I was reading a very interesting post that listed the leading causes of death in the US. The results and the post were interesting, but a comment really made the point. First the list.
15. Assault (homicide): 16,591
14. Parkinson’s disease: 20,552
13. Essential hypertension and hypertensive renal disease (high blood pressure, kidney failure caused by high blood pressure): 25,651
12. Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis: 30, 444
11. Septicemia (systemic infection): 35,587
10. Intentional self-harm (suicide): 36,547
9. Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis (kidney disease): 48,714
8. Influenza and pneumonia: 53,582
7. Diabetes mellitus (diabetes): 68,504
6. Alzheimer’s disease: 78,889
5. Accidents (unintentional injuries): 117,176
4. Cerebrovascular diseases (stroke): 128,603
3. Chronic lower respiratory diseases (emphysema, chronic bronchitis): 137,082
2. Malignant neoplasms (cancer): 568,668
1. Diseases of heart (mainly heart attack): 598,607
Interesting. Now the comment.
Anonymous said…
The leading cause of death in the world is abortion, not disease.
There are approximately 1.2 million abortions per year in the US. Compare that to all the other leading causes and you realize there is no comparison. Over twice as many people die from abortion each year as the next leading cause. Double.
Think about how many lives we would save if we could just cure abortion.
September 2, 2011 at 3:04 pm
> You have arbitrarily decided that at one point in your existence own existence you were not a person (but were just a potential person).
I'm pretty sure that birth, that is coming out of the womb, is not "arbitrary" but rather a clear definition and transformation from one state to the other.
>Why do you get to determine that you were not a person at 1 month existence,
I'm not determining anything, my state of being unborn, a foetus was self-evident. Hint: People don't live in their mothers but foetuses do.
>You were an embryo, then became a fetus, then became a child, then became an adolescent, then became and adult.
Correct, and when I was in the embryo and foetus state my mother was perfectly within her rights to abort me if she so choose as I was a part of her person and that is sacred and no one else's business.
> I guess you think that at one point you were worthless tissue.
Worthless? Gosh no, my mother was thrilled to be pregos so I was quite valuable. If on the other hand she decided that my brother and sister were children enough and aborted me than I would be "worthless". Just as it was her call to have sex with my father it was her call to have the child.
Hers, not mine, not yours and certainly not your mad sky god's.
>Of course, given that you are here supporting abortion, you are probably butchering the meaning of person.
Ha! Ha! Yes, that is what I am doing.
>Of course, that religion that you so hate (Christianity) is the basis for the entire Western ideal that all men are created equal
Yes! I hate Christianity! Grr Christianity!
And no, sad child, Christianity is not the basis for the Western ideal that all men are created equal. Please find me anything in the Bible that suggests such a thing. That philosophy came some 1600 years after Christ and was rooted in the Renaissance, Humanism and the Enlightenment.
You do know that Jesus is referred to as "king of kings" yes? And that the Bible makes no mention of democracy or Presidents or voting? You do know that the America Revolution was condemned by the Pope of the time? You see it was a revolt against the King of England and the George ruled by divine right, that is your god picked him to boss the commoners, the lesser peoples, the unwashed masses, those not of royal or quality blood. Furthermore where in the Bible is slavery condemned? Did Jesus mention enslaving being bad? So "all men are created equal" is from your religion? I'm afraid the facts don't support that statement. Your god is clearly a monarchist and would despise democracy if it were real.
Your god that is, we know democracy is real.
September 2, 2011 at 3:17 pm
>I would suggest that looking upon a person as a person 'from conception to natural death' is a more holistic and logical view
Holistic for sure but logical? No but here's a simple way to put it:
You walk by a fertility clinic, you see in the window two rooms, one with a baby in the basinet, freshly born with that new baby smell, in the other room you see row upon row of fertilized eggs, their cells already splitting, after implanting they'll be born in 9 months.
Suddenly a fire breaks out! You only have time to save the baby OR the splitting eggs. Which do you rescue? For me it's a no brainer, baby is born, it's alive, it must be saved, the splitting eggs are not.
Which would you rescue?
>don't quite seem to know that Catholicism isn't a Fundamentalist religion,
All religions are fundamental by definition, they have to be, however it's the people that practice it that determine how far they take it.
