*** In light of the recent threads about abortion, please read this. It's sure to broaden your views.

[BDawg]

<< And until the pro-abortionists can explain why the crack mother was trying to get pregnant, they should STFU. >>



Because she wants to smoke the baby too?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Fair and reasonably accurate summary on abortion in America

I can't give you an immediate link b/c most of my stats come from lectures by researchers during my 2nd year of medical school. We even had an abortion debate by faculty members. They did not disagree about the frequency.

>>Pro-lifers are typically the same people opposed to comprehensive sex education (abstinence my arse).<<
Hmmm. My wife practiced it for 23 years? Sex ed is ok for 12 yrs+.

And it is your wife's right to practice it for 23 years. I think everybody should practice abstinence if they are not involved in a loving, commited relationship. Then again, that's just my opinion. Children should not have sex . . . granted I think of anyone younger than 25 as 'not yet adult'.

Sex Ed has to be consistent with reality. In reality, 1st graders do bump and grind dances, curse like sailors, and see more graphic crap on TV than I saw before going to college . . . difficult to get porn in the Bible Belt . . . well, used to be difficult to get porn in the Bible Belt. The youngest mother that I delivered a baby for was 16. five weeks ago I spent 2 hours over two days explaining conception control and female health issues to a not yet 15 year-old with a 19 year-old boyfriend. She had been having sex for over a year. If I had my way he would be in jail and she would be in a different home. The week before that I was dealing with a 14 year-old who was having sex with a 20 year-old (his arse is in jail) but her 16 year-old sister gave birth last month. Her story came to light b/c her 6 year-old mentally retarded sister had drawn a picture of her older sister receiving oral sex. Oh there's also an 11 year-old girl in that family. Do you see my point? Children are doing very adult activities b/c they have the physical equipment but lack mental maturity. It is foolhardy and dangerous to continue to ignore reality. Abstinence education is necessary for every sex ed program but it is absolutely not sufficient.

 

[Stiler]

"Parents should be allowed to bring a child into the world where and when they want to"

i think that is so wrong, They Shouldn't choose, I think if they have sex they should know either use protection or if they don't they should know what could happen, hell its common sense. Anyone who says abortion should be choice to abort or not are all so very very wrong, i don't care what you think of me, all i know is you are all biggots and hypocrites. For one it should never be anyones choice, all this "its not alive" crap is so messed up, How would you feel if it was your parent that wanted an abortion? you wouldn't be here right now, you would have never had a life or nothing, that shouldn't be anyones chocie to choose if they want life or death, no one should ever make that choice, it should be the soul beings choice and no one elses, your discussion of "freedom of choice" co defines itself by this: You say everyone has a choice? well what about the babys choice? i'm about 100% sure that it would want to live. To deny someone a chance to live is about as close to denying someone their right to experince love.

 

[BOK]

<< How is a baby not biophysically dependant on its host? Are you telling me that a newborn is prefectly capable of foraging for its own existence? A newborn infanct is completely incapable of sustaining its own life. It relies on a caretaker to provide for its nourishment in order to survive as well as provide shelter (and guess what, that is exactly what the womb is providing for an embryo). Show me any infant that has ever been able to move out on its own right out of the womb. >> >>





<< Do you know what "biophysically" means? >>



Apparently he doesn't. But I won't knock Cerebus for it. Let me explain it to him instead...

A tapeworm inside your body is biophysically dependant on you. It lives off of your own biological resources. If you get it removed, it will die. Period.

A baby is not biophysically dependant on its mother. It is not dependant on the mother's biological resources (its father could easily take care of it). No, the baby can not self-sustain itself because it cannot move about and it cannot feed itself (I don't know this for sure, but if I'm wrong, it just strengthens my argument).

We're talking about a woman and her fetus, not a woman and her baby. They are two different things.

 

[Aceman]

<< I can't understand why there is any issue at all over whether a fetus is a person. Every adult on the planet started its life cycle as the result of a sperm cell and a egg cell uniting. Just a child grows into an adult, the fetus grows into a baby. To end the life of a fetus, a child or an adult is murder. It does'nt matter what stage of development that life is at because they are all humans >>



Ya, ya, whatever. Can we discuss this after dinner? And while you're at it, can you please pass the bowl of scrambled chicken...errrr.....scrambled eggs.

