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 (17112)	6/19/2001 1:04:20 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I began: "What is known is that the combination of legal abortion AND contraception dramatically reduces abortions."...I bolded "MY ASSERTION" above to highlight your confusion. You (apparently) believed that I wanted you to give me a contrary example about YOUR explanation of my assertion! Please don't strain yourself farther on this issue. In that case I have since posted several contrary examples. "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." Again, you are getting yourself bogged down. The research Institutes create the categories, not me. But you decided to use them and make arguments based on them. If you find them relevant then we can debate if they are. If you don't find them relevant then why post them? Also you where the one who said "What is known is that the combination of legal abortion AND contraception dramatically reduces abortions." You may have based this opinion on other sources but you are the person making the assertion here. Then when it is attacked you say you didn't say it, only to then say it again. The institutes you refer to are not on SI and are not participating in this discussion. You chose to make the statement about it being known that the combination of contraception and legal abortion reduces abortion. If you do not believe that legal abortion has anything to do with this reduction of abortions then includeing it is at best irrelevant and at worst dishonest. I have said over and over again that I have no basis for assigning relevance. Why don't you listen: "Not once did I say anything about it being caused by legalizing abortion". Why is this not clear to you??? Saying ""What is known is that the combination of legal abortion AND contraception dramatically reduces abortions.", is atleast implying that legalization of abortion has some effect on the issue. If you don't think it does or if you are uncertain about it then why even include it. Why not just say "What is known is the contraception dramatically reduces abortion."? Thank you. One would expect to find such diffrences. Did the source of your information have an hypothesis to account for the high rate of abortion in (say) Vietnam?? The page seems to have information and information about the methods they used to obtain the information but not a lot in the way of conclutions. It says the following about Vietnam, more info but no reason or explination - "The highest abortion rate (83 per 1,000) is for Vietnam, where very early vacuum aspiration is common. This number represents public-sector abortions only; when private-sector abortions, which are estimated at one-third the public-sector total,21 are included, the number rises to about two million abortions and the rate to 111 per 1,000. Even when private-sector abortions are excluded, the total abortion rate indicates that the average woman would have 2.5 abortions during her lifetime if the abortion rate were to remain at this level. " Russia is an example that clearly shows the value of contraceptives in reducing abortions: I do not dispute the link between contraception and reducing abortion. Tim