Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (17091)	6/19/2001 10:40:09 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

It is close enough to "true" for me. One contrary example would disprove my argument from example, but I have not seen a contrary example. If you wish to take a contrary opinion, then I would think you would produce an exception to my assertion. Your response was to my point about not being able to know what people would have done given different circumstances. What sort of contrary example would you wish me to provide on that point. I can't provide solid evidence about what people would have done under different circumstances any more then you can. It is generally thought that it relates to the rate at which women experience an unintended pregnancy, but that is not so simplistic as the legality of contraception. All I did was quote what is known, i.e. that the combination of contraception AND legal abortion statistically reduces abortions and maternal death and injury. I can agree with that, but contraception is something that obviously has a great potential to reduce unwated pregnancy. Legalized abortion might end unwanted pregnancies, but you haven't even made an argument as to how legalized abortion might reduce unwanted pregancies (besides reduceing the duration of them) or abortions. You provide one relevant point (contraception) and then mention some other condition that exists (legal abortion) and then seem to think that because it exists it must be relevant. You could have as easily said that contraception and global warming (assumeing that it is indeed hapening) have reduced abortion and maternal death and injury. Not once did I say anything about it being caused by legalizing abortion, although for some reason you seem to be defending the goal post on an empty field. Anyway, that is your business. You said in the post I am now replying to "the combination of contraception AND legal abortion statistically reduces abortions". You also said it is known, not just a guess on your part. Either legal abortion does reduce abortions (atleast in combination with contraception being available) or it does not. If you are argueing that it does then you are sayin that this reduction is caused by legalizing abortion, if it does not it is an irelevant factor and my analogy to pacifists and increased military spending in the 40s is a good one. Using the countries that you selected you could say instead that not being in Latin America reduces abortions. I defend either field depending on which you want to attack, but you seem to want to attack one while I defend the other then when I switch you also switch. Pick one and we can argue it, does, in your opinion, legalized abortion reduce abortion or not? I have no idea what "many countries" you are referring to here. Why don't you share that information. Of course, I am not interested in hearing about, say, China, where the "ONE CHILD POLICY" was enFORCED by the STATE. Ok how about Belarus, Bulgaria, Cuba, Estonia, Ukraine, Romania, Russia, and Vietnam. Those are all countries with legal abortion and abortion rate more then double that of the US as of 1996. Other countries have high rates that are less the double that of the US. Tim