 

[BDawg]

<< well what about the babys choice? >>



The baby is 100% dependant on the host mother, he doesn't get a choice.

And I bet babies don't all want to live...prove me wrong.

The fact that they attach and feed off of the mother's blood supply is by no means an expression of desire to live.

 

[Cerebus451]

<< Do you know what "biophysically" means? >>


Yes, I do know. It was wrong to say that an infant is biophysically dependent on its caretaker (though breast feeding is making a comeback, it is quite easy to raise an infant without the infant relying on the mother's biological resources), just as it is wrong to say that being biophysically and physically dependant are somehow different when it comes to determining dependancy. Whether your dependance relies on a biological attachment or not does not matter. An infant requires a caretaker to live, just as a fetus does. Saying a fetus is not alive because it requires the host to survive is no different than saying an infant is not alive because it requires a caretaker to survive. An infant without a caretaker would almost assuredly die as a fetus without a host would. You can argue semantics all you want (and I will readily admit to being semantically incorrect), but the correlation remains the same. If you say that life is determined by a reliance on another being, then an infant is no more alive than a fetus.



<< And it is a direct correlation. The crime rate started dropping dramatically and steadily at the very time those children would have been entering the prime age to commit crimes. I can't think of any other "sense of correlation" than that one. >>


What do you mean? CarbonylXP listed several other factors that could have easily caused the drop in the crime rate. A direct correlation means a 1 to 1 correspondence. What they have is not a direct correlation, but rather a coincidental relationship. The two could very well be related, but there is nothing that proves that the crime rate would not have dropped if abortions were not made legal. That proof would make it a direct correlation.

 

[Zebo]

<<

<< #9

There is a direct correlation between the legalization of abortion in 1973 and the dramatic drop in crime in the 90s:

LOL you do have a unique sence of direct correlation. Not only do they cite controversy among scientists in that article you have failed to consider the booming economy during the 90's, stiffer sentenceing guildlines and more policeing. I would say "there is some evidence to suggest abortion has been a factor in the reduction of crime in the 1990's".
I'm very interested if thier study will hold up the peer review and get in a medical journal. >>



Why would a crime study end up in a "medical journal?" It made Scientific American. I think that's pretty impressive.

And it is a direct correlation. The crime rate started dropping dramatically and steadily at the very time those children would have been entering the prime age to commit crimes. I can't think of any other "sense of correlation" than that one.

As for the "booming economy" we were still crawling out of a recession in 1993 when the crime rate drop of the 90s began. As the study pointed out, no other explaination covers all the bases.

The fact that you dismiss it out of hand without even admitting it's compelling shows bias, not critical disagreement.
I didnt dismiss it out of hand? Re-read my post...>> ""I would say "there is some evidence to suggest abortion has been a factor in the reduction of crime in the 1990's".""

Why would a crime study end up in a "medical journal?" It made Scientific American. I think that's pretty impressive.
Reproductive issues are frequently published in medical and science journals this one happens to relate to crime or vise vrsa. Scientific American is not that impressive becasue it fails to publish articles wich conform to the Scientific Method in which peer review, double blind, etc are manditory for accuracy and universal scientific acceptance. While Scientific American is a good magazine it's findings and articles would not hold water in a court of law it's really no differnt than National review or the economist with that reguard.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I can guarantee that any argument you could possibly give as to why sex is a necessity of live I could easily refute within 15 seconds of seeing your argument. You cannot point to any scientific evidence that man or woman needs sex to survive. Only your hormones require sex, and they don't count because they are easily controlled (unless you are extremely weak-minded).

Dude you do not control your hormones by your mind. You are conflating related issues. Id reflects your primal drives and urges. Ego is your mental faculty that controls those primal drives to the extent that exercising your id will result in pain or trouble. Superego is your largely unconscious but somewhat conscious agency that keeps the other two consistent with your own moral compass. I won't bother to look for a reference proving you need sex to survive. But healthy sex is certainly consistent with a healthy adult lifestyle. And healthy adult lifestyle may include but is not limited to lifetime mongamy, masturbation, and a host of freaky stuff people may do in the privacy of their homes that doesn't involve children, animals, or blowtorches.

