In eastern Europe, there are more abortions than live births: 105 abortions for every 100 live births, the research found.
Eurosocialism is a death wish culture; why do the Dems want us to go that way?
robert108 - 08:10am on 10/13/2007
I don’t understand how “Women’s Health” equals killing babies. Since more babies are born girls than boys, this doesn’t strike me as very healthy.
likwidshoe - 09:10am on 10/13/2007
likwid: You really don’t expect anything the lefties advocate to make sense, do you?
robert108 - 09:10am on 10/13/2007
Mister, you need to check your math.
Abortion rates are not measured in comparison to live births, they are measured in comparison to numbers of women of child bearing age. You are engaging in the very slight of had we on the right always accuse the left of.
For instance, just using North America and Africa as examples, if four times as many African women have live births as North American women, then the numbers would be 68 for Africa (where abortion is illegal) and 33 for North America (where it is legal).
While the American (christian) Right is wrapped around the axel with this abortion issue - Satan is laughing big time as he progressively makes the US into a totalitarian state with the aims of making Christianity itself illegal.
And PS: the article referenced at the very beginning of this is not about life expectancies, and was not inaccurate on that account. It was innacurate on what that data meant about our health care system.
T-Rex - 05:10am on 10/14/2007
Rob, some more thoughts:
1. The study is not by anyone with the UN, but rather by the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute.
2. It’s using the wrong units; as T-Rex points out, the right unit is abortions/woman of childbearing age, not abortions/live births.
3. How exactly are we to get a good measure of how often people do something that’s illegal? This is exhibit A for “reporting bias,” IMO.
4. When (see #2) the right units are used, it becomes quite apparent that ready access to contraception (as is in the U.S., Europe, and old Warsaw Pact nations) does NOT reduce the # of abortions/woman of childbearing age.
5. A final issue is that the study does not appear to control for economic status of women having abortions; given that this is a prime driver for the behavior, failure to control for this invalidates the whole study.
But what else would we expect from Planned Infanticide? Actual use of good statistics? I’ll be waiting on that one.
Bike Bubba - 10:10am on 10/15/2007
Good points, but I’d note that the study was done jointly by the WHO and the Guttermarch institute.
Rob - 11:10am on 10/15/2007
The meaning of the word ASSUME.
Good Grief.
Did you just ASSUME I was taking your side?
In fact the numbers (if you actually look closely at them, and not come with the pre-determined idea that you are right) support the other side.
Making abortion illegal does nothing to slow them down, and making birth control available does a lot to reduce abortion numbers.
TRex
T-Rex - 03:10pm on 10/15/2007
T-Rex, that may be your opinion, but when we realize the methodological difficulties and what happens when we start to use the right units, we don’t find that. We find a that abortion rates track slightly positively with contraceptive availability, and positively with legality.
I also find that Guttmacher was exaggerating U.S. abortion rates (per live birth) by about a third. Again, the credibility of this “study” is “nil.”
Bike Bubba - 04:10pm on 10/15/2007
Well, OK, if he was fudging the numbers, that would give a totally false result. But my point was that the numbers in the article cited do not support the conclusions that Rob drew from them - they support the conclusions the author drew. I have not seen the original study - only the cited articles and a couple other similar articles. You have to subscribe to the Lancet to get access to the study itself, as far as I can tell. Reading the study itself could possibly reveal all kinds of flaws, but I don’t plan to go the the trouble and expense to do that, as I have more important fish to fry in this war.
TRex
T-Rex - 10:10am on 10/16/2007
T-Rex, when those promoting the study use the wrong units, there really isn’t any reason to purchase a subscription to the Lancet. You just have to realize that Lancet’s peer review process appears to be broken, and badly so.
Eurosocialism is a death wish culture; why do the Dems want us to go that way?
I don’t understand how “Women’s Health” equals killing babies. Since more babies are born girls than boys, this doesn’t strike me as very healthy.
likwid: You really don’t expect anything the lefties advocate to make sense, do you?
Mister, you need to check your math.
Abortion rates are not measured in comparison to live births, they are measured in comparison to numbers of women of child bearing age. You are engaging in the very slight of had we on the right always accuse the left of.
For instance, just using North America and Africa as examples, if four times as many African women have live births as North American women, then the numbers would be 68 for Africa (where abortion is illegal) and 33 for North America (where it is legal).
While the American (christian) Right is wrapped around the axel with this abortion issue - Satan is laughing big time as he progressively makes the US into a totalitarian state with the aims of making Christianity itself illegal.
And PS: the article referenced at the very beginning of this is not about life expectancies, and was not inaccurate on that account. It was innacurate on what that data meant about our health care system.
Rob, some more thoughts:
1. The study is not by anyone with the UN, but rather by the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute.
2. It’s using the wrong units; as T-Rex points out, the right unit is abortions/woman of childbearing age, not abortions/live births.
3. How exactly are we to get a good measure of how often people do something that’s illegal? This is exhibit A for “reporting bias,” IMO.
4. When (see #2) the right units are used, it becomes quite apparent that ready access to contraception (as is in the U.S., Europe, and old Warsaw Pact nations) does NOT reduce the # of abortions/woman of childbearing age.
5. A final issue is that the study does not appear to control for economic status of women having abortions; given that this is a prime driver for the behavior, failure to control for this invalidates the whole study.
But what else would we expect from Planned Infanticide? Actual use of good statistics? I’ll be waiting on that one.
Good points, but I’d note that the study was done jointly by the WHO and the Guttermarch institute.
The meaning of the word ASSUME.
Good Grief.
Did you just ASSUME I was taking your side?
In fact the numbers (if you actually look closely at them, and not come with the pre-determined idea that you are right) support the other side.
Making abortion illegal does nothing to slow them down, and making birth control available does a lot to reduce abortion numbers.
TRex
T-Rex, that may be your opinion, but when we realize the methodological difficulties and what happens when we start to use the right units, we don’t find that. We find a that abortion rates track slightly positively with contraceptive availability, and positively with legality.
I also find that Guttmacher was exaggerating U.S. abortion rates (per live birth) by about a third. Again, the credibility of this “study” is “nil.”
Well, OK, if he was fudging the numbers, that would give a totally false result. But my point was that the numbers in the article cited do not support the conclusions that Rob drew from them - they support the conclusions the author drew. I have not seen the original study - only the cited articles and a couple other similar articles. You have to subscribe to the Lancet to get access to the study itself, as far as I can tell. Reading the study itself could possibly reveal all kinds of flaws, but I don’t plan to go the the trouble and expense to do that, as I have more important fish to fry in this war.
TRex
T-Rex, when those promoting the study use the wrong units, there really isn’t any reason to purchase a subscription to the Lancet. You just have to realize that Lancet’s peer review process appears to be broken, and badly so.