DaughterOfAllah's Posts

Nairaland Forum › DaughterOfAllah's Profile › DaughterOfAllah's Posts

1 2 (of 2 pages)

Science/Technology › Loophole Free Bell Inequality Test by DaughterOfAllah(op): 6:51am On May 31, 2021*

Recently, an experiment setting out to test Bell's Inequality, free from the loopholes that afflict previous experiments, was conducted in the Netherlands. The Nature paper is now a free download. Here it is:

Loophole-Free Bell Inequality Violation Using Electron Spins Separated By 1.3 Kilometres by B. Hensen, H. Bernien, A. E. Dréau, A. Reiserer, N. Kalb, M. S. Blok, J. Ruitenberg, R. F. L. Vermeulen, R. N. Schouten, C. Abellán, W. Amaya, V. Pruneri, M. W. Mitchell, M. Markham, D. J. Twitchen, D. Elkouss, S. Wehner, T. H. Taminiau & R. Hanson, Nature, 528: 682-686 (21st October 2015). You can download the full paper here for more comprehension.

Hensen et al, 2015 wrote:
More than 50 years ago1, John Bell proved that no theory of nature that obeys locality and realism2 can reproduce all the predictions of quantum theory: in any local-realist theory, the correlations between outcomes of measurements on distant particles satisfy an inequality that can be violated if the particles are entangled. Numerous Bell inequality tests have been reported3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13; however, all experiments reported so far required additional assumptions to obtain a contradiction with local realism, resulting in ‘loopholes’13, 14, 15, 16. Here we report a Bell experiment that is free of any such additional assumption and thus directly tests the principles underlying Bell’s inequality. We use an event-ready scheme17, 18, 19 that enables the generation of robust entanglement between distant electron spins (estimated state fidelity of 0.92 ± 0.03). Efficient spin read-out avoids the fair-sampling assumption (detection loophole14, 15), while the use of fast random-basis selection and spin read-out combined with a spatial separation of 1.3 kilometres ensure the required locality conditions13. We performed 245 trials that tested the CHSH–Bell inequality20 S ≤ 2 and found S = 2.42 ± 0.20 (where S quantifies the correlation between measurement outcomes). A null-hypothesis test yields a probability of at most P = 0.039 that a local-realist model for space-like separated sites could produce data with a violation at least as large as we observe, even when allowing for memory16, 21 in the devices. Our data hence imply statistically significant rejection of the local-realist null hypothesis. This conclusion may be further consolidated in future experiments; for instance, reaching a value of P = 0.001 would require approximately 700 trials for an observed S = 2.4. With improvements, our experiment could be used for testing less-conventional theories, and for implementing device-independent quantum-secure communication22 and randomness certification23, 24.

Enjoy.

Science/Technology › Re: 5 Everyday Science Facts (nearly Everybody Gets Wrong) by DaughterOfAllah(op): 11:00am On May 29, 2021

READ MORE HERE

Science/Technology › 5 Everyday Science Facts (nearly Everybody Gets Wrong) by DaughterOfAllah(op): 10:57am On May 29, 2021

We all love science, sure. It's what makes things explode when we want them to, and keeps things from exploding the rest of the time. But science is hard, and there's lots of stuff we can't get our heads around. And we're not just talking about super complicated topics, we're talking about everyday stuff all around us, like ...

5) "You Are What You Eat"
Not long after humans became self-aware and also realized we like eating, we figured out we're made out of the same stuff as those yummy bits of food. We eat, we break food down, and we build those food components into our body. Eat a lot, and you get big; eat nothing, and you wither and die. If you skip on eating some specific nutrient, you can't build that into your body, and you get sick. And if you eat a lot of a nutrient, you build a whole lot of it into your body. Right? That sounds reasonable enough. But that very last observation is kind of only true with fat, which is something your body likes to store away (and even fat storage is more complicated than that). With other stuff, you have to eat it, but if you eat extra, your body just kind of discards it.

