World Clock

[RAJAWANG]

Hi all,

I just thought this is interesting to share : http://www.poodwaddle.com/worldclock.swf

 

[Leo40]

Why do you think this is interesting?

 

[anart]

Why do you think this is interesting?

I think it's interesting, if the data is actually accurate. It's really unfortunate though that the 'environment' section is about 'global warming' - makes me question the veracity of ALL of their data if they missed the boat so completely on that one.

 

[1984]

Not surprisingly, under 'Food', milk, cereals and sugar are far ahead in production over fish or vegetables. And, oddly under 'Deaths', abortion ticks off each second at 37 million+ and overall Deaths are at 53 Million+. Abortion isn't counted in the total 53 million+ Deaths figure either, so what are they trying to imply?

 

[anart]

Not surprisingly, under 'Food', milk, cereals and sugar are far ahead in production over fish or vegetables. And, oddly under 'Deaths', abortion ticks off each second at 37 million+ and overall Deaths are at 53 Million+. Abortion isn't counted in the total 53 million+ Deaths figure either, so what are they trying to imply?

Good question. Why even include abortion? They don't include miscarriages. Methinks there is quite the agenda with this 'world clock'...

 

[Brewer]

Not surprisingly, under 'Food', milk, cereals and sugar are far ahead in production over fish or vegetables. And, oddly under 'Deaths', abortion ticks off each second at 37 million+ and overall Deaths are at 53 Million+. Abortion isn't counted in the total 53 million+ Deaths figure either, so what are they trying to imply?

Good question. Why even include abortion? They don't include miscarriages. Methinks there is quite the agenda with this 'world clock'...

According to the childbirth lecture I attended last week as part of my ambulance training many miscarriages happen early in the pregnancy and can be mistaken for menstruation. Women can be unware that they're pregnant and miscarry a few weeks later. Abortions occur after the pregnancy is confirmed and does involve killing a human being. They probably don't include the abortions in the death clock because, I suppose, legally and technically, you're not alive until you're born. Abortions are, however, a statistic that can be measured so why not put them in?

 

[anart]

Abortions occur after the pregnancy is confirmed and does involve killing a human being. They probably don't include the abortions in the death clock because, I suppose, legally and technically, you're not alive until you're born. Abortions are, however, a statistic that can be measured so why not put them in?

Interesting. I've always considered an abortion to be a procedure that terminates a pregnancy and, thus, terminates the growth of a fetus - not killing a human being. I suppose my personal definition is certainly the source of many debates. My state recently put on the ballot an initiative to define a fetus as a human being in order to make abortion equal to murder, punishable by law, so it's an interesting distinction. Thankfully, that ballot initiative was voted down by wide majority.

As far as abortions being measured accurately, can they be? I'm sure in most undeveloped nations and many developed nations, abortions occur quite often without the assistance of medical personnel, so it still seems to me to be indicative of an agenda of some sort to include that statistic. Then again, all the statistics on that site could be questioned for the same reason.

 

[Seamus]

Abortions occur after the pregnancy is confirmed and does involve killing a human being. They probably don't include the abortions in the death clock because, I suppose, legally and technically, you're not alive until you're born. Abortions are, however, a statistic that can be measured so why not put them in?

Interesting. I've always considered an abortion to be a procedure that terminates a pregnancy and, thus, terminates the growth of a fetus - not killing a human being. I suppose my personal definition is certainly the source of many arguments. My state recently put on the ballot an initiative to define a fetus as a human being in order to make abortion equal to murder, punishable by law, so it's an interesting distinction. Thankfully, that ballot initiative was voted down by wide majority.

Its also my understanding that this is the root of the abortion debate: is a fetus a human being? Does a fetus have a soul? If you kill a fetus, are you violating its free will and destroying its right to life? If I recall correctly from a discussion we had in a college Anthropology class, some cultures believe that the act of naming is what gives a child a soul, and they don't give their children names for some time after they are born in part because of high infant mortality rates, but also because of traditions of infanticide. Someone who is "Pro life" may believe that a fetus is imbued with a soul at the very moment of conception. Someone else may consider an infant a human being, but not a fetus.

 

[1984]

Abortions occur after the pregnancy is confirmed and does involve killing a human being.

If this could be considered factual, why not just include the number of abortions in with the total number of deaths. Why separate the numbers at all?

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

Its also my understanding that this is the root of the abortion debate: is a fetus a human being? Does a fetus have a soul? If you kill a fetus, are you violating its free will and destroying its right to life? If I recall correctly from a discussion we had in a college Anthropology class, some cultures believe that the act of naming is what gives a child a soul, and they don't give their children names for some time after they are born in part because of high infant mortality rates, but also because of traditions of infanticide. Someone who is "Pro life" may believe that a fetus is imbued with a soul at the very moment of conception. Someone else may consider an infant a human being, but not a fetus.