>so, therefore, your lobbing of random scriptures at us and hoping to confound us with what you have seen in the Bible
Random? No, you all are all upset about dead babies, I point out that your god is a sefl-admitted mass murderer of babies, I think the point I was making was obvious and certainly not random.
>I am an intelligent, well-educated, logical person.
Cool. So answer my point, your god kills babies both born and un both in the Bible and in nature so how can any independent observer come to any other conclusion than your god doesn't place much value on them?
For instance why didn't Jesus teach midwifes of his time stuff to avoid infections? How many lives would that have saved? Heck he didn't even cure leprosy, just a few lepers he came across. Isn't that odd, he obviously had these powers but only used them on a tiny fraction of a sliver of the population of the people of Earth? I mean if the historical record showed leprosy vanishing in and around the time of Jesus wouldn't that put all doubts to rest?
Since you're an intelligent, well-educated and logical person I expect you have an answer.
September 2, 2011 at 3:29 pm
> I can assure you that there are mothers and fathers who grieve deeply for a child lost to miscarriage.
No doubt and you're quite right, grief is an ambiguous emotion and it would be different from person to person, some would handle it "better" than others. Regardless if a couple loses their child because your god decided to take it away before it was born as painful as that is it can't match the pain of losing a child that's been born and started life.
After all when a couple looses their child no one says "you can have another one" as comfort because they can't, that child was born unique whereas a foetus, well one is the same as the next, not a lot of personality happening there.
September 2, 2011 at 3:33 pm
>does not believe he has an immortal soul and therefore behaves as though he has no immortal soul.
Yeah, I'm goofy that way. I also don't believe in other bits of magic and superstition.
> It is very possible salvage is a troll.
Um… there are no such things as trolls… wow, you believe some interesting stuff.
> Animals have no immortal souls.
Huh. Did Neanderthal or any other the other human species that have roamed the Earth in the last few millions of year have souls or was that the evolutionary edge that put homo sapiens over the top?
>Atheists deny immortal souls to all people because atheists deny God,
C lose, atheists deny gods, see your god? It's nothing special, not the oldest, not the most powerful and certainly not the most believable.
Tell me, do you think Allah is real? Odin? Zeus? I'm guessing no, weird how your god is the only one out of all the thousands of gods humanity has worshiped over the last 10,000 years that's real. Lucky you!
>oops they deny their own immortal soul and blame others for it.
Guh? Who am I blaming for what?
September 2, 2011 at 5:03 pm
Tsk, tsk, Salvage. I told you to avoid ad hominem attacks… surely you know they aren't proper debating protocol.
As for the ethical dilemma you pose about the baby and the fertilized eggs, I would grab they baby, and try to return for the petri dishes. I would be willing to risk my life to save the cells, if it were possible for them to survive outside the facility. I'd get the baby first because it can feel pain. I think these kinds of high school Ethics Day 'gotcha!' scenarios are pretty juvenile, by the way, and if you think you have made a masterful point by posing it, I'm not impressed.
As to your second and third statement, I would say that God is the Author of life. He's not accountable to you, to me, to anyone. As He said to Job: where were you when He formed the stars, and the hills, etc. This world is not the end, and what happens here *to* us isn't as important as how we react to it.
I would also say that it is obvious to me that you have such a glancing familiarity with the Bible in general, and the Old Testament in particular, that you don't really understand what's going on there at all. You are simply repeating what you've heard others say about it. This is intellectually dishonest, not to mention sloppy.
As to parents not feeling the same after a miscarriage as they might after losing a born child, I can only say that although I am always sorry to hear about people dying in other countries, I don't feel the same grief I would feel if it were someone I knew… that doesn't imply that the former are less than human, or less entitled to their rights.
September 2, 2011 at 5:44 pm
>As for the ethical dilemma you pose about the baby and the fertilized eggs, I would grab they baby,
Ding! Of course you would, anyone with any sense and decency would.
And it's a "gotchya" only in that it clearly illustrates the point I'm making; cells splitting, embryos forming and foetuses growing are not people and the most important thing is human life, human potential life comes in second.