Take cholesterol. Doctors have long known that when patients have lots of cholesterol in their blood, that's bad for their heart, so doctors advised such patients to strike all cholesterol from their menus. These patients dutifully gave up eggs and quit Sausage McMuffins, and if their cholesterol stayed high, well, doctors assumed they were cheating on their new diets. But it turns out that there's no relationship between how much cholesterol you eat and how much cholesterol's in your blood. That's because you make your own cholesterol (which is an essential compound, part of every cell) in your liver. Eat less cholesterol, and your liver makes more; eat more, and your liver produces less. There are substances you eat that raise your cholesterol, true, but these substances aren't cholesterol themselves - they raise your cholesterol by breaking how your body works, not by pumping more cholesterol into your system. Likewise, eating salt won't raise your sodium levels, unless your body is already broken. Something similar goes on with good nutrients. Like calcium. Calcium's essential. Miss out on calcium (or on the vitamin that lets you use calcium), and you develop rickets, which gives you bendy bones and a sickly British accent. "That means," reasoned parents for decades, "if we give kids lots of calcium, their bones will be extra strong!" So they gave kids a big ol' glass of milk with every meal.

But it turns out your kid's body will deposit some amount of calcium into their bones today, yet if they drink extra calcium beyond that, that doesn't help at all. Studies lasting decades have failed to find any benefit on people's bone health from drinking extra milk. There's even some evidence that drinking extra milk makes your bones lose calcium. The science on that last part is uncertain (it has to do with blood chemistry and how the body deals with acidity), but it's possible, because biology's more complicated than "I eat, therefore I am."

Or take iron. Iron's another essential mineral, and if you don't eat enough, you get anemia, which means thin blood and another sickly British accent. So, what happens if you eat extra amounts of iron? Are you going to get a bunch of extra red blood cells, and also the ability to run marathons? Uh, no. You just kind of take in the iron without using it. For a long time, people believed spinach was a great source of iron -- this was why Popeye got his powers from spinach. Hilariously, this was a myth based on a typo that accidentally multiplied the amount of iron in spinach by 10. But what's possibly even more hilarious is that even if spinach did have 10 times the amount of iron it really has, that wouldn't do you any good. It would not coat your entire body in iron armor. Assuming you aren't starving, you almost certainly don't have an iron deficiency, so the extra iron wouldn't make any difference whatever. (Unless you really do eat a ridiculously high amount. Then you get iron poisoning.)

4) "Save The Rain Forest, It's The Earth's Lungs"
Speaking of essential elements, oxygen is pretty important, and if you don't believe us, just try holding your breath a couple minutes and see how much you like it. Good thing then that we have trees gently farting that sweet stuff into the air. In particular, when people talk about fires in the Amazon, you'll hear about how important that rain forest is in providing a fifth of all our oxygen. Now, the next time someone with a clipboard stops you in the street with this line and tries to get you to donate to Greenpeace, there's a very simple well actually response you can give: Most oxygen doesn't come from trees at all. It comes from algae in the ocean. And you don't get many trendy charities for looking after algae, because no one had fun climbing algae as a kid.

But we shouldn't really be quibbling over whether some particular rain forest provides 20 percent of our oxygen or 2 percent of it. Because overall, the rain forest doesn't produce oxygen at all. It consumes it. The forest consists of trees but also all the animals who live there (when fires or industry destroys the forest, we mourn the animals too). Tally up trees and beasts, and the forest takes in more oxygen than it produces, and destroying the forest reduces oxygen consumption. We're not talking about how tree loss has recently made the area overall worse at capturing carbon – we're talking about untouched parts of the forest, thanks to the sum total of everything living there.

Trees aren't that great at producing oxygen, you see (or at absorbing carbon dioxide, which is the other side of the same equation). A tree produces oxygen as it splits CO2 apart to make biomass, but nearly all that biomass will eventually be consumed - partly by the plant itself - or will rot, which turns oxygen right back into carbon dioxide again. So when you hear businesses talking about searching for new carbon capture tech, don't snicker because we already have the perfect tech in the tree. We're looking to make something vastly more efficient than that.

Okay, we seem to have digressed a little from trees producing oxygen to trees absorbing carbon dioxide. There's a reason for that. Because what if we tell you that, despite what we said a little while ago about oxygen being important, it's not actually at all important how much oxygen plants create? The reason: We have so much oxygen right now that it makes no difference. The atmosphere is about 22 percent oxygen, and we have a lot of atmosphere. For the last couple decades, we've been burning off eons' worth of captured carbon, and that raised the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (and reduced the level of oxygen) by just 0.005 percentage points...which is a lot when we're talking carbon dioxide, which we measure in parts per million, but it's nothing when we're talking oxygen. All of our oxygen consumption involves organisms breaking down organic matter, and even if all organic matter on Earth were instantly burned, that would only use up 1% of the reserve oxygen supply. Even if all oxygen production worldwide stopped today, we'd be perfectly fine (fine oxygen-wise; factors other than an oxygen shortage will wipe us out). We have enough oxygen to last for millions of years.

