Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is no point past which a medical abortion cannot be performed, but most clinics stop at about 9 weeks, so it is not true that being "a month late" would preclude a medical abortion. Nausea and pain can be treated with medication.
In that situation I was not referring to the abortion; I was referring to the RU486 pill.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
Equating medical abortion with "birth control" is fallacious. The very side-effects you mention would deter most women from wanting a series of abortions as their method of birth control. You contradict yourself when you first state that "almost all abortions today are yes, birth control after the fact because initial birth control failed." then say that the "neglectful and irresponsible demographic" cannot be expected to "diligently take the Pill or use condoms."
Uh, no. People who aren't responsible enough to use contraception properly, are, in fact, using abortion to not have the unwanted pregnancy. That is a form of birth control. Not the one you or I would like, but it is.
And no, I am not anti-abortion, but I will call a spade a spade. Hardly any abortions are necessary to save the mother's life in our modern medical age, and few are the results of rape, relative to the numbers that are "mistakes". That is all.
Unfortunately some of those kids are wanted for the wrong reasons: to try to preserve a relationship or to get out from under a parent's roof and set up a household or just to have someone to love and be loved by.
Then the partner leaves or the reality of never being able to just go out and party sets in or mom discovers that babies and young children are not always lovable and teens can be downright nasty.
It all falls apart, especially if there is no job and no money.
And here is another dirty little secret: we always assume *all* pregnancies in these situations are "unwanted" or "mistakes" by the women in question. But what if many of them really *were* wanted, until real world events kicked in?
"Maybe the answer is obvious: Women get pregnant because they want to have babies. As Kay S. Hymowitz, author of "Marriage and Caste in America," puts it, "There isn't really a bright line between wanted and unwanted pregnancies." There are plenty of women who become careless about birth control on purpose.
Whether they're suburban professionals with two sons who really want a daughter and hope to "convince" hubby for a third try with a "mistake", or poor inner-city women who hope their boyfriends will stay around if there is a child in the picture, women will often subvert their better judgment to fulfill a biological urge.
This is not the sort of sentiment that sits well with the leftist feminists, who have a dogma that women are *always* the ones thinking with their heads instead of their hormones. But according to the Guttmacher Institute, there are about three million unintended pregnancies in the U.S. every year, and six in 10 U.S. women having abortions are already mothers. More than half intend to have (more) children in the future. These ladies know exactly how one gets pregnant, and how one does not.
(...)
A disproportionate number of poor women, it turns out, account for those 1.3 million abortions every year. But this is not because, as (the "sex educators") might argue, they are disproportionately uneducated when it comes to sex and birth control. It's because, having decided to "unintentionally" get pregnant, they quickly realize that having a baby is not feasible. Whereas the suburban married professional might have to stretch her family's income a bit further to make room for an unplanned third child, the poor single woman might find herself without a man in her life four months into her pregnancy and determine that raising a child by herself just isn't an option.
(The "abstinence educators") could conclude that the poor woman simply needs a stronger education in values. But that is not quite right, either. However unfortunate her decision to abort, the poor woman probably knows that it would be better for everyone involved if her child were raised in a stable two-parent household. She just hoped that she would have one in time (by convincing the guy to stick around). Education, it seems, can do only so much.
This is also why later term abortions become so problematic. Can we not see how a pregnant lady will keep the baby for a time, until the irresponsible guy, or the resentful-at-being-tricked guy, bails out on her and then she has to abort, when it by all reasonable arguments should have been done earlier?
Last edited by NickB1967; 05-06-2014 at 09:28 AM..
Conservatives claim that they have a moral objection to abortion as they believe it is murder. However, conservatives support the death penalty, sending soldiers off around the globe, and lax gun regulations that result in people getting murdered on an hourly basis.
That you liken innocent foetal babies to convicted guilty murderers says so much about you leftists. It really does.
That you really think appeasing foes abroad will work, in the face of all history, says a lot about you leftists, too.
As does the belief that disarming the victims will stop the criminals.
I cant believe that this thread has multiple pages and no one has stated the obvious yet.
This theory (and many other stories/ theories), by U of Chicago professor STEVEN D. LEVITT, who is also the author of best selling novels Freakonomics and Superfreakonomics were proven to be incorrect. Levitt has publically acknowledged that much of this statistical work/writings (pop-stats) were based on incorrect assumptions, etc.
Moderator cut: Inappropriate in this forum. Please read the stickies at the top of the thread page for the special guidelines of this forum. Posts are expected to be civil.
Last edited by Oldhag1; 05-06-2014 at 09:32 AM..
