What I Learned About Abortion & the Adventist Church

[Dr. Shane]

he declares statistics from other countries relevant, when their culture, demographics, history, and politics are different than ours.

Not only statistics from other nations, also statistics from some selective states. The evidence shows that when individual states follow the lead of The Netherlands and Germany they get similar results.

[Nic Samojluk]

The abortion statistics from the 1970s really are so outdated they are irrelevant to the abortion debate today.

[Nic Samojluk]

Well said! Shane’s mantra has been the following since the beginning:

Relevant statistics come from today - comparing nations with restrictive abortion laws to those with abortion bans. Compare Germany, The Netherlands with Mexico and Argentina. We see very quickly what works and what does not.

The data I provided at the end of my previous posting diametrically contradicts what Shane has been trying to prove. The data indicates that both Germany and the Netherlands are countries with non-restrictive abortion laws. Unless Shane can justify and document his theory, he may be faced with the need to admit that the main pillar of his theory is non-existent. I am looking for his response for this alarming discovery.

[Nic Samojluk]

We have seen the abortion rates drop in individual states as restrictions are placed on it, birth-control is made available, school options are made available for pregnant teens and sex education is given in public schools. The evidence is just overwhelming. Simply banning abortion doesn't work. The US has a long way to go but some individual states are definitely on the right path. We can get to the rates of Germany and The Netherlands. We certainly do not want to go in the direction of Mexico or Argentina.

Your initial statement is correct, but your conclusion is in error. Your theory is that: "Simply banning abortion doesn't work." This does not follow from the undeniable fact that restricting abortion works.

You have been working under the premise that both Germany and the Netherlands have restrictive abortion laws. The information I provided indicates that both Germany and the Netherlands have no restriction on abortion. Can you explain this? Something is definitely wrong! Where do you get your statistica from.

[Dr. Shane]

In Catholic countries there is a greater moral resistance to the use of contraceptives.

[Nic Samojluk]

So let me get this straight. In Catholic countries there is greater moral resistance to the use of contraceptives but abortion is OK?

[Dr. Shane]

My reasoning is as follows. Catholics have a negative attitude towards the use of contraceptives. The result is a higher incidence of unwanted pregnancies. A higher incidence of unwanted pregnancies results in a higher number of abortions. Where did I go wrong?

Your speculation is that they are not using birth control because they are Catholic. Thus you believe they are following their church. However you then claim they have abortions because they get pregnant. You are trying to have it both ways. If they are following their church, then they will not use birth control nor will they have abortions. If following their church isn't that important to them, then they will use birth control and avoid an unwanted pregnancy. It is one way or the other.

Unless you are willing to admit that a girl gets scared when she gets pregnant and acts as a scared person without reason. If that is the case, than banning abortion will not stop her. She will act on her fear and have an abortion regardless if they are legal or not.

So no matter which way you go, you have to admit that your assumptions have been wrong.

[Dr. Shane]

The information you are providing might be correct or it might not. Again and again you are making statements and making affirmations without the proper references which might enable us to verify the accuracy of what you are stating.

[there buster]

Being a moderator at CA means never having to admit mistakes, no matter how blatant or obvious.

[karl]

Is it obviously more blatant? Or blatantly more obvious?

[Dr. Shane]

This isn't about me or any other member here at Club Adventist. It is about different positions on abortion. The position I have been defending is very close to that taken by Anti-Abortion.info. That seems to make the most sense to me and I must be true to my conscience.

[Nic Samojluk]

Your speculation is that they are not using birth control because they are Catholic. Thus you believe they are following their church. However you then claim they have abortions because they get pregnant.

[Nic Samojluk]

The statements I make are common knowledge. If you doubt them, use your Google search engine and it will quickly teach you what most people debating this topic already know. It is not necessary to reference sources when the information being provided is common knowledge.

[there buster]

Quote:

This isn't about me or any other member here at Club Adventist.

Because you're the moderator and because you say so.

[Dr. Shane]

Following the church’s teaching against the use of prophylactics tends to enhance sexual pleasure.

Not in the world I live in. In Mexico the government provides pills and injection free of charge at government clinics. I am not aware of either of them effecting sexual pleasure.

[Dr. Shane]

The standard practice among educated people is to provide the reference whenever it is requested regardless of whether someone believes that it is common knowledge.

In many college courses, including those I took, common knowledge is defined so that students do not plagiarize. Common knowledge is defined as a fact that can be found in at least three sources. The standard practice among the educated people I associate with is not to ask for sources when discussing common knowledge. For example, when I mention there is an oil well leaking in the Gulf of Mexico, I expect that no one will ask me what my source of information is.

