Lack of Logic in Abortion Debates (Putin, independence, Hispanic, companies)

[Tricky D]

Originally Posted by

For any female that says it's ok to selectively abort baby girls shows the sort of self-hate, woman-hating in feminism: its all about "me me me me me" !!!

The killing of female babies in China has absolutely nothing to do with feminism since it is not the women who decide to abort but the patriarchs of the family. The reason why girls are killed is because a Chinese family is only allowed 1 child and only the males are allowed to inherit the family possessions.
The women are completely depended to their father or husband.
If the women also could inherit the family heirlooms in China there would be no more killings of children because of their gender.

[expat007]

Originally Posted by Tricky D

Originally Posted by The killing of female babies in China has absolutely nothing to do with feminism since it is not the women who decide to abort but the patriarchs of the family. The reason why girls are killed is because a Chinese family is only allowed 1 child and only the males are allowed to inherit the family possessions.
The women are completely depended to their father or husband.
If the women also could inherit the family heirlooms in China there would be no more killings of children because of their gender.

but women are inferior as the taipei person said they cant do hard labour, they cant make their keep or are useful to soceity

a bit like that fetus

[Greatday]

Originally Posted by expat007

but women are inferior as the taipei person

TAIPAN - not "taipei"

Much, much different

[Tricky D]

Originally Posted by expat007

but women are inferior as the taipei person said they cant do hard labour

I hope for your sake that science will never invent a technology where man will be able to deliver babies. Cauz once this technology is invented I'll bet that the women will sentence you to becoming pregnant instead of them, so you'll experience yourself how much labour delivering a baby truly is.

[expat007]

Originally Posted by Tricky D

Originally Posted by expat007 I hope for your sake that science will never invent a technology where man will be able to deliver babies. Cauz once this technology is invented I'll bet that the women will sentence you to becoming pregnant instead of them, so you'll experience yourself how much labour delivering a baby truly is.

lemme congrat meself for being an uncle: 4kg bundle of dirty nappies

[ainulinale]

Originally Posted by saganista

Your study is actually a book, and it was not produced by any university, but by one man -- Arthur C. Brooks -- a former professional french horn player turned academic who teaches at Syracuse University and writes with some frequency for the op-ed pages of the Wall Street Journal.

This is a good argument ad hominem. First of all, the study started off as an academic treatise which was turned into a book. What's it matter that he was a professional horn player or who he writes for? Arthur Brooks is a professor at the University of Syracuse, and a long time democrat.

Originally Posted by saganista

His book has been very well received by right-wingers and Christian fundies (articles, interviews, appearances, endorsements, book-signings, etc.). It has been somewhat less well received by more mainstream reviewers. The latter have tended to point out his inclusion of non-standardized social data sources, a reliance on self-reported information (including levels of giving) rather than on available independent measures, an intermittent confusion of correlation with causation, and an overall comparison of one sector of the population to another, rather than of each sector against the population as whole.

What, did you copy this from book review website? Every book is going to have critiques, what I'd like to know is what these "standard social data sources" are? In what way did he confuse correlation with causation?

Originally Posted by saganista

As a for instance, Brooks takes pains to exclude what he has defined as religious giving from various aspects of his analyses, but he never gets around to looking at his data after excluding religion as a whole.
Here is why. If one took his data and examined the patterns of giving among non-religious liberals and non-religious conservatives (those with no religious affiliation and sporadic if any attendance at religious meetings), one would find that it was the liberals who gave more than the conservatives, but that each group gave less than its like-minded religious counterpart.

So what? Even if you're right that secular liberals give more than secular conservatives, the point is who gives more religious or non-religious. The study blatantly demonstrates that the religious right gives more than seculars. Religious liberals and conservatives give at the same rate, thus, the religious give more than the seculars. Also, there are more religious people overall, more religious conservatives, and a far greater percentage of the right is religious as well, thus, religious conservatives give the most.

Originally Posted by saganista

The thesis of his book might as well therefore have been that it is religion, with its promotion of social outreach, interaction, and networking, that accounts for increased levels of giving across all ranges of the political spectrum...liberal, conservative, and moderate.

Here's another one: conservatives give more than liberals because of religion.

Originally Posted by saganista

But the effects of increasingly complex social networking on concern for societal welfare are already well known. A book with that thesis would have made no splash at all, and by his own admission, Brooks considers himself as a latecomer to academics, one who is behind the usual professional pace as the result of his ten years spent as a professional musician. He was tired of writing mundane articles for publication in mundane journals and having no measurable effect or impact. Thus his efforts vis a vis the Wall Street Journal, and thus his choice of which theme to organize the results of his studies of giving around. No doubt both his appearance calendar and his Form 1040 would show that he indeed made the right choice in that matter.

Now we're back to the ad hominem argument. The personal circumstances of Brooks are irrelevant to his findings.

Originally Posted by saganista

Women should have sex every day. Twice or three times a day if they feel like it. There is nothing wrong with having sex. It is both a fun and healthy thing to do. Women, inside of families and out, have a right not to be pregnant. Your obligation and your responsibility as a citizen is to respect that right. You do not live up to such obligation and responsibility.

Sure why not? I never said there is anything wrong with sex. Women have a right to not be pregnant (meaning the right to stay that way regardless of the circumstances?) under the United States government at the time--not necessarily the moral right. I have no obligation as citizen to respect that right (and I don't) because this country was founded as a constitutional republic and a democracy allowing us to revise and correct laws by electing government officials (that is also our responsibility). The fact that certain abortion rights were decided by the court system instead of through the democratic process is an injustice in itself.