The 6B plus people on this Earth did not arrive by parthenogenesis. Childbirth sux . . . I won't go into detail but not much of the process is fun per se. Granted, the majority of new moms seem quite satisfied with overall experience. But Mother Nature made sex fun for a reason. Hell, she even made it fun to have by yourself . . . typically the first thing children discover. But the vast majority of people later realize that sex with a friend doubles your pleasure . . . or in the case of twins triples.

 

[Zebo]

<< Fair and reasonably accurate summary on abortion in America

I can't give you an immediate link b/c most of my stats come from lectures by researchers during my 2nd year of medical school. We even had an abortion debate by faculty members. They did not disagree about the frequency.

>>Pro-lifers are typically the same people opposed to comprehensive sex education (abstinence my arse).<<
Hmmm. My wife practiced it for 23 years? Sex ed is ok for 12 yrs+.

And it is your wife's right to practice it for 23 years. I think everybody should practice abstinence if they are not involved in a loving, commited relationship. Then again, that's just my opinion. Children should not have sex . . . granted I think of anyone younger than 25 as 'not yet adult'.

Sex Ed has to be consistent with reality. In reality, 1st graders do bump and grind dances, curse like sailors, and see more graphic crap on TV than I saw before going to college . . . difficult to get porn in the Bible Belt . . . well, used to be difficult to get porn in the Bible Belt. The youngest mother that I delivered a baby for was 16. five weeks ago I spent 2 hours over two days explaining conception control and female health issues to a not yet 15 year-old with a 19 year-old boyfriend. She had been having sex for over a year. If I had my way he would be in jail and she would be in a different home. The week before that I was dealing with a 14 year-old who was having sex with a 20 year-old (his arse is in jail) but her 16 year-old sister gave birth last month. Her story came to light b/c her 6 year-old mentally retarded sister had drawn a picture of her older sister receiving oral sex. Oh there's also an 11 year-old girl in that family. Do you see my point? Children are doing very adult activities b/c they have the physical equipment but lack mental maturity. It is foolhardy and dangerous to continue to ignore reality. Abstinence education is necessary for every sex ed program but it is absolutely not sufficient. >>



BTW- Nice post there BBD.

 

[Cerebus451]

<< Dude you do not control your hormones by your mind. You are conflating related issues. Id reflects your primal drives and urges. Ego is your mental faculty that controls those primal drives to the extent that exercising your id will result in pain or trouble. Superego is your largely unconscious but somewhat conscious agency that keeps the other two consistent with your own moral compass. I won't bother to look for a reference proving you need sex to survive. But healthy sex is certainly consistent with a healthy adult lifestyle. And healthy adult lifestyle may include but is not limited to lifetime mongamy, masturbation, and a host of freaky stuff people may do in the privacy of their homes that doesn't involve children, animals, or blowtorches.

The 6B plus people on this Earth did not arrive by parthenogenesis. Childbirth sux . . . I won't go into detail but not much of the process is fun per se. Granted, the majority of new moms seem quite satisfied with overall experience. But Mother Nature made sex fun for a reason. Hell, she even made it fun to have by yourself . . . typically the first thing children discover. But the vast majority of people later realize that sex with a friend doubles your pleasure . . . or in the case of twins triples. >>


If I do not have any control over my hormones, then why I am not running around trying to have sex with anything with a heartbeat? I know I have sexual urges. But I have not gotten any women pregnant.

If you are not going to bother looking for evidence to prove you need sex to survive, then why bother replying? Plenty of people live healthy adult lifestyles without sex. The argument that it feels good, or society pressures you to do it simply do not wash. Other things make you feel good, do them. And my argument is that society needs to change so that instead of pressuring a woman into getting pregnant and then presenting her with the moral dilemma about aborting the fetus, society should make the woman feel good about her choice to not have sex and get herself into the moral dilemma in the first place.



<< Dude, you just lost me on that one I need a map now... >>


I was merely countering your statement that pro-lifers need to get off their moral high-hoofs and step up and adopt the crack baby so there wasn't a need for abortions by stating that it was the crack mother's fault for getting pregnant in the first place, so why should the pro-lifers bail her out?



<< So women who accidentally become pregnant and don't want the baby should be forced to have it as punishment? >>


If you've gotten that from anything I've said you've been reading me terribly wrong. Again, unless she was raped (to include the use of date rape drugs to get her to have sex), it was the woman's fault for getting pregnant. She made a choice to have sex. Now, I will not enforce my morals on her by saying she cannot have an abortion. I would state, however, that as a society we need to change our view on sex so that instead of risking the pregnancy in the first place (and having to face the moral dilemma), the woman should feel secure in her decision to not have sex.