The facts I have put forth in this thread are common knowledge. I don't need to provide references. The facts are contained in at least three sources. Anyone with access to Google can quickly verify any facts I have made reference to. To continually ask for sources is to play dumb. It is to act is if the facts are not out in the public arena available to everyone. Let's get past that and stop playing silly games.

[bobbie]

Unlike the leaky oil well in the Gulf, the "facts" you speak of I never ever heard of before. It's up to you to back them up instead of the readers.

[Dr. Shane]

Many of the members posting in this thread have posted common knowledge. It is not necessary, or even desired, for them to post all the references.

Questioning the facts I reference actually puts me in a position of being right.

************** *****************

Now let me explain. I have pointed out that in nations where abortion is banned, it is more common than it is in nations where it is legal but restricted. In stating that, the facts have been attacked. Thus, if the facts are right - those attacking the facts must concede they are wrong.

Now, some like "There Buster" (I love you, Ed - you do know that) have made a cause-and-effect argument which is a legitimate way of dealing with the facts. I don't think the evidence leads us to the same conclusions he arrives at but I do not question his logic. If he were just questioning the legitimacy of the facts - as some are - than should the facts be right, he would be wrong.

The facts are so abundant, anyone doing a Google search can find them. Just try some searches like this "Netherlands > abortion rate" "Germany > abortion rate" "Mexico > abortion rate" "Argentina > abortion rate" At least three sources will provide the same data.

In my first attempt I got over 57,000 results to my search. Here is one ReligiousTolerance.com

[doug yowell]

[

Abortion in The Netherlands is not without restrictions. There is a mandatory five-day waiting period for anyone seeking abortion. There is mandatory pre-abortion counseling. Minor children must have parental consent. Abortion-on-demand is permitted only to 12 weeks. Abortions after 12 weeks are more difficult as two doctors must agree on a the procedure due to special circumstances.

Abortion in Germany is not without restrictions either. Abortion is rarely permitted after 12 weeks. There is a mandatory waiting period. There is also mandatory pre-abortion counseling. Minors desiring an abortion must undergo a competency hearing.

According to these stats,abortion on demand up to 12 weeks is allowable. No parental consent, no mandatory waiting period, no second opinion,no counseling, absolutely no restrictions,during the first 12 weeks,is this correct? If so,then all the restrictions you cited you applied to pregnancies after this 12 week period.Since 90% of all abortions are performed within the first 8 weeks,this means that only 10% of pregnancies are subject to any type of restriction in these countries. This represents the only difference between U.S. Law and these other countries that you use as prototypes.According to your analysis, Shane, this shameless killing of 11 week preborn human beings is commendable because it, somehow, justifies the lowered rate of killing 13 week old preborn humans.

[there buster]

I also care about you, Shane, which is why I lament what has happened to you.

[Dr. Shane]

According to these stats,abortion on demand up to 12 weeks is allowable. No parental consent, no mandatory waiting period, no second opinion,no counseling, absolutely no restrictions,during the first 12 weeks,is this correct?

No, that is not correct. The restrictions apply to abortions prior to 12 weeks. Just Google it and you will find plenty of sources citing the same thing. It is the law in The Netherlands. It isn't some secret that is hard to find.

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

According to these stats,abortion on demand up to 12 weeks is allowable. No parental consent, no mandatory waiting period, no second opinion,no counseling, absolutely no restrictions,during the first 12 weeks,is this correct?

No, that is not correct. The restrictions apply to abortions prior to 12 weeks. Just Google it and you will find plenty of sources citing the same thing. It is the law in The Netherlands. It isn't some secret that is hard to find.

You wrote that abortion on demand is permitted up to 12 weeks. Abortion on demand is abortion on demand and is subject to no restrictions. Your presentation is difficult to comprende. If the restrictions also apply to the first 12 weeks then those weeks are not abortion on demand. If the restrictions do apply then it would seem that you are arguing for moralization of abortion "on demand" over a slightly longer period of time.Kinda like going through the entire time share presentation in order to get your "free" gift.

[Dr. Shane]

You wrote that abortion on demand is permitted up to 12 weeks.

You are correct. That is what I typed. I did not word that correctly. Abortion-on-demand is not allowed in The Netherlands. There are restrictions placed on it from day one.

[Nic Samojluk]

You wrote that abortion on demand is permitted up to 12 weeks. Abortion on demand is abortion on demand and is subject to no restrictions.

[doug yowell]

[

(schwangerschaftskonfliktsberatung):

Here's an effective abortion preventative that could be instituted here in the U.S. Require every woman to pronounce that word up there correctly before she can request an elective abortion. By the time she finally gets it right (if she ever does) her baby will already have been born!