Pages

Friday, February 17, 2012

Republicans hate women! Democrats eat orphans!

Some writers gain immortality by the wisdom they distill into a few golden words: Lao Zi, Ecclesiastes, Aristotle, the Sermon on the Mount, the lyrics of the great Tang poets, great passages in Hamlet and elsewhere in Shakespeare. 

Others seem to seek 15 minutes of fame by expressed the essence of clap-trap and a finely distilled form. 

I came across one such commentator this morning, a poster on Amazon named Michael Altaribba, expressing some political notions.  Let's label those notions "A":

A. "It's a reflection of the Republican Party's fundamental (pun intended) misogyny . . . they see every woman as tainted, subservient, and inherently unclean. Women exist for the purpose of making children (preferably sons), keeping the house clean, and providing pleasure to their husbands. If they engage in sexual activity with someone other than their husbands, it is their fault, and they deserve to be punished, regardless of the circumstances. And, if they dare to actually enjoy that sexual activity, they are especially deserving of punishment.

"It's a revolting reflection of their Bronze Age social perspective. With any luck, the Republican candidate will lose by a landslide this November, and, perhaps finally, the Republican membership will reassess their ideology, and jettison the ideological poison (and those who produce it) from their midst."

Of course, it would be easy to formulate a caricature of Mr. Altaribba's preferred political party along similiar lines.  Let's call those lines "B:"

B. "For Democrats, babies are conceived to be killed, so their parents can pleasure one another, without worry about contractions or diapers. If they survive the womb, they are taken as tools in the teachers' unions omnivorous greed for benefits.  Later, when western society is forced by its creditors to deal with its economic (and concurrent moral) bankrupcy, the 'aborted generation' will be further saddled with paying back the $20 trillion in bribes the Democratic Party has paid its constituents for votes.  All this is sanctioned or prophesied by the spiritual denigration of humanity argued for by philosopher Peter Singer, for whom a baby is no more than a pig or dog.  Democrats obviously hate children.  Since secularism derides the spiritual aspect of humanity -- treating us as more than barn animals -- Democrats will no doubt want to will eat children once its legal."
 
I won't, of course, argue that B is true.  Its purpose is mainly to provide people on the Left who buy into A a mirror, by which they can see the absurdity of A.  But if anything, I do think it more plausible to say Democrats hate children, than that Republicans hate women.    
 
A.  Do Republicans hate women (more than Democrats)? 
 
To begin with, an excellent case could be made that Republican men like women more than Democrats do, or in a more flattering way.  54% of Democrats are now single, while 62% of Republicans are married.  If Democratic men really loved women so much, why don't they marry one? 
 
Oh, the slicker sorts reply, but it's so hard to choose!  Bill Clinton, for instance, surely loves women -- and they love him back!  While fooling around is certainly an activity that crosses the aisle, the culture of one-night stands and hookups seems most powerfully affirmed by a long series of Democratic politicians.  For every Newt Gingrich on the Republican side, one seems to find two or three equally prominent Bill Clintons, JFKs, or Teddy Kennedys, or even a Barney Frank, with a male prostitution ring run out of his apartment. 
 
Which might help explain the overwhelming Democratic support for abortion at all stages and under all circumstances.  If you want free love, what makes more sense than to rid oneself of the ultimate romantic entanglement -- a new generation of Wawas? 
 
But let's consider Michael's allegations, one by one: 
 
"It's a reflection of the Republican Party's fundamental (pun intended) misogyny... "\
 
Get Michael's point?  The trouble, the real reason Republicans allegedly hate women, is because so many Republicans are Christians, aka "fundamentalists."  That's also the point behind his later "Bronze Age" shot -- the Bronze Age being when most of the Bible was written. 
 
In an earlier series, "How Jesus Liberates Women," I laid out what I think is conclusive historical evidence that this common belief is badly mistaken.  Far from demonstrating a hatred of women, the "Bronze Age" teachings of the Bible have done more to liberate woman around the world, by the billion, than any other force of nature or supernature.  I still await a serious attempt by any skeptic to disprove these arguments. 
 
As for evidence that Republicans are particularly mysogenistic, of course refuting that would take a different argument, even if many Republicans are Christian.  But since Michael has given no real evidence for his assertion, I don't see any need to offer any extra proof to rebut it.  But I do seem to remember a remarkable amount of vitriol swirling around the figure of Sarah Palin, an accomplished, reform-minded Alaska governer, over the past few years.  It almost seems, as Clarence Thomas points out, that what really angers Democrats, is when "their groups" walk off the liberal reservation and come to conservative conclusions. 
 