 

[Zebo]

What they have is not a direct correlation, but rather a coincidental relationship. The two could very well be related, but there is nothing that proves that the crime rate would not have dropped if abortions were not made legal. That proof would make it a direct correlation.

That's right. Can I save this when AO make the same mistakes whenever taking about taxes and welfare?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I need to correct a previous post . . . 50% of all pregancies are unplanned and 50% of those are unwanted the majority of those will end in abortion, but thousands will end by other means including those that choose to carry to term and put children up for adoption. The latter (decision) is my personal preference but I think of it as a family decision not a public health/criminal one.

Teen pregnacy/birth/adoption statistics and comparison to 20-24 year olds

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Dude much like our 'hooked on phonics' president you can read but apparently don't understand . . . I did not say you HAVE to have sex with anyone. And I did not say you cannot control your actions that are influenced by your hormones. Do you remember this . . .

You are conflating related issues. Id reflects your primal drives and urges. Ego is your mental faculty that controls those primal drives to the extent that exercising your id will result in pain or trouble. Superego is your largely unconscious but somewhat conscious agency that keeps the other two consistent with your own moral compass.

The Cliff Notes version would be that everybody has primal urges and the ability to control those urges.

If I do not have any control over my hormones, then why I am not running around trying to have sex with anything with a heartbeat? I know I have sexual urges. But I have not gotten any women pregnant.

Lack of options . . . I know, I know uncalled for but I just couldn't help myself . . . damn hormones.

If you are not going to bother looking for evidence to prove you need sex to survive, then why bother replying? Plenty of people live healthy adult lifestyles without sex. The argument that it feels good, or society pressures you to do it simply do not wash.

Repeat after me . . . the facts:
1) sex feels good
2) people probably had sex BEFORE they figured out that babies follow having sex
3) sex feels good
4) people in the past kept having sex even though they did not want more babies; even though they KNEW that babies follow having sex
5) sex feels good
6) people who cannot have babies keep having sex
7) sex feels good
8) the healthiest elderly people are still scrogging . . . I will find a reference later . . . JAMA and The Lancet have published articles in the past two years on sex and the elderly.
9) a lifetime without sex of any kind is probably not lethal but somebody is missing out b/c
10) sex feels good

This is important, they note, as health experts recommend regular physical activity to help ward off serious conditions like heart disease and diabetes. At the same time, however, some have worried that high activity levels may wear on joints and boost the risk of arthritis later in life. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.


Urging Americans to break the ''conspiracy of silence'' surrounding human sexuality, US Surgeon General David Satcher on Thursday called for a national discussion about responsible sexual behavior as a way to help fight sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies.

The politically sensitive subject--which helped end the government career of one former Surgeon General--immediately proved touchy for Satcher when the White House distanced itself from his efforts.

Satcher said that the carefully worded report on sexual behavior issued by his office was designed to reflect common ground among Americans' widely varying views of sex. The report mentions no specific sexual practices, but instead promotes open discussions of abstinence, safer sexual practice and contraception use in schools. It also encourages discussions between parents and their children.

The report casts sexual behavior in the light of its role in public health. Five of the 10 most common infectious diseases are sexually transmitted, while nearly two thirds of 774,000 AIDS (news - web sites) cases reported to date in the US were transmitted sexually, according to the report. Half of all pregnancies recorded each year are unwanted, contributing to some 1.4 million abortions, it indicates.

The fittest may indeed survive the longest, according to new research suggesting that physical fitness is more important in death risk than even high blood pressure, high cholesterol or smoking. In fact, researchers report in the March 14th issue of The New England Journal of Medicine (news - web sites), exercise capacity was the best predictor of death risk among men with cardiovascular disease. And among all participants, those in the group with the lowest exercise capacity were about four times more likely to die during the study period compared with the fittest group.

Very good jargon-free article on sex and aging
Shorter but still good layperson reference to sex and aging

 

[Ornery]

"Is abortion murder? Hardin says no. He argues that the embryo..."

OK, but how long is it an embryo? Gets sticky after that, eh?