>As to your second and third statement, I would say that God is the Author of life. He's not accountable to you, to me, to anyone.
Oh I agree and I'm not trying to account your god I'm just pointing out that his deeds make it clear he doesn't place as high a price on mortal life as you seem to. You want to worship a baby killing psycho, hey, free country but please don't use it as some sort of moral yardstick as it falls waaaay short.
> As He said to Job: where were you when He formed the stars, and the hills, etc. This world is not the end, and what happens here *to* us isn't as important as how we react to it.
Ah Job, one of the goofier stories. Tell me, why would a all knowing all seeing god have to test anyone or anything? Wouldn't it know the results before the test was even started?
Another interesting point about Job, your god gives Satan permission to go buck wild and kill people, one of the few if only times Satan is said to have taken a life, a fraction of the bloodshed by and for your god. So if you want to use a supernatural entity as a reason to be against abortion you should be a Satanist, never heard of him killing a baby or "designing" women to make child birth a danger.
> You are simply repeating what you've heard others say about it.
Uh, yeah, unlike your religion? That all just came to you one day?
>This is intellectually dishonest, not to mention sloppy.
Ah yes, one of my favorite theist dodges, I point out the lunacy your religion is based on and you sniff "That I just don't get it!" but you won't point out what I got wrong, just that I am wrong because…?
Well because I must be wrong, logic doesn't enter into the equation, your god is real and anything that says otherwise must be wrong. QED.
Well let's skip the OT, that's too easy, let's move to the main event; Jesus.
Tell me, why did your god "sacrifice"* itself to itself so it wouldn't be wrathful with its creation for behaving exactly how it created it / known it would behave?
*as for the sacrifice from what I can tell Jesus took a three day nap, came back to life and then flew off to heaven to rule as a god. So what exactly was sacrificed?
Now the typical answer I get to these questions and points is silence or more sputtering about how I just don't get it.
Which is true, I don't, what I really don't get is why you do when it clearly makes no sense.
September 2, 2011 at 5:51 pm
Salvage,
I'm just giving you my point of view. I'm not trying to make you 'get' anything!
It makes sense to me. I believe it. You don't. As I said, there it is.
September 2, 2011 at 7:05 pm
So that would be no, you won't answer my questions?
Strange, you'd think you having access to the One True Religion would make short work of my Doubting Thomas self.
Not even my confusion over the whole Jesus "sacrifice" thing?
Ah well, this is usually how these things go, I have yet to have any Christian give me an answer on that one, it's always silence or a variation of "You just don't get it!".
Truth be told I'm glad I don't get it, it seems like a very silly thing to "get".
September 2, 2011 at 8:47 pm
Salvage,
You asked questions, I answered them. I cannot MAKE you believe the answers. I'm truly sorry you don't (I know you're happy you don't. You don't have to make sure I know. I know, I know.)
I *do* have access to the One True Faith (as you so rightly point out,) but I can't make *you* have access to it. Only God can give you the gift of Faith, and you first must ask for it, because of the whole Free Will thing. Since you aren't asking, God isn't going to force it upon you. That's the Free Will part.
"Jesus took a three day nap, came back to life and then flew off to heaven to rule as a god. So what exactly was sacrificed? "
I can't believe a Christian has never answered that question (unless they were put off by the tone. That should be beneath you, btw… it doesn't convert anyone.) I suspect they have, and you just don't like the answer. Not the same thing. If you don't think that an innocent man being brutally tortured, mocked, and crucified for the sake of others (the 'flying' off isn't part of the Sacrifice, it is part of the Triumph,) is sacrificial, I would suggest that word doesn't mean what you think it means. The crucifixion is not just 'anything' but silly, it is *everything* but silly.
September 2, 2011 at 9:08 pm
Quoting:
"No doubt and you're quite right, grief is an ambiguous emotion and it would be different from person to person, some would handle it "better" than others. Regardless if a couple loses their child because your god decided to take it away before it was born as painful as that is it can't match the pain of losing a child that's been born and started life."
How could you know that? How can you possibly claim to be the voice for every person in all times and all places who has lost a child before or after birth?
September 2, 2011 at 10:11 pm
>You asked questions, I answered them. I cannot MAKE you believe the answers.