Trees are still great for what they do for climate, biodiversity, water regulation, lumberjack roleplay, etc. But something about our psyche makes them feel most valuable when we falsely picture them as little factories constantly pumping out a gas we all need. Maybe because we're all industrialists at heart, or maybe it's because we play too many resource management video games. Both of which might also explain our next misconception:

Family › Re: God Is Not Needed For The Origins Of Life by DaughterOfAllah: 7:43pm On Jan 11, 2021*

F0REVERB0SS:
The chance of RNA forming even in the right conditions is low, for the basic organelles it is even lower, for it to know how to use ATP is even lower, the chance is lowered further when you consider that they have to be able to take RNA and duplicate it along with other organelles, and it is hard for RNA to become DNA.

And with each success there are more chances for future success, because that's how reproduction works.

The chances of multi-celluar beings decrease the total chance even more, and even then, why does life need consciousness?

It doesn't, clearly. Most living things don't have any form of
recognizable consciousness. And the Gish Gallop continues.

Why does it need to reproduce?

It's an adaptive trait

Consciousness would be so hard to develop and it is probably outside us anyway.

There's no reason to think that's the case, or that it's even possible.

There is also the possibility of gamma-rays, an asteroid or comet will hit the planet, or other cosmic disasters.

Huh

How likely are those things?

What about the fermi paradox? If life evolved here it would have to be able evolve in other places, unless we need a god to create life.

You mean the Fermi paradox that says life is likely to form all over the Universe, which is the same thing I'm telling you? That Fermi paradox? Yeah, I'm familiar with it. Why do you think it supports your argument? And, like I said, no scientific evidence!

Family › Re: God Is Not Needed For The Origins Of Life by DaughterOfAllah: 7:30pm On Jan 11, 2021

F0REVERB0SS:
First, if there were no failed evolution attempts

That has nothing to do with anything I said.

If the first randomly put together life form did not have the necessary parts, it could not live or reproduce

And that has nothing to do with evolution or abiogenesis. Learn to read! You don't even know what "parts" the first organism would have had.

If there was no universe there was no space, there was no time, then we can not assume it had any conditions other than nothingness.

And again you're talking about an entirely different topic! What you're doing here is called a Gish Gallop. I'm going to say that we can't make any assumptions about conditions before the Big Bang because all of our experience is based on conditions within the Universe. Other than that, I'm going to ignore your claim because it has nothing to do with evolution or your claim that it's impossible.

Also, 13 something billion years is the life of the universe.

Refer to my previous comment. A one-in-a-million chance event is pretty likely to occur if there are billions of events every day that could trigger it. Given the size of the Universe the odds of a specific rock hitting the Earth's atmosphere are astronomical, and yet we see shooting stars all the time. Because there are a lot of rocks in space.

When you say it's unlikely for RNA to form, you're talking about a single event in a single environment on a single planet... etc. As I said, trillions of galaxies full of planets.

Please try to read before you respond this time

Romance › Re: This Pic Is For All The Small Minded People In Here (warning) by DaughterOfAllah: 7:21pm On Jan 11, 2021

Everytime I log on here, it's always one weird thing after the other

I can't even with you guys anymore...lol grin

1 Like

Family › Re: God Is Not Needed For The Origins Of Life by DaughterOfAllah: 6:33pm On Jan 11, 2021*

Are you aware that this forum has a religion section, Oladimeji247?

F0REVERB0SS:
How can proteins reproduce, and you realize the amount of failed attempts for amino acids evolving would take more than Earth's life to become stable. What are the chances that a cell will come together and have a reproduction system, ATP energy system, and a way to move them out.

There's no scientific evidence to back that claim, and it doesn't even make sense the way its constructed. There are hundreds of known, potentially life-supporting planets in our galaxy alone, and the number of galaxies in the observable universe is estimated to be in the trillions. So why would we limit the viable time period of a random event to the lifespan of one planet? On top of that, we're talking about an event that would be heavily dependent on environmental conditions, and it's not known what environmental conditions were present during the initial abiogenesis event. That alone is a good indication that the claim doesn't come from any reputable scientist. It makes claims of impossibility using information that isn't known.