"They see every woman as tainted, subservient, and inherently unclean."
 
Michael seems to be suffering relaspses from bad experiences in a past life as a leper, apparently.  This is almost too over-the-top to do anything but laugh. 
 
"Women exist for the purpose of making children (preferably sons), keeping the house clean, and providing pleasure to their husbands."
 
Oh, that explains why more Republicans are married!  We want our womenfolk to scrub the floors after our masculine, beer-swilling, Monday-night-football watching sons throw up on them!  Curious, though, that married women are also far more likely to vote Republican than unmarried women.  They must all be suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.
 
Here again, thinking of actual Republican women I know, and the men who love them, one finds this caricature tremendously amusing.  
 
"If they engage in sexual activity with someone other than their husbands, it is their fault, and they deserve to be punished, regardless of the circumstances. And, if they dare to actually enjoy that sexual activity, they are especially deserving of punishment."
 
Here, I think, we see the nub of the matter for a lot of men on the Left.  What is better, for the natural desire of a callow, self-seeking man with little thought for the future, than that women would accept the adolescent 60s ideology of "free love?"  Free means, you get sex without paying anything in return -- no hand-holding at birth, no hospital bills, no cleaning diapers, no crying at inopportune times, no tuition, no work late at night like Tiny Tim's father for Scrouge.  You can live free and easy, come and go when you like, like Charlie Sheen, or many other healthy, left-wing, Hollywood role models.   
 
But if you say, "Love is for a lifetime.  I will love and honor you, in richness and poverty, sickness and health, so long as we both shall live, even when you wrinkle up and I could, were I to ignore my vows, might still 'get' younger women -- such is reality between the sexes -- I choose to stay by your side, and provide for you and our children" -- that's exploiting women, somehow!  
 
One wonders, sometimes, at the strange shapes people twist their minds into -- even if one cannot be sure of motives.      

"It's a revolting reflection of their Bronze Age social perspective. With any luck, the Republican candidate will lose by a landslide this November, and, perhaps finally, the Republican membership will reassess their ideology, and jettison the ideological poison (and those who produce it) from their midst."

Ideological poison, indeed. 

All such poison aside, if the Republican loses by a landslide this November, it appears we can be sure:

* Roe vs. Wade will continue as the Law of the Land, and with it an expansive Charlie Sheen lifestyle -- whether or not that makes for real and lasting happiness.  

* No one will do anything about our present debt, which has passed 100% of GDP, sailed through $15 trillion dollars, until Obama is gone, and the next generation is forced to finally pay the piper.  (Or our entire economy collaspses, as that of Greece has already done, as it may well soon do.) 

* The great god government will continue to do a great many things to undermine marriage, fueled by the kind of contempt for marriage commitments suggested (if I am not mistaken) by Michael's comments. 

Some philosophies become the pillars on which civilizations are founded.  Others, become the wrecking balls that destroy them. 

Most Democrats are not cannibals, of course, any more than most Republicans hate women. 

But many Democrats (and some Republicans) have become champion of ideologies that, it seems to me, are spiritually and economically cannibalizing our civilization.  And that, I think I can say without too much exagerration.

23 comments:

TruthOverfaith said...

"the "Bronze Age" teachings of the Bible have done more to liberate woman around the world, by the billion, than any other force of nature or supernature"

Bwahahahahahahhahaahhh!!!!!!
That's quite a knee slapper!!!

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com
/women/long.html

Read through the above link a little, and enlighten your ridiculous, deluded Jesus brain a little.

David B Marshall said...

Lies and Anger Over Reality: I know the concept of scholarship is strange to you. But in the series I linked, I cite every single gospel text relating to the treatment of women. That's what we in the scholarship business call "primary sources." And for some strange reason, we privilege such sources, carefully read, above cherry-picking skeptical web sites. The rest of the series gives raw historical facts about what the Gospel has accomplished for women, along with an extensive UN study on the status of women in 99 countries around the world. Also, for the logicians in the audience, you can't disprove a broad historical claim with a textual claim.

So for anyone who knows the difference between a good argument and a sub-adolescent schoolyard taunt, it doesn't really matter what your cherry-picking skeptical web site says. (Which of course I will not visit, not trusting any link you give.)