... the developing human individual from the time of implantation to the end of the eighth week after conception." - Merriam-Webster

 

[Amused]

<<

<< Do you know what "biophysically" means? >>


Yes, I do know. It was wrong to say that an infant is biophysically dependent on its caretaker (though breast feeding is making a comeback, it is quite easy to raise an infant without the infant relying on the mother's biological resources), just as it is wrong to say that being biophysically and physically dependant are somehow different when it comes to determining dependancy. Whether your dependance relies on a biological attachment or not does not matter. An infant requires a caretaker to live, just as a fetus does. Saying a fetus is not alive because it requires the host to survive is no different than saying an infant is not alive because it requires a caretaker to survive. An infant without a caretaker would almost assuredly die as a fetus without a host would. You can argue semantics all you want (and I will readily admit to being semantically incorrect), but the correlation remains the same. If you say that life is determined by a reliance on another being, then an infant is no more alive than a fetus. >>



Nice spin. But you still misunderstood the meaning of the word. Claiming now that the difference doesn't matter, when the difference was the basis of his argument is dishonest at best. Just admit it and move on.



<<

<< And it is a direct correlation. The crime rate started dropping dramatically and steadily at the very time those children would have been entering the prime age to commit crimes. I can't think of any other "sense of correlation" than that one. >>


What do you mean? CarbonylXP listed several other factors that could have easily caused the drop in the crime rate. A direct correlation means a 1 to 1 correspondence. What they have is not a direct correlation, but rather a coincidental relationship. The two could very well be related, but there is nothing that proves that the crime rate would not have dropped if abortions were not made legal. That proof would make it a direct correlation. >>



This is the second time you've either been completely ignorant of the definition of a word, or tried to redefine it to fit your needs, or both.

Let's study the word "correlation," shall we?

Main Entry: cor·re·la·tion
Pronunciation: "kor-&-'lA-sh&n, "k&auml;r-
Function: noun
Etymology: Medieval Latin correlation-, correlatio, from Latin com- + relation-, relatio relation
Date: 1561
1 : the state or relation of being correlated; specifically : a relation existing between phenomena or things or between mathematical or statistical variables which tend to vary, be associated, or occur together in a way not expected on the basis of chance alone <the obviously high positive correlation between scholastic aptitude and college entrance

I repeat, there is a direct correlation in the dates provided in the study. What's more, it HAS been proven that unwanted children ARE more likely to commit crimes. These two factors alone make an extremely compeling case that cannot simply be dismissed out of hand. As for his other "factors" they simply did not correlate, e.g., we were still in a recession when the crime rate drop began.

 

[Amused]

<< What they have is not a direct correlation, but rather a coincidental relationship. The two could very well be related, but there is nothing that proves that the crime rate would not have dropped if abortions were not made legal. That proof would make it a direct correlation.

That's right. Can I save this when AO make the same mistakes whenever taking about taxes and welfare? >>



I provided the definition of "correlation." It's not my fault you deny reality. You can save anything you like, it wont make you any less wrong in either debate.

The laughable part here is that both of you are assuming when I say "direct correlation" I am saying "causation." I am ASSUMING causation because a direct correlation exists making the argument extremely compeling. I have never claimed a direct causation, have I?

Please, next time you see a clue on sale, BUY IT!

 

[Zebo]

Now lets see what "direct correlation" REALLY means:


cor·re·la·tion Pronunciation Key (k&ocirc;r-lshn, kr-)
n.
1. A causal, complementary, parallel, or reciprocal relationship, especially a structural, functional, or qualitative correspondence between two comparable entities: a correlation between drug abuse and crime.
2. Statistics. The simultaneous change in value of two numerically valued random variables: the positive correlation between cigarette smoking and the incidence of lung cancer; the negative correlation between age and normal vision.
3. An act of correlating or the condition of being correlated.
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.


correlation

\Cor`re*la"tion\ (-l?"sh?n), n. [LL. correlatio; L. cor- + relatio: cf. F. corr['e]lation. Cf. Correlation.] Reciprocal relation; corresponding similarity or parallelism of relation or law; capacity of being converted into, or of giving place to, one another, under certain conditions; as, the correlation of forces, or of zymotic diseases.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.


correlation

n 1: a reciprocal relation between two or more things [syn: correlativity] 2: a statistic representing how closely two variables co-vary; it can vary from -1 (perfect negative correlation) through 0 (no correlation) to +1 (perfect positive correlation); "what is the correlation between those two variables?" [syn: correlation coefficient, coefficient of correlation] 3: a statistical relation between two or more variables such that systematic changes in the value of one variable are accompanied by systematic changes in the other [syn: correlational statistics]
Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University


