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.
I'm not asking for infite data, just relevant data. You post data about one thing as if it was about something else, and then when I point at this falicy you just want to talk about how I am weaseling.
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.
I agree the facts are impartial. But the facts about one category may have no relevance whatsoever to another category. I'm sure I could could find some irrelevant data that doesn't directly deal with the question at hand, and then accuse you of weaseling when you don't accept it, but somehow I doubt you would praise my impartial data under these circumstances even if it was in fact true.
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...
Yes, just get your cheap shot in, and then we can move on...
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.
Only if the mother is the only person to be considered. I know you consider this to be true but I do not.
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.
1- I do not accept your premise that it is the sole question to be asked in terms of what ought to be the social policy.
2 - It is 1/2 of 1 percent of all women, not 1/2 of 1 percent of all abortions per year. It amounts to about 14.5% more abortions. Women that don't have abortions are unlikely to have abortion related health problems so the 14.5% figure is more relevant.
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?"
What about the argument? One thing about it is it does not resemble any argument I actually made. I did not argue that maternal safety is compromised more in countries where abortions are legal, and I did not make any argument with "if we knew all the variables...". I don't demand possibilites like knowing all the variables. I just argue for solid data on a few completly relevant variables. Again you set up a straw man and give it a solid thumping.
The only appropriate response to a "maybe" argument is: SHOW ME THE FACTS.
Thats my appropriate response to your argument. Show me the facts that say "the abortion rate in countries without legal abortion is as high or higher then the rate in countries where abortion is legal." You posted no data that show this to be true, instead you posted data about developing countries; which I have shown is a lousy proxy for "countries where abortion is illegal" because both the largest developing countries and the developing countries and the developing countries with the highest abortion rate have legal abortion. You complain that I want answers to an infinite amount of impossible variables, but all along I was asking for you to one piece of information, that the rate in countries where abortion is illegal is as relatively high as you claim. If the rate can be determined and sorted by status of development, it can be determined for the same set of countries and sorted by abortions legal status. I don't know why your source did not do it. If his overall claim is right, he could present the data this way and prove his case. It makes no sense not doing this unless the actual data does not support his case.
Tim |