TruthOverfaith said...

Yeah, Davy, I have no doubt that you believe that your ancient book of mythology, and the religion that came from it, has never caused a moment's harm to anyone.

Slavery!!!!?? Our ancient holy book would never support such evil, vile lunacy!!!
Animal sacrifices as a central part of the worship of God!!?? Not our ancient book of fairies!!!!!!

Here's a good book to enlighten your deluded Jesus-brain about the bible's treatment of women--"Woe to the Women:The Bible Tells Me So"--Annie Gaylor.

If Christianity had any positive impact on the lives of women, it was done without quoting the multiple pages of the bible where women are clearly described as inferior.

Continue cherry picking your pathetic, Stone Age book of asinine rubbish.

Christians:Embarrassing the human species for over two thousand years!!!!!

Brian Barrington said...

All the same, Obama won women 56% to 43% in 2008 . If just men had the vote then Obama would have lost the last election, and Republicans would be a shoe-in for this year's election as well. People like Santorum and Gingrich really would struggle to get sufficient female votes to become president. So for some reason Republicans struggle with women, especially single women, who voted 70% for Obama. The more right-wing the republican is, the less women like him. I'd say there are good reasons for this ...Republicans are increasingly the party of old, white, heterosexual men, and most other groups vote Democrat ... Jews, homosexuals, single people, blacks , hispanics, young people. Of course, these rules are just overall trends ... After all, I'm a white, heterosexual, married man and I'm a staunch Democrat. Or at least I would be if I lived in the US.

Brian Barrington said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Brian Barrington said...

I think one point in my post was incorrect ... Men voted 49% for Obama, vs 48% for McCain, so if only men had the vote Obama would still have won.  In order for McCain to win the vote would need to have been restricted to white men, just like back in the good old days :-)

David B Marshall said...

Brian: "Old, white, heteorsexual men" who are not liberals makes about 15% of the electorate. Republicans won two of the last three presidential elections, and the last mid-terms, sweepingly. Seems you're missing about 35% of the electorate.

Unmarried women do tend to support Democrats somewhat more, especially if they're in college or on welfare. What carefree, unattached woman wouldn't want a Sugar Daddy to pay the bills without even any demands on her body, especially if she's grown used to being taken care of? A great recipe for the next generation, eh -- get as many people as possible dependent on Big Government, even while selling kids into hock for a National Debt greater than any civilization has previously known?

Brian Barrington said...

Older, white, Christian, heterosexual men appear to be the main group among whom Republicans have a majority, although obviously they get a significant enough minority vote among other demographics to sometimes win elections.

Do you worry that if women get money from the state without "any demands" being made on their bodies, they will be less inclined to want to have sex with older, white, Christian, heterosexual men?

David B Marshall said...

LOL! Good one, Brian.

No, I worry that your continent is going over a cliff at this very moment thanks to irresponsible debt, and mine is heading right behind it. I worry that our children (mission accomplished) are going to have to pick up the pieces for the wreckless, short-sighted, self-centered and idiotic "Keynsian" (aka, daft) policy of spending oodles of money that we don't have, borrowing it from the Chinese and Saudis. I worry that peoples who have learned to depend on the government for sustanence, will lose the art of producing, and become spiritually-impoverished wards of governments that need their votes. I worry that millions of children will grow up not knowing what the word "Daddy" means.

I know this may come as a revelation to a swinging single like yourself, but life really is about more than bread, or even about who butters your bread and how often.

Brian Barrington said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Brian Barrington said...

Your pessimism about our situation is perhaps overdone. We live in the wealthiest, freest, healthiest, safest, most long-lived, most educated, most literate, most peaceful societies there have ever been, with lower infant mortality and better access to information than has ever been the case. The oppression and exploitation of women, ethnic minorities and workers have been significantly decreased. Overall, this is the best time ever to have been alive for most people. Given the unprecedented technological know-how and resources of advanced societies there is no need to have anyone living in poverty. It all depends on how we focus our vast wealth and resources.

Crude said...

We live in the wealthiest, freest, healthiest, safest, most long-lived, most educated, most literate, most peaceful societies there have ever been, with lower infant mortality and better access to information than has ever been the case.

Wealthiest? Are we counting countries in severe debt?