Notice the first entry from each dictionary talks about reciprocal relation? When you include the word "direct" it's implict you mean statistical correlation, aka. reciprocal relation, which is 1 to 1. Or else why include the word direct?

x
-.=[1]
y

Quotes form the Aborted crime wave:

'Many explanations have been put forward for this drop: more police walk the beat, more people are in prison, the economy has improved, crack use has fallen, alarms and guards are now widespread. "

"Most interesting is that they put forth an alternative explanation that is conceivably possible," says Phillip B. Levine, an economist at Wellesley College. "In terms of the evidence, I think it is somewhat suggestive. I wouldn't go so far as to say it is conclusive."

"The "how much" seems the crux of the matter for some economists. "

"Joyce states, and it suggests that their correlations could be off-kilter. "To say that legalization has some kind of effect is certainly plausible," he concludes. "But I think it should be questioned because the magnitude of the finding is so large: 50 percent seems way too large."


Hardy a strong correlation with so many mitigating factors. And definetly no "direct correlation" exits since they have'nt proved a 1 to 1 relationship. The article cited "many other explinations" for the decrease in crime in addition to "how much" the drop is related to abortions. This is why my statement is more accurate and less misleading than yours when I said: "there is some evidence to suggest abortion has been a factor in the reduction of crime in the 1990's".

 

[Amused]

<< Now lets see what "direct correlation" REALLY means:


cor·re·la·tion Pronunciation Key (k&ocirc;r-lshn, kr-)
n.
1. A causal, complementary, parallel, or reciprocal relationship, especially a structural, functional, or qualitative correspondence between two comparable entities: a correlation between drug abuse and crime.
2. Statistics. The simultaneous change in value of two numerically valued random variables: the positive correlation between cigarette smoking and the incidence of lung cancer; the negative correlation between age and normal vision.
3. An act of correlating or the condition of being correlated.
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.


correlation

\Cor`re*la"tion\ (-l?"sh?n), n. [LL. correlatio; L. cor- + relatio: cf. F. corr['e]lation. Cf. Correlation.] Reciprocal relation; corresponding similarity or parallelism of relation or law; capacity of being converted into, or of giving place to, one another, under certain conditions; as, the correlation of forces, or of zymotic diseases.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.


correlation

n 1: a reciprocal relation between two or more things [syn: correlativity] 2: a statistic representing how closely two variables co-vary; it can vary from -1 (perfect negative correlation) through 0 (no correlation) to +1 (perfect positive correlation); "what is the correlation between those two variables?" [syn: correlation coefficient, coefficient of correlation] 3: a statistical relation between two or more variables such that systematic changes in the value of one variable are accompanied by systematic changes in the other [syn: correlational statistics]
Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University


Notice the first entry from each dictionary talks about reciprocal relation? When you include the word "direct" it's implict you mean statistical correlation, aka. reciprocal relation, which is 1 to 1. Or else why include the word direct?

x
-.=[1]
y

Quotes form the Aborted crime wave:

'Many explanations have been put forward for this drop: more police walk the beat, more people are in prison, the economy has improved, crack use has fallen, alarms and guards are now widespread. "

"Most interesting is that they put forth an alternative explanation that is conceivably possible," says Phillip B. Levine, an economist at Wellesley College. "In terms of the evidence, I think it is somewhat suggestive. I wouldn't go so far as to say it is conclusive."

"The "how much" seems the crux of the matter for some economists. "

"Joyce states, and it suggests that their correlations could be off-kilter. "To say that legalization has some kind of effect is certainly plausible," he concludes. "But I think it should be questioned because the magnitude of the finding is so large: 50 percent seems way too large."


Hardy a strong correlation with so many mitigating factors. And definetly no "direct correlation" exits since they have'nt proved a 1 to 1 relationship. The article cited "many other explinations" for the decrease in crime in addition to "how much" the drop is related to abortions. This is why my statement is more accurate and less misleading than yours when I said: "there is some evidence to suggest abortion has been a factor in the reduction of crime in the 1990's". >>



It's interesting how you take those quotes out of context. Let's see them in context, shall we?