If a soul is a conscious entity wouldn't it know about abortions and so plan ahead by not entering a body that is likely to be aborted? Unless it just happens to need that particular lesson. Plus, a soul is immortal, so I don't see why it matters if something has a soul or not since you can't harm the soul anyway, you're just killing the body. Given that we don't know what a soul is and what does or doesn't have one, I don't think it makes any sense at all to use that as any sort of yardstick for what we can kill and when. I think a better criteria is just the level of consciousness of the thing itself weighed against the context (like consequences to the mother if no abortion is done).

Ideally killing anything with any kind of consciousness should be avoided and definitely never done lightly, but it also makes sense to value the life of a higher consciousness over a lower one. If choosing between the life of a human or a dog, save the human (typically). Causing trauma to fetus vs a much more grown and conscious mother? Go with the fetus. Of course, lower life form does not necessarily mean free of pain or consciousness despite the fact that many vegetarians assume they can just determine what does or does not feel pain. So in a sense I agree with them that we must make distinctions and prioritize by consciousness level, I just disagree with black and white thinking that plants are the same as rocks. I also think that all life is precious and will feel trauma upon death. Yet we must still make distinctions (otherwise cannibalism would be normal), and a fetus is closer to a plant than a human, so its life must be of less value than a human that is already alive. Nobody likes "killing" fetuses, it's just a the better of 2 evils - the other one being ruining the life of a grown human.

 

[knowledge_of_self]

Its also my understanding that this is the root of the abortion debate: is a fetus a human being? Does a fetus have a soul? If you kill a fetus, are you violating its free will and destroying its right to life? If I recall correctly from a discussion we had in a college Anthropology class, some cultures believe that the act of naming is what gives a child a soul, and they don't give their children names for some time after they are born in part because of high infant mortality rates, but also because of traditions of infanticide. Someone who is "Pro life" may believe that a fetus is imbued with a soul at the very moment of conception. Someone else may consider an infant a human being, but not a fetus.

If a soul is a conscious entity wouldn't it know about abortions and so plan ahead by not entering a body that is likely to be aborted? Unless it just happens to need that particular lesson. Plus, a soul is immortal, so I don't see why it matters if something has a soul or not since you can't harm the soul anyway, you're just killing the body. Given that we don't know what a soul is and what does or doesn't have one, I don't think it makes any sense at all to use that as any sort of yardstick for what we can kill and when. I think a better criteria is just the level of consciousness of the thing itself weighed against the context (like consequences to the mother if no abortion is done).

I totally agree with SAO on this one.

I also think it's interesting that most people don't even think about the fact that some FULLY GROWN human beings don't have a soul- or don't show signs of one, because they are fully psychopathic and don't care about anything at all. So how can one be sure that a fetus has a soul when in some cases a fully grown human doesn't?

 

[FireShadow]

Abortions occur after the pregnancy is confirmed and does involve killing a human being.

If this could be considered factual, why not just include the number of abortions in with the total number of deaths. Why separate the numbers at all?

My first thought was that they separated those statistics because so many disagree as to whether an abortion is a "death" of a person or not. But, perhaps there is an agenda. I don't know.

 

[anart]

Abortions occur after the pregnancy is confirmed and does involve killing a human being.

If this could be considered factual, why not just include the number of abortions in with the total number of deaths. Why separate the numbers at all?

My first thought was that they separated those statistics because so many disagree as to whether an abortion is a "death" of a person or not. But, perhaps there is an agenda. I don't know.

Could be. The environment page being carbon emissions and global warming temperature increase is pretty discouraging, though. My agenda comment was due to the combination of that and the abortion statistic - but - I Dunno!

 

[Nawd]

Abortion may be individual, and perhaps always exactly what the lessons "call for" according to her choices and actions in choosing to end the life of a fetus,(and those lessons) or remaining with a pregnacy... Be it ending with adoption (and all of those lessons), or raising him/her (and all of those lessons).

At least that is what I think.

As far as a soul goes with the fetus, I would think it would have to do with not 'when a fetus is a human with a possible soul', but rather or not it will arrive as a new human to begin with (and all of the lessons for that individual).

Well in other words, I don't know. :)

 

[RAJAWANG]

@Leo40 : I just want to share, no other intention. I personally have interest in statistics, and the law of probability, ie. the almost equal distribution of male and female of the world's population. I always thought by nature, there's should be more female, and I was wrong.