I’d just like to point out how amusing it is that liberals are up in arms to fight government regulation, while conservatives suddenly see a need to get more stricter oversight in place.
Just for fun, let’s try a similar piece of legislation upping the regulations on restaurants, or the financial industry. Would the issue of “alarmists” still hold weight?
If you can show me a history of attempts to outlaw a particular kind of restaurants, of the customers of said kind of restaurant being harrassed, of the cooks of that kind of food being murdered… Then I would think you might see alarmism if a particular kind of restaurant was given extra regulation.
Oh, and also presuming that it had been long held that eating that kind of food was a constitutional right, and when not eating it could often result in risk of death for the customer.
I seem to recall sushi restaurants getting increased scrutiny for a while.
It would, if the situations were analogous – that is, if the new law merely granted an oversight board the power to make new regulations, and did not create any new rules itself. Someone who reacted to that by asserting confidently that his restaurant would have to close as a result would certainly be called alarmist.
“Often?”
I toyed with what word to use there. Often doesn’t really fit, I agree. I obviously don’t mean a majority, or anything like that. The meaning I was trying to put across was a risk to life that is non-zero, and at a level higher than something that we would think of as not worth caring about.
I’m happy with whatever word would best describe a risk of death from not eating a particular type of cuisine that is equal to the risk of death from carrying a fetus to term in a world where abortion does not exist.
I would say that pregnancy “always” results in the risk of death, although that risk is pretty low in this country.
I would love to see the stats on this. What is the current risk of death from eating at a restaurant?
The CDC says, "We estimate that foodborne diseases cause approximately 76 million illnesses, 325,000 hospitalizations, and 5,000 deaths in the United States each year. "
But that says nothing about restaurants, at the moment I don’t have time to dig any deeper.
Wiki says:
The number in 2005 in the United States is 11 in 100,000, a decline by two orders of magnitude,[11] although that figure has begun to rise in recent years, having nearly tripled over the past decade in California.[15] For the United States, 11 in 100,000 is one of the lowest estimates. Maternal deaths in the United States range up to 17 per 100,000 live births
Life also has a pretty high risk of death, by my estimation nearly 92% of people living today will die.
Can you read?
I specifically said the risk of death from NOT eating at a particular type of restaurant/particular type of cuisine. Which is as near to zero as I can possibly imagine.
How about: “…and when not eating it could result in a small but non-zero risk of death for the customer.”
I’ll take that.
I wanted a way of getting significant in there, but I know (from my dabblings in statistics before the invention of the internet, calculators, ball point pens and even paper) that this might have meant something I didn’t want.
Now - if we have numbers of 17 deaths per 100,000 live births, I wonder what they would go up to if there was no abortion - presumably a very significant percentage of the most dangerous pregnancies are intentionally terminated now.
How do you measure the risk of death from NOT doing something?
By comparing those who don’t do it with those who do that are otherwise similar.
Right, so you need an action to compare the NOT action to. So is it eating at restaurants vs eating at home? Or eating Indian vs all other restaurants?
No sane person would argue a fetus should not be afforded the rights of person hood (ultra-simple arguments can easily be reversed like this.)
Anyway, your qualifier “any meaningful sense” didn’t “work” with your original quote. You went on to say “you can’t kill what isn’t alive.” A tumor may not be alive in any meaningful sense, a single-celled organism may not be, small simple forms of life such as bacteria and insects may not be alive in any meaningful sense. But you can kill what is alive, regardless of whether it is “meaningful” life or not, so your qualifier still didn’t make your comment valid. You could have argued “it doesn’t matter if you kill life that isn’t meaningful”, but I guess that didn’t suit you rhetorically. Unfortunately in this case it was a key technical point, because how meaningful any given form of life is doesn’t affect that factual nature of whether or not it can be killed (all life can be killed, at least that I’ve seen.)
I believe the “no sane person” statement issued by alphaboi867 referred only to the sperm and egg. If you can identify a sane person (outside of a Monty Python) who thinks every sperm or egg is a person then I will withdraw my criticism.
What other kind of compliance would be meaningful to somebody who is simply opposed to all abortions?
I think the aim is to make it as hard as possible to get an abortion short of closing the clinics, to ensure that there isn’t true privacy (except for the families of the protesters when they need their little problems taken care of) etc.
And I don’t think the people who pass these laws are truly opposed to all abortions. They want abortion to continue.