Essay talk:Leading cause of death

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Craziness pt 1[edit]

This is rather troll-baitey. AFD? Stile4aly 01:34, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

AFD, lol. The pigs have their own website after the revolution, and now they want to delete essays. Abortionismurder 01:35, 5 October 2007 (EDT)
Second AFD. Locke User is Vandal/sysop Always Watching...... 01:37, 5 October 2007 (EDT)
I am curious. Are there factual inaccuracies? Or are you just suppressing rational analysis? Abortionismurder 01:39, 5 October 2007 (EDT)
I swear I know you from somewhere... Heart, how have you been? Have you joined metapedia yet? humanbe in 02:16, 5 October 2007 (EDT)
No one has deleted it yet...we will see..........problem is that most of us don't feel abortion is killing anything worthwhile. Sort of like counting up the number of skins cells that have been killed due to dry weather. tmtoulouse vex 01:41, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

I say we keep it. Insane, but it's almost a self-mockery.-αmεσ (decider) 01:40, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

This barely qualifies as an essay if you ask me. Hell, I'd rather read HoG's essays. Locke User is Vandal/sysop Always Watching...... 01:41, 5 October 2007 (EDT)
I am curious. Are there factual inaccuracies? Or are you just suppressing rational analysis? Abortionismurder 01:41, 5 October 2007 (EDT)
I am curious, can you read? Locke User is Vandal/sysop Always Watching...... 01:42, 5 October 2007 (EDT)


Is failure to properly implant in the placenta factored in or are these all just induced abortions? (The number seems low if FtI is included.) CЯacke®

Craziness pt 2[edit]

Yes, abortion is does not cause the death of a human, so your comparing unrelated things. tmtoulouse vex 01:43, 5 October 2007 (EDT)
Definitional games. Abortionismurder 01:44, 5 October 2007 (EDT)
Well then I would put forth cellular differentiation as causing far far far more deaths. tmtoulouse vex 01:46, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

Kind of a big definition, don't you think?-αmεσ (decider) 01:44, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

Which is more rational? Abortionismurder 01:45, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

Defining "human" to encapsulate four-bundled cells is kind of irrational imho.-αmεσ (decider) 01:46, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

Next you'll be saying ugly bags of mostly water are not human. Abortionismurder 01:47, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

That doesn't follow.-αmεσ (decider) 01:48, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

Err....what? tmtoulouse vex 01:48, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

Nah, a culture of life is very important. Except where that life is gay... Iraqi... or otherwise brown.-αmεσ (decider) 01:49, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

Yes, a blastocyst has twice the humanity one those things has. tmtoulouse vex 01:50, 5 October 2007 (EDT)
Or conservative. Today on craigslist some lowlife libtard was wishing the owner of a stray cat would go hunting with Dick Cheney. Abortionismurder 01:50, 5 October 2007 (EDT)
FYI: Abortionismurder 01:51, 5 October 2007 (EDT)
....errrrrrr.... what? And please refrain from nasty names.-αmεσ (decider) 01:51, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

I call Poe's Law. tmtoulouse vex 01:52, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

I call those who study psychology are fucked up in their head. Abortionismurder 01:53, 5 October 2007 (EDT)
Oh...did you expect disagreement? tmtoulouse vex 01:55, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

I call jackass.-αmεσ (decider) 01:55, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

I pegged him in only two comments as part of the nefarious international swarm conspiracy we know best here by the color of his alleged heart. humanbe in 02:18, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

Checkuser the bad boy.-αmεσ (decider) 02:21, 5 October 2007 (EDT)


What is the average age from conception, and the average number of cells, for aborted babies? Abortionismurder 01:52, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

3.-αmεσ (decider) 01:53, 5 October 2007 (EDT)
16th trimester abortions? tmtoulouse vex 01:55, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

Could totally have dealt with aborting Bush pre-04. 160th+ trimester abortion? Also, thank God for Brandenburg v. Ohio.αmεσ (decider) 01:56, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

After the 160th mark it shifts from "abortion" to "euthanasia." Gotta keep the terms straight. tmtoulouse vex 01:58, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

Good point. Thanks for keeping me on the straight and narrow. Uh oh. I worry he's calling teh FBIs. Luckily abstract advocacy of parodied illegal activity is fine.-αmεσ (decider) 01:59, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

Reverted you Trent, buddy...[edit]

...sorry. We can pull it once he's gone though.-αmεσ (decider) 02:08, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

It was unfunny vandalism....I knew it would be reverted....where is my block? tmtoulouse vex 02:09, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

Duly punished. Probation will involve ritual loving of goats.-αmεσ (decider) 02:12, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

Pulling it once I am gone is expected. SH and libtards do not like facts, truth, and so on. The only "free speech" they support is speech that supports their secular world view. Abortionismurder 02:14, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

We rarely (have we ever?) infi-ban people. So Trent got what he deserved :-). Also, we're all friends here. Play nicely and don't use bad names and we will respect your POV.... so long as it isn't shoved down our throats.... and notice that your essay is still here. The best remedy to idiotic speech is good speech. Free speech for the win, to parody Justice Brandeis.-αmεσ (decider) 02:16, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