"Many explanations have been put forward for this drop: more police walk the beat, more people are in prison, the economy has improved, crack use has fallen, alarms and guards are now widespread. The emphasis given to any one of these rationales varies, of course, according to philosophical bent or political expediency. In New York City, for instance, plummeting crime has been attributed to improved policing. Yet the decline exists even in cities that have not altered their approach, such as Los Angeles."

Here we see that crime has dropped at roughly the same dramtic rate in areas where these explainations do not fit.

"Most interesting is that they put forth an alternative explanation that is conceivably possible," says Phillip B. Levine, an economist at Wellesley College. "In terms of the evidence, I think it is somewhat suggestive. I wouldn't go so far as to say it is conclusive."

A correlation is never a conclusion in and of itself. A conclusion would be claiming causation. Neither I nor the article have done that.

"The "how much" seems the crux of the matter for some economists. "

This seems pretty meaningless. It seems they admit it probably had some effect, but can't quantify how much. So?

As for the last quote. WTF does that have to do with it?

Finally, my own quote:

"Indeed, Levitt and Donohue are not the first to connect crime and abortion. As they note in their paper, a former Minneapolis police chief made the same suggestion several years ago. But they are the first to examine data to determine whether there could be a correlation. They looked at how crime rates differed for states that legalized abortion before the U.S. Supreme Court decision on Roe v. Wade: New York, Washington, Alaska and Hawaii. In those states, crime began to drop a few years before it did in the rest of the country, and states with higher abortion rates have had steeper drops in crime. Fewer unwanted children, the two conclude, ultimately means fewer crimes."

Funny how you left that part out, huh?

Carbony, do you deny this as a possibility because your stand on abortion wont let you admit it could be true? Your immediate knee-jerk reaction was to deny this was even a possibility. You then proceeded to argue semantics with me. Any objective person would have to admit this is extremely compelling. The only people I've seen dismiss this out of hand have been those incapable of objective thought because they are too wrapped up in a belief system.

 

[Mill]

One thing I have always wondered is why a guy has no say what his wife or girlfriend does? I mean isn't it his sperm and a mutual act that got her pregnant?

 

[Zebo]

Carbony, do you deny this as a possibility because your stand on abortion wont let you admit it could be true?
No, Re-read the tread if your REALLY interested in my view. It was stated before you posted #9.
Your immediate knee-jerk reaction was to deny this was even a possibility.You then proceeded to argue semantics with me
Wrong again. Re-read my post after your posted #9. I disagreed with your language from the very beginning because it was and still is misleading. It's fine with me if it's your opinion but to present it as scientific fact is dishonest and I provided my reasons.
You then proceeded to argue semantics with me.
Blah will we ever see eye to eye again? Words mean something and you used the wrong words from the beginnig and I pointed it out.
Any objective person would have to admit this is extremely compelling.
Not at all. See dissension in the article and factual objectivity gets into peer-reviewed journals.
The only people I've seen dismiss this out of hand have been those incapable of objective thought because they are too wrapped up in a belief system. Not at all. See dissension in the article

 

[Dragnov]

Eh, I'm pro-life and I'm not going to argue with anyone.

All I say is don't have sex until you're willing to accept the possibility of a baby and willing to raise it. That is the purpose of sex... reproduction. If you don't want to reproduce, don't have sex.

 

[Amused]

<<
The only people I've seen dismiss this out of hand have been those incapable of objective thought because they are too wrapped up in a belief system. Not at all. See dissension in the article >>



Wait, there is someone dismissing this posit out of hand in the article? Can you point them out, please?

I think this sums it up quite nicely:

"Despite these concerns, scholars generally agree that Levitt and Donohue are asking a reasonable question."

There have some concerns, but generally all find it compelling... except you.

In fact, I see no outright dissension at all. Only questions about methodology.

As for the rest of your post, from this we can see the depth of your reading comprehension and grasp on reality. That you would claim there is dissension expressed in the article to the point of complete dismissal is laughable at best...

And finally, the theory makes real world sense that you have yet to acknowledge. Unwanted children have been proven more likely to commit crimes, there is more than one study to support this. Fewer unwanted children would therefore mean less crime when they reach the prime age of criminals.

And finally, there is a direct correlation in the dates, AND with the knowledge that unwanted children are more likely to be criminals. A claim of a direct correlation is NOT a claim of causation, only that the dates line up perfectly along with the other fact.