No, you haven't answered them, it's fascinating that you think you have. Like I asked:
For instance why didn't Jesus teach midwifes of his time stuff to avoid infections?
And you answered that? Where? Another Internet?
>Only God can give you the gift of Faith, and you first must ask for it, because of the whole Free Will thing.
No, it's not a free will thing. Free will is about choices, I cannot choose to believe in your god anymore than I can "choose" to believe the sky is purple and the clouds full of ice cream. I believe that the sky is blue because my senses tell me so, I can't believe clouds are full of ice cream because it's rain that comes out of them that and the process of making ice cream requires cows, sugar and processing that a cloud would be incapable of doing.
See what I mean? No choice at all and just like ice cream making clouds don't make sense neither does your god.
>Since you aren't asking, God isn't going to force it upon you. That's the Free Will part.
Really? Isn't your god threatening to throw the unbelievers into the fire that is Hell? Isn't the basic premise of Christianity that there is only one way? If I held a gun to your head and told you to tell me how great I am and you did so would that be of your own free will?
No, I don't think your god is keen on free will at all.
>If you don't think that an innocent man being brutally tortured, mocked, and crucified for the sake of others
Big whoop.
You think Jesus was the only one to suffer at the hands of the Romans? Please, they nailed all kinds of people to all kinds of things and that wasn't even the worse sort of death they offered. How about being a slave in one of the mines? You're beaten and worked quite literally to death. Or how about being sewn alive to your wife and then thrown into the wilderness to be eaten by animals? Or hot lead poured down your throat? Jesus had one bad day in a world where billions have had and will have much worse.
My mother died of lung cancer a few years ago, it's a bit like crucifixion you can either breath and be in pain or not breath and be in slightly less pain. It certainly didn't last a mere day, nope, the worst of it went on for about three weeks. I won't get into the beatings she got from both my father and her father but I'd put those two up against any Roman's fists any day.
So my mother suffered far more than Jesus did and she didn't get to come back to life, say goodbye to her friends and then…. er "Triumph" off to heaven.
So I restate: big whoop.
And you're quite right, crucifixion isn't silly, what is silly and the point you are studiously not answering is what was the point exactly of your god sacrificing itself to itself to prevent it from being wrathful at its creation for behaving exactly as it knew it would behave?
What changed with Jesus being killed? From what I understand it took some thirty years after his death for Christianity to form and then another 300 years and several bloody wars before it was the official religion of the Roman Empire.
Was that part of Jesus' plan? War? Weird with all that meek inheriting the Earth business huh?
And even then Christianity has never been the number one world religion and has been in a decline since the Reformation, picking up speed in the last 50 years or so.
What is this "sake of others" of which you speak?
Who was helped by Jesus having a bad day then going on to be boss of the universe?
See all that illogic leaves me no choice other than to believe that Christianity is just more human superstition, mythology and general nonsense that is no more connected to the supernatural than some witch doctor shaking monkey bones to make it rain.
You on the other hand clearly are ignoring reason and that it most definitely a choice.
September 2, 2011 at 10:14 pm
>How could you know that? How can you possibly claim to be the voice for every person in all times and all places who has lost a child before or after birth?
Gosh, did I claim that?
Huh, okay well than I'll ask you, how can you know that? How can you possibly claim to be the voice for every person in all times and all places who has lost a child before or after birth?
See it kinda works both ways.
I'm saying that parents who had a child, named it, raised it, got to know its unique personality would be more devastated than parents losing a potential child. I'm sure there are some out there that would feel the same way but on average and on the whole losing a born child is far worse than losing an unborn one.
Why? Because the unborn aren't people, I direct you to the "which would you save from a fire" point I made above if you're still confused.
September 3, 2011 at 2:55 am
Yes, s, you made this sweeping statement:
"A woman who loses theirs certainly grieves but not to the level they would if it were a born child.
Not even close…"
Not "some women," not "most women," but "a woman."
Saint Michael the Archangel,
defend us in battle.
Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil.
May God rebuke him, we humbly pray;
and do Thou, O Prince of the Heavenly Host –
by the Divine Power of God –
cast into hell, satan and all the evil spirits,
who roam throughout the world seeking the ruin of souls.