Even if all of that checked out, though, the premise would only work if evolution were a linear, non-cumulative process, and that's not how evolution works, even where amino acids are concerned. Now, in fairness that part depends on which specific creationist claim your referring to here, but the complete misrepresentation of the actual principles they're claiming to describe is a feature of most of them. These claims that evolution is so unlikely as to be impossible are tailored for people who don't understand science and are likely to settle on an idea that appeals to them rather than critically examining the facts. You do yourself and everyone else a disservice by spreading that nonsense around.

Crime › Re: Why Is The Girl Raped In A Mosque Not Trending by DaughterOfAllah: 12:16pm On Jun 30, 2020

Charleys:
A 6 years old girl was raped in a mosque here

https://www.vanguardngr.com/2020/06/kaduna-girl-raped-found-dead-in-mosque/

But this has not trended, no one is talking about it because, the media is silent on this.

No one is talking about it.

But the didn't let us rest when it was in a church.

Rape is rape. The first one had the power to fight back, the second one in a mosque had no power to fight back.

We need to talk about it now

OP I'm lost as to exactly what basis you're implying there's a double standard. Can you please clarify?

Romance › Re: South Africa Has More Fly, Sexy Girls Than Nigeria by DaughterOfAllah: 12:03pm On Jun 30, 2020

OP, what metric did you employ to arrive at this outrageous conclusion?

2 Likes

Christianity Etc › An Important Message For The Christians & Muslims by DaughterOfAllah(op): 10:24am On Jun 30, 2020

Hello,

[Disclaimer] I intend this message to be for the people who feel compelled to win souls to their respective faiths i.e online evangelists, online apologists etc. However, I honestly recommend that every believer of every faith read this piece. Before I continue with my post, I want to start by declaring that I am, as a matter of fact, an atheist. As an atheist, I have no belief in the existence of any supernatural being(s). My lack of belief stems from the lack of credible evidence for the existence of all such alleged cosmic beings. However, I do not claim to know there are no gods. There is a fundamental difference. Therefore, I'd deeply appreciate an honest understanding of my position, rather than a strawman caricature thereof. I apologise, however, for the length in advance.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When abandoning any prominent religious faith, I've discovered that attempts to correct any such departure increases exponentially the longer you remain detached from any said faith. As such, I've had few close acquaintances who, aware of my stance on religion, constantly try to argue me right back into it. And believe me, no matter how hard I express myself or justify my position, they remain undeterred!

When making a case for their gods, theists love to employ lots of strategies and gimmicks just to win you over. From desperate apologetics, to self-righteous sanctimonious piety, to attempting to reverse the burden of proof, to emotional appeal, manipulation and outright threatening the unbeliever with eternal damnation in HELL! Sometimes, they assume you were never a true believer, even though you've practiced said religion all your life. They pretend that they have it all figured out. Listening to unbelievers before conversion attempts is completely unimportant in their book.

There is a common flaw I've noticed when these people try to convert me. This flaw is noticeably prominent in believers of all faiths: They never listen. Things would be a lot more easier for religious followers if they just stopped a second to hear the unbelievers out!. The moment you begin to make assumptions about your co-discussant(s) in any rational discourse, you've already lost - especially if your sole purpose is to get them to change their minds.

I was watching a Christian movie last night titled God's Not Dead. I've heard a lot about it, but I only came accross it last night while surfing the web looking for stuff to download. Judging from the title, I had assumed that some filmmakers wanted to share incontrovertible, undisputed, empirical evidence for the Christian god. Oh, how wrong was I! What I got instead was nearly two hours of atheist strawmen caricatures, Christian propaganda all enmeshed in false persecution complex. I mean, even by religious standards the film was a mess. It did nothing but reinforce the fact that Christians usually don't give a damn about anyone but themselves! They portray their religion as a selfish one. As long as they can take the W over anyone with disputing views, they don't mind if they peddle lies and falsehood or even outright contradict themselves. I could go on another rant slamming God's Not Dead and exposing it's fallacies and lies, but that's a whole other issue entirely.

Religious believers make a lot of unjustified assumptions when talking about atheists. I'm going to table out a list of these assumptions. (Mind you, this list is based on the observation derived from conversations with believers for a significant time period. There will obviously be a tiny few exceptions.)

