.", and where you replied:
"You want me to accept the conclusion of your experts but you have a problem with me accepting their data? I was giving you the benefit of the doubt by accepting any data that you and your sources put forward. Not ppposing your own data is not doing me a favor it is doing one for yourself because if you manage to show that the data is weak or faulty why should I accept anything from your sources?
You falsely take my comment to mean the exact opposite of what it clearly does mean, and thus you distort the meaning beyond all recognition. You then attempt, by replying to a non existent assertion, to establish an ad hominem advantage--suggesting that the false comment demonstrates an unfair attitude on my part. My comment was "for instance, I have not opposed the stats of 34 and 39 that you now consider important to your cause." Simply, this is my sharing with you of the principle that, regardless of the partiality that either of us may have toward the outcome of the discussion, it is nevertheless necessary to accept the premise that the FACTS are IMPARTIAL, and that I personally have no intention of picking and choosing between them in order to unfairly buttress my position.
Instead of a brief comment of agreement, you chose to alter, distort, and insult. I do call this "weaselling." It also comments upon the degree to which your "arguments" are being conducted in "good faith." Well, let us move past that...
The FACTS that I have seen show that, in every case where abortions are illegal, there is an increased risk to the mother's health and safety. This fact, alone, argues overwhelmingly in favour of making the practice universally LEGAL.
Now, I appreciate the fact that there is risk, even in legal abortions. Therefore, if legalizing abortions was to produce FACTS that supported the idea that this legalization increased the NUMBER of abortions to the point where the overall risk factor for death was commensurate with illegal abortions, then, of course, such a finding would leave the question of appropriate social policy to be undecided. However, in all instances where I have seen data, the minuscule increase in abortions that might be associated with the circumstance of legality, in no way impacts on the safety of the mother--not to a degree which even approaches the risk associated with illegal abortions.
Let us look, for instance, at the figures of 34 and 39 women having abortions per thousand, in developing vs. Developed countries, and examine their significance in the overall question. It has been stated, as a fact, that developing countries are more likely to constitute the illegal abortion side of the equation, so it is possible to show a correlation of prevalence here--a correlation which argues in favour of the social policy of illegality as perhaps making abortions less likely to occur. But what is the impact on maternal safety, which, after all, is the sole question to be asked in terms of what ought to be the social policy? 34 woman in a thousand is 3.4%. 39 woman in a thousand is 3.9%. The difference is ½ of 1 percent.
Now, if these numbers are factored into the statistics of individual countries where maternal deaths are compared between legal and illegal countries--it is clear that it is far too small an increase in the NUMBER of abortions, to effect a significant risk (by comparison) to the health of the mother. It is obvious that there exists an outrageous increase in deaths when abortions are done illegally, as compared to when they are done legally--at least in any of the examples that I have seen.
This is, after all, only common sense, but it is important that social policy be established with statistical and factual data--as common sense can always be challenged. Who could argue for a social policy which is harmful and regressive? I would not.
"The death rate associated with abortion is hundreds of times higher in developing regions, where the procedure is often illegal, than in developed countries (Table 1). The rate is highest--almost 700 deaths per 100,000 procedures--in Africa. Since well-off women in cities are frequently able to obtain safe abortions even when it is against the law, the majority of deaths and complications from abortion occur among low-income women and women living in rural areas who undergo unsafe, illicit procedures."
AND
"...In Latin America, as many as 21% of maternal deaths are estimated to be associated with unsafe abortion. Many women experiencing complications from unsafe abortion, particularly those who live in rural areas, do not have access to appropriate medical treatment. Others do not seek treatment because of fear, embarrassment, shame or poverty.
By legalizing abortion, countries can help reduce or eliminate the need for unsafe abortion. This, in turn, will significantly lessen the number of deaths related to abortion, reduce the likelihood of complications and improve women's subsequent health. For example, when Romania legalized abortion in 1990, its abortion-related mortality rate fell to one-third of its peak level--reached only one year before--of 142 deaths for every 100,000 live births.
Legalizing abortion, however, does not by itself guarantee safety. For example, in India, where abortion has been legal on broad grounds for almost 30 years, many women, especially in rural areas, do not even know that abortion is legal. Authorized facilities that provide safe abortions services are inadequate in number, and some women have found their treatment by government health professionals to be degrading. As a result, women frequently go outside the authorized system and obtain extralegal abortions, many of which are unsafe."
agi-usa.org
What about the argument: "Well, maybe if we knew ALL the variables in such and such about sich and sich? Maybe we could then argue that maternal safety is compromised more in countries where abortions are legal than in countries where they are not?" Well, of course that is true. But it is an "IF...THEN" truth.
The only appropriate response to a "maybe" argument is: SHOW ME THE FACTS. I have not seen such facts, and common-sense would suggest they will not soon be forthcoming--not in this universe. "Maybe" (if only we knew more) is of no interest to me as a factor in establishing social policy. The facts that we do have show clearly that illegal abortions harm and kill mothers. IF you can show me evidence that indicates that a social policy of legalization INCREASES the overall risk of maternal damage and death, then I would reconsider my opinion. But it seems to be an argument that goes against all common-sense. The Romanian experience is a manifest example of the opposing view.
In the absence of any new or additional facts--CASE CLOSED. |