Amen.
September 3, 2011 at 12:59 pm
>Yes, s, you made this sweeping statement:
Yes and once again, on average etc. etc.
It's cute the way you focus on the semantics rather than the substance.
As for Saint Michael, what's the point of that? If you don't say prayers does it make a difference? Like if your god up there thinking "Ok, if they say those words than I will help them if they do not they're on their own!"
And didn't your god make the devil and his snaring ability? So aren't you asking your god to protect you from its own self?
And once again we have royalty, "prince of Heavenly Host" hardly the stuff of "all men are created equal" and democracy. Do you think your god would prefer that America be ruled by a king?
And I'm confused, cast Satan and evil into Hell? Didn't your god already do that? Does Satan keep on escaping like the Warner Bros. and their sister Dot?
And they ruin souls? Why does your god let them do that? Why doesn't he make them stay in Hell so people don't suffer at their hands?
See what I mean about this stuff making very little sense leaving me no choice about believing it?
September 3, 2011 at 1:36 pm
Quoting:
"Yes and once again, on average etc. etc."
I don't understand how you know and can proclaim with any certainty that even the "average" parent grieves less for a child whose life is lost to miscarriage than a child whose life is lost after birth. Even if you have conducted an accurate, global survey of all parents who have lost children in both circumstances, you still have no way to see what is really in their hearts.
I focus on your words because words mean things.
I'm curious how you became involved in this discussion in the first place and why you persist in it. I don't know if I'm alone in this, but I've tried a mindset/worldview/whatever you want to call it similar to yours, and it doesn't work. If all human life is not sacred from conception to natural death, why go on living? What are you striving for? What, if anything, are you hoping for?
September 3, 2011 at 2:24 pm
>I'm curious how you became involved in this discussion in the first place
Um… it's the Internet? This is a comment space for articles? Do you really not get what's going on here?
>and why you persist in it.
My work has me in front of a computer, often I'm waiting on one thing or another before I can continue, this fills the time nicely. I also like to test my beliefs and seek out those who have opposing views, it's a great way to learn. I also have a fascination with theism and theists.
>I don't know if I'm alone in this, but I've tried a mindset/worldview/whatever you want to call it similar to yours, and it doesn't work.
So being pro-choice didn't "work" for you? I'm not sure I understand how that makes sense. I'm pro-choice because it's the only realistic way to go, you can't tell people what to do with their bodies. How does that not work for you?
> If all human life is not sacred from conception to natural death, why go on living?
Do you know what a non-sequitur is? If you don't the above statement is a perfect example.
I go on living because living is fun, woman having abortions does not actually have anything to do with it, see there is no connection between the first part of your question and the second, that's what a non-sequitur is.
A better way to put it would be to ask me if I thought life was "sacred" and if so how could I be for abortion? Although that words smacks too much of the pulpit, precious might be a better way to go. I would answer that yes, life is precious and that everything should be done to preserve it and that I don't think woman should have abortions.
But there are other precious things, one that's even more precious is freedom over ourselves and our bodies and the trumps a great many other things. What grows inside a woman is none of your, mine or the State's business, it is hers alone. That is the end of the argument from what I can see because otherwise you're declaring women to be essentially slaves with no say over their own selves and that is unacceptable.
The Vatican feels differently of course but since they have a streak of misogyny a mile wide I feel safe in dismissing it.
Once again, the solution to abortion is free access to birth control and sex education, if there are no unwanted pregnancies there are no abortions.
It's weird that no one wants to address that rather obvious point. That and your god kills more babies than any human agency could ever do.
>What are you striving for? What, if anything, are you hoping for?
Nothing really, I just find it all terribly interesting. I'm not looking to convert; after all it must be nice having a god, not worrying about the randomness of life, thinking that it all doesn't matter as long as you say the correct prayers at the correct time in the correct place your god will take care of you and yours in the end.
I would never want to strip such delusions, like taking a teddy bear away from an infant; pointlessly cruel.
September 3, 2011 at 8:36 pm
I am very sad for you. Your frustration is plain by your frequent and thinly veiled insults. I think this discussion has hit a wall, but I will pray that you may be given the desire for the peace and joy of Christ.