UNJUSTIFIED ASSUMPTIONS AND LIES MOST RELIGIOUS BELIEVERS MAKE ABOUT ATHEISTS
1) Atheists reason like all other religionists. To demonstrate this, ask any Christian or Muslim if they think atheists view people like Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens as infallible authorities of knowledge. I can bet an overwhelming majority would say yes! This is the problem: without any justification, religious believers think atheists reason the way they do, but in reverse! They view the Bible and Quran as the infallible words of Yahweh and Allah respectively; of course atheists feel the same about Neil DeGrasse Tyson and other prominent atheists right? Wrong! Our epistemology differs! Atheists rely solely on reason and logic to decipher truths. Most of us became atheists before we even heard of Richard Dawkins or concepts like evolution and the big bang. Ideas like evolution only serve as occasional reinforcement. Even if evolution was disproved today, we'll still have no beliefs in god(s). This is the reason why people trash talking evolution always amuse me: I don't care about evolution! All I care about is the existence of god(s) - for which no incontrovertible evidence has yet been demonstrated under reliable and/or controlled settings.

2) Atheists do not have spiritual or religious experiences. This is a pure lie. Atheists DO have "spiritual" experiences - they just interprete it differently than you do. Most believers are quick to shut down atheists when they assert that they've had strange things happen to them, this denying them their experiences. Some gloat and rub it in the atheists face that such experience proves their god really exists. But this is not true in the slightest. The truth is this: people have a habit of interpreting significant events in their lives through their respective worldviews. A Christian who experiences an NDE will see Jesus just the way an Indian will see Vishnu, or a Muslim will see Allah. Another fact is that most fantastical events we have experienced in life can sometimes be explained through natural laws and physics, from eerie sounds or moving objects to even crazier things like hallucinations, mass hysteria, NDEs etc. Things like thunder, rain and even alchemy we're mysteries in the ancient times. Today, we know much better. When you're a believer, it is often convenient to view everything that happens around you through the lens of your religion. However, you still have no right to deny people their own legitimate experiences or label them as lies just because they are not of your religion.

3) Oh this one really ticks me off: Atheists behave the way theologians describe them. First of all, it should be noted that religious theologians and apologists like William Lane Craig and Ravi Zacharias are not authorities on atheism! These people mostly carry out NO research to corroborate their "facts". They come from institutes which are founded on the belief - which most still uphold - that atheists are morally bankrupt and worthy of damnation. These institutes differ from other educational institutions who arrive at their conclusions, only after sufficient data has been collected and processed.
These theologians are informed solely by their faith. They presuppose who atheists are and this is very evident when you watch their debates. An academic scholar with background(s) in counter-apologetics is a good source but majority of the time, the only true authorities on atheism are atheists themselves! If you are bent on converting a specific atheist, the worst mistake you can make is confront them with baseless accusations like claiming "you know deep down you believe! you are just lying to yourself". You've already made up your mind about this individual, why do you suppose s/he will open up to you any further?...Hasn't the discussion been terminated prematurely? As I have stated countless times already, the fastest way to enstrange somebody in a discussion is to presume how they reason. It not only denies them a voice, it also destroys the purpose of the discussion in the first place. Speaking of false accusations....

4) Atheists secretly believe in God. The bible has pretty much destroyed the atheist's chance of having a voice to speak for his or herself. Romans 19:18-20 asserts that god has made the knowledge of his existence "plain" to the atheists. It's hard to argue in this context, given that Christians believe their holy book to be inspired by god - and he can't have been lying! Or can he? Generally, this makes Christians think than no true unbeliever exists. To them the knowledge of who god is evident to ALL. It also doesnt help that religious texts paint a sinister picture of unbelievers as "fools" or "enemies of an all-loving god". Thus, the hearts of believers is even more hardened towards non-believers. To put this in perspective and demonstrate how problematic this is, consider this: As a Christian, imagine if I told you, you don't believe in God. You can argue with me all day that you believe and that you obey his words, but I just shut you down and assert that your emotions are creating illusions of righteousness and loyalty, getting the best of you. You are actually just a lying sinner. Of course you'll feel helpless because I've denied you your feelings! That's exactly how you make atheists feel. It's always best to try the shoe on the other foot sometimes. Most of us atheists, really do not see any evidence for god. If you fail to understand this, any discussion with an unbeliever is pointless.

5) There are no atheists in foxholes. This is a tired canard that unfortunately, still gets trotted out in this day and age. The idea that atheists discover faith when faced with severe tribulations is as false as it is hilarious. Religionists truly believe that atheists are "agents" of the devil. They believe that when an atheist is suffering untold pain, it is due to unbelief, and that such pain will be removed when they accept their god(s). This assumption is not only irritating but highly irrelevant. People change worldviews all the time. Muslims can become Christians. Atheists can become Buddhists and so forth. There is no universal reason for this change. It is a non-argument. Just to add, some theists see successful atheists as people backed by the devil. Basically, if you're a rich atheist, Satan is behind your success. If you're a struggling atheist, your unbelief and blasphemy against god is catching up with you. There's no winning with this people!