Healthiest, safest, etc - granted, technological advances there have made some strides.

Lower infant mortality? Does this take into account outright killing infants?

As for literate and educated - literate I can grant. 'Educated'? That's harder to quantify, beyond "well, this many people achieved level X in this metric of formal education".

Oppression and exploitation of women is down? Again, depends on your metric.

Brian Barrington said...

“Are we counting countries in severe debt?”

Mostly yes – real wealth consists of goods and services produced in an economy. There are more goods and services produced now than ever before, even in most economies with a lot of debt. In absolute terms, even quite poor people in the wealthiest countries now possess a level of wealth that would have astounded their ancestors. Even very big economic setbacks, such as the Great Depression, only temporarily reduced the level of real wealth – then it resumed its upward march to levels never seen before.

“Lower infant mortality? Does this take into account outright killing infants?”

Yeah, it includes infanticide. Globally the infant mortality rate has been reduced to less than 5%, including infanticide, and in the wealthiest countries infant mortality is well below 1%. Previously it would have been much, much higher.

I agree that education is hard to define or measure, but if you look at IQ levels, literacy rates and access to information, it’s very plausible to say that most people are now better educated than ever before. It’s hard to argue that people were better educated when most of them were illiterate!

But do you disagree with the basic contention i.e. that for most people this is the best time ever to be alive?

Crude said...

Well, I wrote a reply before but I may have lost it. So, here's try two.

There are more goods and services produced now than ever before, even in most economies with a lot of debt. In absolute terms, even quite poor people in the wealthiest countries now possess a level of wealth that would have astounded their ancestors.

The problem with statements like this is that they aren't just true right now. Pick various points in the past and you can make these exact claims, from 'Levels of wealth that would have astounded their ancestors' to 'more goods and services now than ever before'. And the idea that these things are part of some eternal upward march - as much as I can get behind teleological thinking - is short-sighted. Very similar, broad statements could have been made at various times in the past, including prior to some pretty considerable disasters.

Yeah, it includes infanticide.

Forgive me if I wasn't clear - abortion is infanticide.

I agree that education is hard to define or measure, but if you look at IQ levels, literacy rates and access to information, it’s very plausible to say that most people are now better educated than ever before. It’s hard to argue that people were better educated when most of them were illiterate!

Access does not equal accessed, and literacy value depends on what's being read. I will absolutely agree that there has been an increase in knowledge. I will utterly dispute whether what most people are getting in terms of 'education', beyond the basics (if they can swing that) is on the whole particularly great.

If I take 1000 illiterate people, teach 500 of them to read, and give them a steady literary diet of Deepak Chopra and romance novels, I'm going to question which of the two remaining groups are now better off in terms of education. ('But they're literate, so in theory they can read!' you may reply. But we're back to me asking what they will read and what they will do with that knowledge.)

But do you disagree with the basic contention i.e. that for most people this is the best time ever to be alive?

Yes, because it's far more complicated than how you're putting it. I suppose I could make an argument that now is the best time ever to be alive because - say I'm a devout muslim - there are more muslims alive than ever before, more people under Islamic law than ever before, in terms of absolute numbers. Say those numbers bear out. Did I just prove that now is the best time ever to be alive? After all, we'd be assuming the numbers corroborate my claims. But my standards are open to question - as are yours.

Brian Barrington said...

Well, I don’t think many would disagree with the contention that in terms of absolute material wealth, this is the wealthiest time ever. This doesn’t mean it will definitely continue going on like that, of course – but as I said, even fairly enormous disasters like the Great Depression and the Second World War only temporarilly stopped the trend.

“Forgive me if I wasn't clear - abortion is infanticide.”

Yeah. If unborn children are classified as infants then that would make the global infant mortality rate considerably higher than the official rate of 5% - it could make it as high as 75% (if we estimate 50% of fertilised eggs failing to implant in the womb, with at least 30% of those that do implant spontaneously aborting, and another 20% of those being killed due to induced abortion).

Most people have always preferred vulgar entertainment to high-brow art and literature. High culture has mostly been for a small minority of elites, and this may not have changed much even though there is now more literacy. But I doubt the proportion of people (let alone the absolute number of people) who enjoy and profit from good philosophy, theology, art, literature, films etc. has declined.