Reason: Removed colored font
I cant believe that this thread has multiple pages and no one has stated the obvious yet.
This theory (and many other stories/ theories), by U of Chicago professor STEVEN D. LEVITT, who is also the author of best selling novels Freakonomics and Superfreakonomics were proven to be incorrect. Levitt has publically acknowledged that much of this statistical work/writings (pop-stats) were based on incorrect assumptions, etc.
Moderator cut: Inappropriate in this forum. Please read the stickies at the top of the thread page for the special guidelines of this forum. Posts are expected to be civil.
The article you cite doesn't address the abortion research. It does address some of Levitt's other theories. Rather than disproving these it simply points out potential flaws in the research.
It would be helpful if rather than citing an article that isn't exactly on point if you described the specific flaws you see in the research that links the decrease in the crime rate to legalized abortion.
The article you cite doesn't address the abortion research. It does address some of Levitt's other theories. Rather than disproving these it simply points out potential flaws in the research.
It would be helpful if rather than citing an article that isn't exactly on point if you described the specific flaws you see in the research that links the decrease in the crime rate to legalized abortion.
Much of the discussion of Levitt's work was in scientific journals, so it is a little difficult to quote them. But see links below - his inaccuracies have been public knowledge for a long time. You can also search scholar.google.com and read some abstracts re: his works.
I am not entirely sure what needs to be disproved for you to be satisfied. Many reputed journals have published articles that have pointed out major flaws in Levitt's statistical methodology. And, it has been acknowledged by many, that much of Levitt's work featured in Freakonomics and SuperFreakonomic is wrong. There were statistical as well as computer coding error in the abortion analysis. Regarding this, Levitt himself has said - "is personally quite embarrassing."
Coding error + methodology error makes much of his work pure garbage and what many like to call, pop-statistics. I dont know why some people feel the need to defend this crime and abortion story, especially after all this ....
Quote:
That's the theory. But a paper published last week† by Christopher Foote and Christopher Goetz, two economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, finds an embarrassing hole in the evidence. Messrs Donohue and Levitt subjected the data to a battery of tests, some suggestive, others more systematic, in an effort to prove the links in the chain. The challenge is to distinguish the role of abortion from other potential influences on crime, many of which cannot be observed directly. Some of these rival factors vary year by year; others state by state. Messrs Foote and Goetz concentrate their fire on those that do both. They offer the crack epidemic, which rose and receded at different times in different places, as an example.
Quote:
It was a good test to attempt. But Messrs Foote and Goetz have inspected the authors' computer code and found the controls missing. In other words, Messrs Donohue and Levitt did not run the test they thought they had—an “inadvertent but serious computer programming error”, according to Messrs Foote and Goetz
Fixing that error reduces the effect of abortion on arrests by about half, using the original data, and two-thirds using updated numbers. But there is more. In their flawed test, Messrs Donohue and Levitt seek to explain arrest totals (eg, the 465 Alabamans of 18 years of age arrested for violent crime in 1989), not arrest rates per head (ie, 6.6 arrests per 100,000). This is unsatisfactory, because a smaller cohort will obviously commit fewer crimes in total. Messrs Foote and Goetz, by contrast, look at arrest rates, using passable population estimates based on data from the Census Bureau, and discover that the impact of abortion on arrest rates disappears entirely. “I am simply not convinced that there is a link between abortion and crime,” Mr Foote says.
For the benefit of those who have not read Freakonomics and Superfreakomics, books which were sold in the millions, I should add some more of Levitt's theories for your entertainment .....
In his books, Levitt claimed the following:
- driving drunk is safer than walking drunk
- A U.S.-born boy is roughly 50 percent more likely to make the majors if he is born in August instead of July
- there is a computer algorithm that can predict terrorists based on banking data with 99% accuracy
Makes complete sense. A woman that is willing to roto-rooter her baby is probably not going to be a particularly good mother. Not-good mothers -> Bad kids -> Criminals.
This is why the "ban all abortions" crowd annoys me. These people don't realize they are going to pay more taxes for prisons and welfare if abortions are banned. I'd rather there be abortions than have to pay for EBT cards, welfare and public housing.
It is not abortion that lowers crime, it is the reduction in the number of children that are not properly raised.
I agree that birth control and abstinence would also lower crime. I want to comment on the issue of abstinence. I think many young girls don't realize they don't need to be pressured to have sex. Once a girl loses her virginity her sexuality becomes confusing. She may assume that now that she is no longer a virgin everything has changed and she is now supposed to become sexually active. She needs to know that she does not. Just because she started having sex does not mean she now has to continue to have sex. I think many girls don't understand this.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