Ultimately, it is important for religious followers who seek to speak to atheists to understand where they are coming from first. I know it sounds like a heavy task, but that's the only way to achieve mutual beneficial discussions of this nature. Honestly, if you're not willing to find out what makes an atheist tick, I wonder what you stand to gain other than being a bullying, self-righteous, opinionated arse when engaging any atheist in a discussion.

This rant has probably triggered lots of believers who may feel the impulse to scroll right down and comment to pass judgements about me. I expect that. However, the fact that this post lacks transcience would justify me should any baseless accusations arise. Therefore I'd recommend that if you must put down a comment, endeavour to read (and understand!) the OP before jumping headlong into unfounded conclusions.

Thanks

9 Likes 3 Shares

Family › 5 Abortion Myths That You Hear Everywhere (debunked) by DaughterOfAllah(op): 5:55pm On Apr 24, 2020*

In any abortion debate, there seems to be one recurring set of "facts" that the anti-abortion crowd likes to roll out. It's a sort of Greatest Hits album for taking away somebody's bodily autonomy. Surprise! These arguments aren't entirely on the up and up. For example ...

5. "Having An Abortion Means You're Irresponsible!"

When someone accidentally winds up pregnant, it's easy to judge them or their partner for being irresponsible. We all sat through the same sex education classes, where we were taught that responsible sex-havers always use contraception, and that any "accidents" are the result of wanton recklessness. This is a big talking point among the anti-abortion crowd, who argue that abortion is merely a way for the irresponsible to avoid having to deal with the consequences of their (in)action, and therefore shouldn't exist.

Except this argument doesn't hold up. There isn't a clear-cut line between "responsible" and "irresponsible" sex, because when it comes down to it, you can be the most cautious sexer to ever exist and still wind up with an unwanted pregnancy, because no form of contraception is 100% effective. According to both the CDC and Planned Parenthood, the pill is only 93% effective, while condoms are on average only 85% effective (and that's if you use them precisely right).

If you want to improve your chances, there are implants and the buddy system, as well as good ol' abstinence. At some point, though, we're going to have to get over the idea that "responsible" sex has as much to do with numbers as it does behavior -- as well as the idea that the actions of "irresponsible" people justify stripping the rights of "responsible" people.

This ties into another popular anti-abortion talking point, that having an abortion means that someone doesn't care about children and/or the sanctity of human life. But in the U.S., 60% of abortions are sought by people who already have children. Many are sought by people who describe themselves as religious. One study found that out of 670 women surveyed, 53% described the decision to have an abortion as "very or somewhat difficult."

It's not just America, either. Despite an increase in the number of countries to legalize abortion in the last two decades, the worldwide abortion rate has dropped. This is something you wouldn't expect if we were treating safe, legal access to abortion as an invitation to participate in The Purge: Kidz.

4. "Most People Regret Their Abortions!"

The problem with debunking the idea that people who receive abortions are heartless monsters is that it hands the opposition a different stick with which they can beat abortion rights. If people who receive abortions care about the decision, doesn't it make sense to restrict access to abortion in order to spare people from regretting their decision down the line?

It's a popular argument with lawmakers these days. In 2006, for instance, a since-repealed anti-abortion law in South Dakota passed in part thanks to testimony that abortion "carries a greater risk of emotional harm than childbirth." In 2007, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy defended upholding a law banning late abortions by saying that while "no reliable data [exists] to measure the phenomenon, it seems unexceptionable to conclude some come to regret their choice to abort." Gee, thanks for the concern?

While having an abortion can cause temporary emotional distress, there's no evidence that any significant portion of people spend the rest of their days regretting their decision. When UC San Francisco spent three years tracking the emotional health of women who'd received an abortion, they found that an "overwhelming majority" felt they'd made the right decision. In truth, getting turned away for an abortion can be more emotionally devastating than receiving one. In another study by UCSF, they found that women who were denied abortions "experienced more anxiety and lower self-esteem in the short-term than women who received them."

READ MORE HERE ==>
https://www.cracked.com/article_26604_5-abortion-myths-that-you-hear-everywhere-debunked.html

1 2 (of 2 pages)