“But my standards are open to question - as are yours.” True enough – all I can do is explain my reasons for believing that this is the best time ever for most people to be alive. Things are far from perfect, but in the past most people lived terribly short, nasty, dangerous, exploited, painful, ignorant, brutal, narrow little lives. Just imagine life without anti-biotics, to take a small example.

David B Marshall said...

I find myself agreeing with some of what both of you say. Absolutely, it's better to be alive when your chances of staying alive are sustained by antibiotics. Absolutely, literacy is a good, sufficient food stocks are a good, cars and computers and hot water heaters are all very nice to have. And the rate of violence has come down, in advanced countries, and we enjoy more freedom -- even if some countries, like North Korea, use technology to enslave more thoroughly than ever, perhaps.

Some of that derives from technology, which comes of the scientific revolution, which seems to have theological roots, both in ancient Greece, and in Medieval Europe.

Yet, on the other hand, we could have killed everyone in a single afternoon of lobbing nukes, a few years ago. Our civilization remains fragile and vulnerable.

And I am not at all sure that Western Europe is quite the shining light on a hill that Brian takes it as, or that the rest of the world sees it that way -- or America, right now.

Living off the next generation, the way we're doing, is not a morally neutral policy -- it is, as McCain said, "generational theft."

Killing off unborn children, including (in the US) moments before birth, seems to fit the same trend - a selfish irresponsibility, that is not very noble or impressive.

Nor do I see the collapse of marriage, the high out-of-marriage birth rate, as anything to either cheer or be impressed by. Maybe, as you say, most of these kids eventually get married, in Scandinavia. But again, it's part of the same trend -- grabbing what we can, and sending the bill to the next generation. What will be the long-term effect?

Plus the birth rate itself has plunged, especially in Western Europe, also in much of the advanced world. Good thing? But I think unmarried and unfamilied people are bound to miss out, not only the greatest joys, but also the kinds of trials that teach us important moral virtues, draw us out of ourselves.

I also wonder whether Brian is quite right about "vulgar" and "high-brow" entertainment. Which was Shakespeare? Both, at the same time. And theatres in little London town were absolutely packed. Considering how poor, small, diseased, short-lived, Elizabethan London was, and how prosperous and numerous we are, and one does have to wonder -- what is our excuse? Why are the old parts of European cities so much more beautiful than the new parts, for example?

Brian Barrington said...

“And theatres in little London town were absolutely packed.” They still are packed – I bet there are far more productions of Shakespeare in England now than there were during the time of Shakespeare - and millions of other people get to read Shakespeare and watch Shakespeare on film.

But you are right that new art tends to only be recognised as great art, or “high art” long after it is produced. Dickens was regarded as a writer of mere soap-operas. The Impressionist painters in France were dismissed by the official art establishment as a bunch of charlatans. Now consider TV shows like The Wire and Mad Men (or the Simpsons!) – they are great art, but because they are new art forms they are not recognised as such by many people 9especially culture snobs), and they are watched by millions of people. In my opinion the most dynamic art forms of the current era are film and TV (with most of the great art being produced in the USA, currently the world’s most creative country). If Shakespeare or Michelangelo were alive today they would be living in LA making films and TV shows – and in the future people will look back on this as a Golden Era of art in TV and cinema.

“Why are the old parts of European cities so much more beautiful than the new parts, for example?” That is an interesting question, and I don’t know the full answer. Ideas that occur to me would be (a) there was a population explosion in Europe in the 20th century, which meant that lots of not-very-attractive buildings had to be built very quickly (this also happened after WWII) (b) the more beautiful a building or area is, the more likely it is to be preserved and taken care of. Until fairly recently, Ireland would have been full of revolting hovels, where most people lived, but they have been torn down – and more of the pretty buildings survived (c) What we consider beautiful changes over time. Across from where I work in Dublin there is a building called the Custom House, which is now considered an attractive old building. But when it was built in the 18th century it was widely regarded as an aesthetic outrage and an architectural abomination – no doubt at the time people were moaning about how much more beautiful all the old parts of the city were (d) what are now the quaint, picturesque quarters of European cities and towns would previously have been filthy, smelly, disease-ridden, open sewers – not very attractive at all (e) maybe cars just don’t facilitate good urban topography – instead of nice town squares where everyone congregates, with lots of narrow, atmospheric streets for rambling, you have out-of-town shopping centres with massive car parks, and so on (f) a lot of the “old” quarters are actually scams – they have been considerably rebuilt and modified quite recently. Here in Ireland, many of the more attractive tourist-infested villages and towns would have been rundown, unattractive places when I was a kid – but somehow they all look a lot better now.