Originally Posted by saganista

What portion of that money went for abortions? Planned Parenthood ends up receiving federal funds under both Title X family planning programs and Medicaid. In each case, federal funds are pushed out to state and local entities which then do the job of contracting out for the relevant services within the communities that they are responsible for. Planned Parenthood happens to be the largest provider of family planning health services in the country. In many areas, they are the only significant provider. It would be odd indeed if they did not receive significant numbers of contracts in these areas. No Title X money at all goes for abortions. Zero dollars. Medicaid funds go to pay for abortions for covered indigent women to exactly the very small extent that such payments are mandated (i.e., required) by federal law.


Specifically, yourself.

I haven't found the numbers yet, and I have to leave. However, Medicaid pays for abortions and the women who are below the poverty line have a four times greater rate of abortions than those above the poverty line...sounds like we're paying for a lot of abortions no matter what.

[Wyndsong71]

Originally Posted by expat007

For any female that says it's ok to selectively abort baby girls shows the sort of self-hate, woman-hating in feminism: its all about "me me me me me" !!!

Where did this come from? There isn't anything FEMINIST about china or their laws on having children. It's the PATRIARCHY that makes havng boys more valuble. Hell, in places that do this, such as china, india, and some arabian countries they can kill the WIFE just for having a baby girl!

Where's the feminism there??

[Wyndsong71]

Originally Posted by Greatday

Well - its true - about males being more valuable.

In a "one family one child" society, they need more male children - it has been that way for years.

Which is insane because if all the children are men, where are the babies going to come from??

LOL! At least if it were all women, babies could still be born! ROFL!! just kidding guys!

[Yeledaf]

Originally Posted by Tricky D

Originally Posted by expat007 I hope for your sake that science will never invent a technology where man will be able to deliver babies. Cauz once this technology is invented I'll bet that the women will sentence you to becoming pregnant instead of them, so you'll experience yourself how much labour delivering a baby truly is.

Nice take on procreation as revenge.

Keep in mind that the technology already exists for you to scr*w yourself.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by ainulinale

What's it matter that he was a professional horn player or who he writes for? Arthur Brooks is a professor at the University of Syracuse, and a long time democrat.

I pointed out the potential relevance of these factors in the original post, and Brooks himself has claimed to be something of a political maverick...once a registered Democrat, then a registered Republican, and more recently a registered Independent. Perhaps you do not know him quite as well as you think you do.

Originally Posted by ainulinale

What, did you copy this from book review website? Every book is going to have critiques, what I'd like to know is what these "standard social data sources" are? In what way did he confuse correlation with causation?

Yes, as I pointed out, the book has been quite enthusiastically reviewed in right-wing and fundie circles. More mainstream reviewers have been somewhat less effusive in their praise for Brooks' work. Specifically, he has been taken to some task for relying heavily on the Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey. This was a telephone poll done in 2000. It asked open-ended questions and assumed that each self-reported response was accurate. An interview took half an hour to complete. Twenty-one states were excluded from the population sample entirely. Other states were over-sampled, as were blacks and hispanics. As the result, these are essentially soft data. They are best suited as a basis for further research, not as a basis for direct analysis. Alternate sources such as the General Social Survey (which Brooks also uses) and the American National Election Studies are more representative and more reliable, but important data on which the thesis of his book will come to depend are taken from SCCBS -- including the self-reported frequency and amount of charitable giving, and self-reported relative placement on the political spectrum.

Originally Posted by ainulinale

So what? Even if you're right that secular liberals give more than secular conservatives, the point is who gives more religious or non-religious.

As I noted earlier, there would have been no need to make that point. It has been long and well-established that the increased complexity of social interactions and networking that result from regular participation in religious activities increases one's tendency to participate in charitable causes. This is an effect of socialization, not of religion. It is now you who confuses correlation with causation. A well-run and well-attended bowling league would be expected to have the same types of effect.

Originally Posted by ainulinale

Sure why not? I never said there is anything wrong with sex.

Well, here again are your (apparently amazed) words...

I always find it amazing how women spontaneously get pregnant. They must spontaneously conceive because it's never their fault or their responsibility that they got pregnant...amazing.

Originally Posted by ainulinale

Women have a right to not be pregnant (meaning the right to stay that way regardless of the circumstances?) under the United States government at the time--not necessarily the moral right.

We have fortunately not enacted moral codes in this country for a long time. Instead we have enacted legal codes which may not be used to establish religious dogma or doctrine. These legal codes would be another thing that you seem to have a very limited sense of respect for.

Originally Posted by ainulinale

I have no obligation as citizen to respect that right (and I don't) because this country was founded as a constitutional republic and a democracy allowing us to revise and correct laws by electing government officials (that is also our responsibility). The fact that certain abortion rights were decided by the court system instead of through the democratic process is an injustice in itself.

Constitutional rights are not to be subjected to simple democratic process. This is one of the founding principles of the nation. I certainly don't know how you can have missed that part.

Originally Posted by ainulinale

I haven't found the numbers yet, and I have to leave. However, Medicaid pays for abortions and the women who are below the poverty line have a four times greater rate of abortions than those above the poverty line...sounds like we're paying for a lot of abortions no matter what.

Keep looking for your numbers. Women below the poverty line do have a higher rate of abortion than others. However, unless they face significant risks to life by continuing a pregnancy or the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest, the abortions of indigent women are not being funded by Medicaid. And as I noted earlier, Title X does not fund any abortions at all.

[PS. The factor of more than four actually applies between women below the poverty line and women above three times the poverty line. If you are going to quote statistics, please try to quote them accurately.]