The Daily Static
  The Daily Static
UF Archives
Register
UF Membership
Ad Free Site
Postcards
Community
Geekfinder
UFie Gear
Advertise on UF
Forum Rules
& FAQ

Username

Password


Create a New Account

  
 

Back to UserFriendly Strip Comments Index
Catholic stock anyone? by Gary_72002-06-16 19:08:35
  Excuse me? by hypersapien2002-06-16 20:23:14
    Tax-wise, yes... by DaNutBall2002-06-16 20:33:01
      The biggest difference between now and then by Blackbyrd22002-06-16 20:48:02
        ... by Sehmket2002-06-16 20:57:35
          Yes that's right. For those that aren't Catholic: by DaNutBall2002-06-16 21:33:27
            No, I agree, by Blackbyrd22002-06-16 21:59:51
              ... by Sehmket2002-06-16 22:19:06
                Once more by Blackbyrd22002-06-16 22:59:18
                  abortion by nkjv2002-06-16 23:17:43
                    So, what you are saying is by Blackbyrd22002-06-16 23:19:41
                      No response? by Blackbyrd22002-06-16 23:32:30
                        I never said that by nkjv2002-06-16 23:47:35
                          You didn't answer the question by Blackbyrd22002-06-17 00:04:29
                            sad by nkjv2002-06-17 00:20:39
                              We disagree then. by Blackbyrd22002-06-17 00:38:49
                                U dont read about this subject much do you? by Red.Sonja2002-06-17 00:59:34
                                You don't read my posts very well, do you? by Blackbyrd22002-06-17 01:27:31
                                Yes I am reading them fine thank you. by Red.Sonja2002-06-17 01:53:21
                                Read this by Red.Sonja2002-06-17 02:46:05
                                OK, I can already see issues with this. by Blackbyrd2 2002-06-27 04:26:51
This site is full of self-contradicting information, blatantly obvious to anyone with an open and questioning mind.

On the one hand, (for instance) it says that at least 32 women die from abortion due to transfusion issues alone, and then later in the report, it says that back in 72, the rate of deaths from both legal and illegal abortions had dropped to 39 and by 81 was down to 8 per year.

In order to arrive at these figures, they assume that 10% of transfusions result in viral hepatitus being transmitted, yet a paragraph later, they state that AIDS is only transmitted in 2%. Surely it's easier to screen for hep than it is to screen for AIDS? Even if it wasn't, I would think that a 10% infection rate would have the newspapers screaming for blood, so to speak.

I also can't believe that they don't scream about the 80 women each year infected with AIDS, since it is so much more fatal than Viral Hep.

Just out of curiosity, since this 'report' claims that so many people are part of this conspiracy to under-report deaths due to abortion, exactly where do they get their figures? Especially the ones on illegal abortions, since those are probably even less likely to be reported accurately than the legal abortions?

I like this one: "For the local freestanding abortion facility in your community, with far inferior quality of care, the number of such infections will be at least double that of such a medical center."

How do they determine that a freestanding abortion facility has far inferior quality of care, and that it will result in twice (or more) the infection rate? Exactly what factors have they used to determine the increase in infections, and what studies back them up? What facilities have they inspected, and what exactly were the findings of such inspections?
If these facilities are so terrible, why aren't they making an effort to make them safer by enlisting the help of the state or federal authorities?

Nothing like a blanket statement that can't be supported to sway the weakminded.

"Mr. Crutcher’s book, Lime 5, which accuses this agency of gross dishonesty and malfeasance in its reporting, is extremely convincing."
Ok, so where is the lawsuit? Where are the charges and the trial? Surely if he has proof, he'd have brought charges, after all, he is a huge pro-lifer, yes? Or maybe he and all the rest of this group have decided that it's not important to have the facts known?
If there was a suit brought, why wouldn't this site place it on this page so people could know how truthful they are?

And you know, while our discussion hasn't touched on legality, and shouldn't, because the point is one of morality, not legality, the site you have pointed me to downplays the number of deaths from back-alley illegal abortions. One wonders just how many of those is an acceptable number? I would think that one death due to the fact that the procedure is illegal and the only recourse to a woman is to find a 'back-alley butcher' is one death too many. Of course, people such as the ones who created this site would simply say it was God's justice. She broke the law, and if she died, then it is on her own head. Nice way to keep the hands clean.

This is what happens when you use a site like this for your sole source for stats. You get wholly unreliable data, skewed badly in favor of whatever agenda is being pushed.

I have been assuming so far that you simply haven't gotten the correct data, and are a bit misguided. If you can't see how incredibly lopsided the arguments on this site are, and do a little research on your own, then I have misjudged and overestimated you.
[ Reply ]

 

[Todays Cartoon Discussion] [News Index]

Come get yer ARS (Account Registration System) Source Code here!
All images, characters, content and text are copyrighted and trademarks of J.D. Frazer except where other ownership applies. Don't do bad things, we have lawyers.
UserFriendly.Org and its operators are not liable for comments or content posted by its visitors, and will cheerfully assist the lawful authorities in hunting down script-kiddies, spammers and other net scum. And if you're really bad, we'll call your mom. (We're not kidding, we've done it before.)