Also, haha, I've been waiting to pull this one, "we paid for this microphone". Blastocyst-lover. humanbe in 02:21, 5 October 2007 (EDT)
Having trouble conversing. I don't speak troll. VirileSterilepie chart? 08:37, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

Ivory Tower?[edit]

On a purely practical note: assuming the facts to be correct ( No swf & I can't be bothered ...), with all those abortions converted to births, when would the world's population reach 10 billion, 11 billion, 12 billion ... ? Or are deaths from starvation, disease and conflict caused by population pressure somehow better than the excision of a few cells. Of course we can shuffle the problem off to the next generation along with global warming, cleaning up after atomic power, reduction of fish stocks and ....
Oh, there's also the question of how many of those abortions would have ultimately miscarried or been stillborn, not to mention being born to parent(s) unable to support/feed/educate them thus putting strain on state (taxes!) or charity (disproportionally religiously funded!) are there any figures? Susantalk to me 11:27, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

Yes, if you consider humans to be chattel, abortion is one way to cull the herd. The use of gas chambers is another. And Guillotines are yet another. From the beginning of creation, humans have been altering the environment. Some think culling and conserving is the answer to the problems we face (unfortunately, some of these thinkers wield political power). Others believe that looking for other natural resources (e.g., in space or on other planets) is worth considering. Yet others think letting nature work it out is a better answer. I say voluntary euthanasia at a Soylent Green(TM) factory for those who are earnestly concerned and pessimistic about mankind's footprint on this Earth, and who want to help mitigate the problem. Abortionismurder 11:50, 5 October 2007 (EDT)
"Soylent green, huh? Is it any good?"
"Well, it depends on the person."


The leading cause of death globally is undefined.[citation needed] We do not have the statistics and population sampling to make such a sweeping statement.[citation needed] Another point if you localize the statistics to the US is what percentage of the aborted fetuses would have naturally survived their first year of life? Perhaps it might be more relevant if Abortionismurder were to break down optional abortion against medically necessary abortion due to trauma and/or genetic faults (Tay sachs). Even to that point we should also look into the ethics behind abortion due to the death of the host due to trauma or the prolonged life of the host due to medical intervention (basically a brain dead woman on life support that is nothing more that a growth pod for a baby not old enough to survive).-- I am the AlphaTimSand the Omega!. 13:36, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

"break down optional abortion against medically necessary abortion due to trauma and/or genetic faults (Tay sachs)." Do you think these reach even 1% of the abortions? Abortionismurder 22:02, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

A Modest Proposal[edit]

Unwanted pregnancies are a Bad Thing. Naturally, that's why they're unwanted. If you wanted them, they wouldn't be unwanted. So the problem we have here are women who don't want the pregnancies they have, and following the silly notion that a person should have full control over their own body. But what do they know, anyway? Anyhow, on the other side, we have Abortionismurder who wants those pregnancies. Well, the free market is set up for just such supply and demand issues, so let me suggest that if AiM wants those pregnancies so bad, they should just have them.
My proposal is to put the much-lauded American knowhow, technological capability, budget, etc, etc, to good use and find a secure way to remove those unwanted pregnancies from the bodies of the poor women who don't want them and implant them in willing participants like our friend Abortionismurder here. It's simple and elegant, especially since AiM and those like-minded souls don't seem to think it's a terrible thing for the mother to carry these unwanted children to term. So obviously they wouldn't mind doing it themselves.
Of course, I don't expect medical science to work overnight. So I suggest that every pro-lifer who really means what they say sign a contract that they will personally pay the costs (medical, time off work, clothing, supplies, and so forth) for the mothers to carry their children to term, at which point they will be adopted by the pro-lifer in question. Obviously this money will come out of the pro-lifer's pocket, since we don't want the government burdened by these undue costs. No, we don't want any sort of welfare, taking money from hard-working folks who don't have anything to do with this whole mess. No, the burden shall be on those who adamantly protest the practice of abortion, and want to take concrete steps to see it ended.
So what do you say, Abortionismurder? Will you, and your fellow travellers, of course, put your money where your mouth is? --Kels 13:27, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

I've seen some people (they were libertarians, I believe) speak about this issue before the '04 presidential election. They, following the personal liberty philosophy, have an obvious problem, since they ideally want the mother to have her way (presumably, to not be pregnant) and the "unwanted fetus" (insert term of choice there) to have his/her/its way (presumably, to survive) as well. As I recall, the same people drew an analogy between an "unwanted fetus" and a stowaway on a ship. The people I heard seriously proposed Kels' Star-Trek idea of removing fetuses and implanting them into other willing mothers as a solution. Personally, I don't think I'll hold my breath until it happens. Thought it was an interesting way of presenting the dichotomy though.--Bayesupdate 14:02, 5 October 2007 (EDT)
I'd think the Libertarian solution is blindingly obvious: Charge the fetus rent, and evict it when it can't pay. After that, its survival is its own problem. --SockOfGulik 14:30, 5 October 2007 (EDT)
Well, you can go with a fully legal solution, like I outlined above. The strident anti-abortionists can be bound by contract to pay the costs of bringing the child to term (and, of course, ongoing costs related to any complications that arise), and then be legally responsible for the child after the birth. Simple and elegant. And a lot easier than the surgical option. --Kels 15:58, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