Crude said...

If unborn children are classified as infants then that would make the global infant mortality rate considerably higher than the official rate of 5%

So much for the metric, then.

Most people have always preferred vulgar entertainment to high-brow art and literature.

My concern isn't 'high-brow art and literature'. I'm just pointing out that greater literacy, much less appeals to 'greater education', don't wow me very much. They certainly don't track to 'a very smart, thoughtful populace', and I can see some ways in which the achievement can actually harm things in a contingent, but not necessary, sense.

Just imagine life without anti-biotics, to take a small example.

I can grant particular advances without having to commit to 'best time ever to be alive'. If you believe it's the case, go for it, but I think I've given some ample reason to be skeptical of that claim. I imagine someone could, in theory, run some numbers that would show that enslaved blacks in the American south were living better than they ever could have hoped to in Africa in terms of various metrics. I think the response of "I don't think the view works out quite how you're saying it does" would be valid there.

Brian Barrington said...

“So much for the metric, then.”

I’m afraid not. The infant mortality rate is the number of deaths per 1000 live births – that is the standard, common, official definition. And the infant mortality rate has declined dramatically. If you want to try to change the meaning of the term then you will have to make a more extensive case for doing so, backed up with some proper arguments. As things are, the metric stands.

“I think I've given some ample reason to be skeptical of that claim.”

Well, the claim that now is the best time to be alive for most people is certainly the kind of sweeping statement that merits considerable scepticism, but I don’t think you yourself have made a particularly strong case that the claim is incorrect.

Crude said...

I’m afraid not.

I'm afraid so. Add in willful slicing of infants to ribbon in the womb, and the infant mortality rate changes dramatically - as does the conversation about the subject generally. Now, I grant that someone may think said slicing is a good thing. But then we're back to my points about deciding on the standards.

but I don’t think you yourself have made a particularly strong case that the claim is incorrect.

And I think I've shown not only how skeptical one should be of the claim, but of the very project itself. You disagree, but really - that's not a concern for me. Internet comments sections are basically 99% "people arguing, at length, and no one ever being or admitting to being convinced". I made my points and pointed out the considerable problems with your metrics and the fundamental direction of your claims. That'll do.

Brian Barrington said...

"Add in willful slicing of infants to ribbon in the womb, and the infant mortality rate changes dramatically."

Except that unborns are not included in the infant mortality rate. If we set up a second metric - the unborn mortality rate, say - then, as I have already agreed, it would indeed be massively higher than the infant mortality rate. Possibly in the region of 75%, if we estimate that at least 50% of fertilised eggs fail to implant, at least 15% spontaneously abort at a later date, and another 10% or so are killed due to induce abortion.

Crude said...

Except that unborns are not included in the infant mortality rate.

I didn't say they were. I pointed out the problem with talking about infant mortality, divorced from the abortion question.

and another 10% or so are killed due to induce abortion.

Yet earlier.

and another 20% of those being killed due to induced abortion

Look at that. The rate was cut in half *in the course of this conversation*. Now that's progress!

Now, some people don't happen to think that intentionally slicing and dicing the unborn, or sucking their brains out through a tube while in the womb, is a 'bad thing'. Strangely, I disagree with them and consider those numbers to reflect poorly on our day and age in a myriad of ways.

That's just one more reason to regard your claims as utterly doubtful on the terms I've stated. But really, I can appreciate that for some people those statistics aren't bad. Why, they may view millions upon millions of slaughtered unborn as a good thing. Kind of a sacrament, really. "Look how far we've come" and all that. I think they're ghouls, but as I said, your mileage may vary.

Brian Barrington said...

"Look at that. The rate was cut in half *in the course of this conversation*. Now that's progress!"

If 50% of fertilised eggs implant, and if 20% of the fertilised eggs that implant are killed due to induced abortion, then that would work out at about 10% of ALL fertilised eggs being terminated due to induced abortion.

I suppose one's level of concern at the very high unborn mortality rate depends on how one views the unborn. If one thinks that unborns are people, then the fact that maybe 75% of them die before being born would be a tragedy, as well as a terrible slaughter (mostly not due to human intervention though. If one believes in God, it would seem to be the case that God is by far the world's biggest abortionist).