September 4, 2011 at 12:53 am
Hmm I think the problem is I've asked questions that you either don't want to answer or can't, either way your excuses are weak sauce.
Please don't be sad for me, I'm doing quite well and if I come off "frustrated" it's only because I can't get a straight answer from anyone here.
For instance how does praying to Jesus work? I find it strange, if it's the right thing to do wouldn't Jesus already be doing it?
I'm not sure if there is much peace and joy in your religion. After all it was started with violence and misery (which apparently was a good thing too?) and was spread by violence and misery and well has left an awful lot of human wreckage in its wake.
Like this:
http://life.nationalpost.com/2011/09/03/vatican-says-it-did-not-subvert-efforts-to-report-abuse-in-ireland/
I know you don't see it, you probably don't think much beyond your own self but you should really read up on the history of your beliefs. I don't think you fully appreciate it.
Or perhaps you don't care? You have your Jesus, he keeps you safe and secure and wouldn't jeopardize that for anything. I used to have a drug habit so I can sympathize.
September 4, 2011 at 4:14 pm
Quote:
"I know you don't see it, you probably don't think much beyond your own self but you should really read up on the history of your beliefs."
How do you know what I do and do not see? How do you know whether or not I think much beyond my own self?
It was sad that you said you live because it's fun. My experience, and I don't think it is unique, is that life is often not fun (depending, of course, on one's definition of 'fun').
For what it's worth, I'm well aware of many of the evils that have been perpetrated within the Church. I'm also aware of lots of bad, bad things that have happened in my family, but I haven't lost my belief that the institution of the family is a very good thing.
September 4, 2011 at 5:57 pm
>How do you know what I do and do not see?
Well based on what you've posted here of course it's a simple matter to extrapolate a bigger image. Theism breeds certain predictability if not character.
>How do you know whether or not I think much beyond my own self?
For the past 10,000 years humanity has worshiped countless gods and you think them all false and yours true. Why? Because it's YOUR god, yours is right, everyone else's wrong, right? Despite the obvious fact that there is exactly the same amount of evidence for their gods as yours; i.e. someone a long time ago wrote about it. Theism is always all about you, you having an insight into the supernatural, you having power over your fate (say this prayer at this time at this place and all will be well!), you having a relationship with a universe creating omnipotent force of absolute wisdom and goodness.
>It was sad that you said you live because it's fun.
No, not really. I think my life is fun because I am so unspeakably lucky, lucky to be born in a wealthy nation where with a mere seven hours of "work" five days a week I can live a lifestyle that the majority of humanity would consider luxury.
>My experience, and I don't think it is unique, is that life is often not fun (depending, of course, on one's definition of 'fun').
Well of course it's not always fun, what would be the point of that? A song that has nothing but high or low notes is just noise, it's the ups and downs defining themselves that makes it interesting. My life, so far, has had its low noted but in comparison to the vast majority of the people living today and in the past? I'm having as good a time as anyone could hope for, even at my lowest point there are people who would be grateful for my petty "problems".
I know Christianity puts a premium on suffering, as if somehow pain makes you a better person, hence all those crazy monks sitting on poles or living in caves eating acorns and bits of dirt. I suppose the idea is if you suffer now when you die some sort of universal balance comes into play and that's where the good stuff happens. Bit like a cosmic RSP I suppose. As such you all need to suffer, just a bit; Lent is a good example, as if somehow you not eating chocolate for a month is some sort of sacrifice your god appreciates and makes you holy" or otherwise better in its sight.
>For what it's worth, I'm well aware of many of the evils that have been perpetrated within the Church.
And it's so cool that you don't let it bother you! Me? If I was involved with an organization that let children be raped? Well they'd get my membership card back pretty darn quick for starters, after all I'd feel a measure of responsibility. But I guess I don't have your capacity for forgiveness.
Or perhaps I'm not so selfish? Is there a chance that maybe you worry that if you left the One True Church that would scotch your invitation to Heaven? That if you don't pay your tithe and defend the Holy See Jesus might give you a frowny face and send you way south when you die? Bit like the GOP or a biker gang, you're with us or your against us!