Ah, but if the woman decides to keep it, the biological father must pay support. In any event, better and more likely than finding a substitute human incubator, artificial incubators may become possible. Ultimately, though, why not just discourage pre-marital sex? Abortionismurder 22:05, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

Why not encourage good information and access to birth control? humanbe in 22:20, 5 October 2007 (EDT)
You mean like, "hey, if you go to the casino, and gamble, it might be fun, but you could loose money." Or, "hey, if you have sex, it might be fun, but it could result in a new human life and an eighteen year commitment." Abortionismurder 22:27, 5 October 2007 (EDT)
It's so generous of you to propose pro-lifers fund research for artificial incubators, especially considering the technology that would be required to bring a 1-day old embryo to term in an artificial environment. And your gambling analogy? Odds are, you're a just a little more likely to lose money at a casino than have informed, safe sex lead to an unexepected and unwanted pregancy. Just a little. Also, out of curiosity, how might you apply this to post-martial sex, exactly? What sort of casino would that be? Feebas factor 22:36, 5 October 2007 (EDT)
(Actually, I think the "artificial incubator" is another interesting suggestion to add to the Proposal)Feebas factor 22:38, 5 October 2007 (EDT)
No, I mean "don't gamble, play it safe. Use the pill, condoms, etc. to protect yourself" fro STDs and unwanted pregnancy. Information is power. humanbe in 22:42, 5 October 2007 (EDT)
"No, I mean 'don't gamble, play it safe...'" Exactly. Don't gamble. If you don't want to risk it, don't have sex until you're ready for a child. Abortionismurder 00:04, 7 October 2007 (EDT)
And if your husband says "I want sex NOW, woman!", then what? (This is purely hypothetical, since I have 95% certainty that you are male.) --Gulik 03:33, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

In fact, a person conceived on this planet has only a 75% chance of not being aborted.[edit]

But they have a 100% chance of dying of something. --Gulik 03:42, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

If you come into this world as an egg (or even worse a sperm) what are your chances of making it to birth?--Bob's your uncle 03:57, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

Factual Innacuracies[edit]

You asked if there were any factual innacuracies in the article. There is at least one. Abortion is so obviously not the leading cause of death in the world that you make yourself a laughing stock by suggesting it. The leading cause of death in the world is most likely predation--it could be old age, which then, for the religious, makes god the leading cause of death. For example it is estimated that 250 million tonnes of krill are eaten each year[1] and with an average weight of 1 gram per krill[2], means that somewhere in the region of 250 trillion krill die each year. HTH HAND --Remarcsd 05:33, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

I'm pretty sure Murder is only worried about human beings, not other life-forms. --Gulik 14:01, 7 October 2007 (EDT)
PROTOCTISTA ARE PEOPLE TOO! -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!
I agree, but isn't it such a shame that he lacks the wit to actually say what he means? I also note that the bible based believers, which i suspect (s)he is, are want to say that before the fall there was no death, and they are specifically referencing animals and predation. --Remarcsd 18:37, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

The leading cause of death in the USA[edit]

If we were to presume personhood begins at conception, then based on the population of the US and the rate of implantation failure, about 119 million persons have perished from spontaneous miscarriage since Roe v. Wade, culled from the population by God, if we are to accept that such miscarriages are His will and therefore, somehow, more acceptable than induced miscarriage. 238U. 02:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Imma fucking gonna delete this piece o' shite unless someone tells me why I shouldn't.[edit]

I am. P-Foster (talk) 02:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

It is in essay space. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 02:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

If that's the case[edit]

I get this is old, but this shit pisses me off. Let's look at some other numbers. The clear leading cause of death is God, who aborts virtually ever fertilized egg that tried to live. You see, the March of Dimes has compiled various studies and shown that between 75 and 90% of all fertilized eggs naturally abort before they've had a chance to implant. They have also shown that nearly 1/2 of all pregnancies will spontaneously abort (miscarry, in non medical parlance) in the first month, before the women is even aware of her pregnancy. Then they have shown that about 10% of all known pregnancies will spontaneously abort. Once you've hit month 3, you are likely to bring a child into this world, happily and healthily. But boy... if you figure there are 3 million births per year in the US alone, and that this represents less than 1/10th the total pregnancies and fertilized eggs, then god kicks off about 30 million fetuses per year. Just cause eve at some apple. that's a fuck load of innocent life to be tossing aside each year, don't you think? Especially if, as right to lifers often argue, the babies have a soul at conception. 30,000,000 souls tossed out, each year. Now THAT is truly the leading cause of death. Pink mowse.pngGodotTue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 15:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC) And your point is?Bazer63 (talk)