From: TOBY1-AT-pseud.pseud
Subject: Re: M-INTRO: Re: Mortality and Morality Bsw8
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:59:11 -0600


	Belmont said abortion will always be controversial, I believe this is very 
true. Aside from the morality issue, we must weigh in the fact that infant 
mortality rate is a percentage of predominantly natural causes of death, 
while abortion is completely instigated by humans. Although I personally 
feel abortion is wrong, that isn't even the argument here. The fact is that 
abortion shouldn't even be in the same ballpark as infant mortality rate 
because it comes from a different cause than the infant mortality rate. We 
do justice to no one to try to improve a statistic by aborting an unborn 
child. Whether one feels abortion is right or not should in no way hinge on 
justifying it through putting it in the same category as a natural death. 
That's like killing someone who was going to commit suicide anyway, just to 
keep the suicide rate down.



>From: Belmont-AT-pseud.pseud
>Reply-To: marxism-intro-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU
>To: marxism-intro-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>Subject: Re: M-INTRO: Re: Mortality and Morality Bsw8
>Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 05:30:02 +0000
>
>I think infant mortality rates and abortion should be calculated in an 
>entire different ratio. When you mix them together it is just giving people 
>a way to better justify the abortion. By saying that the baby was high risk 
>of dying so just abort it is absurd, In the football example DeSoto brought 
>up you don't see the Houston Texans forfeiting (aborting) every game 
>because their is a high risk of losing, and they don't want to affect their 
>win loss record. I don't think even Marx could analyze this topic enough to 
>get everyone to agree. Abortion is one of those things that will always be 
>controversy but to justify it by saying it decreases the infant mortality 
>rate will certainly bring out a new mob of protestors and arguers.
>
>-------------- Original message --------------
>
> > Exactly Bsw8, and my point is why isn't it included in infant mortality 
>data.
> > Should it be? Even if you conclude that it should not be, then what 
>effect do
> > abortions have on infant mortality rates. In other words perhaps they 
>should
> > be. Currently they are not counted because we take our current societal
> > definition of what an infant death is as a given. We don't dialectically
> > challenge it. The best thing I have gotten from Marx thus far is that we
> > should argue with ourselves until we are sure we are right. Not having 
>being
> > much of a Marxist, I am impressed with how Marx does this. My point is 
>why do
> > we hold the status quo to be self-evident?
> >
> > Infant mortality rates usually come in the form of a ratio, such as 
>deaths per
> > 1,000 people (or some other number or percentage). Abortions could very 
>easily
> > skew the numbers so that perhaps a country with a large number of 
>abortions
> > would have a lower infant mortality rate due to the fact that high risk
> > children were aborted prematurely, thus eliminating the risk (high in 
>this
> > case) that that child would die soon after birth. What's the easiest way 
>for
> > an American football quarterback to improve his passing completion 
>percentage?
> > Refrain from throwing the ball when he's rushed or in any kind of 
>trouble and
> > only throw when he is almost certain he has an open man that he can get 
>the
> > ball to. Will this make him a better player? Not necessarily, but it 
>will
> > improve his passing completion. Couldn't abortions easily cut down on 
>infant
> > deaths in the same way?
> >
> > In terms of the morality of it all, yes, I believe that the pro-choice 
>movement
> > has hi-jacked the underlying sentiment of Patrick Henry's, "Give me 
>Liberty or
> > give me Death!" with "Give me a Liberty and give me an Abortion!" I'm 
>sure I
> > come off much stronger on the morality point because it is so 
>emotionally
> > charged. My main point is that we too often look at facts and figures as 
>fixed
> > and absolute.
> >
> > Quoting bsw8-AT-pseud.pseud:
> >
> > > "In merely stating, "abortions do not constitute live births" you do 
>not
> > > prove
> > > anything. You are merely skipping over the fact that a living infant 
>is
> > > killed."
> > >
> > > Desoto you missed my point entirely. Abortions are not included in 
>infant
> > > mortality data, meaning if someone has an abortion that is not 
>considered an
> > > infant mortality, therefore is not included in the infant mortality 
>data.
> > > That
> > > is all I was saying, it had had nothing to do whether it was moral or 
>not.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- from list marxism-intro-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- from list marxism-intro-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>
>--- StripMime Warning --  MIME attachments removed ---
>This message may have contained attachments which were removed.
>
>Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.
>
>--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
>multipart/alternative
>   text/plain (text body -- kept)
>   text/html
>---
>
>
>      --- from list marxism-intro-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/



     --- from list marxism-intro-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---