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: TimF who wrote (17114)	6/19/2001 2:14:10 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

In that case I have since posted several contrary examples You posted examples of where "the combination of legal abortion AND contraception dramatically INCREASED abortions??" I guess I don't believe you, Tim. 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. Tim. Again: I quoted the category as was proper. When you questioned the inclusion of "legal abortion" in the category I explained that I assigned no relevence to it. There was no argument. The statement from the institute was that in the category of countries with contraceptions and legalized abortions there were reduced rates of abortions. It may be that they keep the abortion part in the category to account for statistical variance caused by the legal abortions somewhat offsetting the effects of the contraceptives. I am not a statistics expert so I don't tamper with them. If you are unable to simply accept the correlation without trying to out-think the experts then that is your problem. I told you time and again that I accept the correlation and I am prepared to guess at what it means. But I have inferred nothing from it. I take the face value meaning that there appears to be a statistical correlation between countries with contraception and legalized abortions, and a particular decrease in the incidence of abortion. *Also, that making abortions ILLEGAL does not appear to have a meaningful impact in terms of decreasing* the incidence of abortions** Why not just say "What is known is the contraception dramatically reduces abortion."? Because that is not what my quoted source was stating. As I said above, perhaps the legal abortion was included in order to show that the countries with ILLEGAL abortions were not, on that account, reducing the incidence of the procedure. This seems likely, but as I said--it is better not to guess too much. I don't want you to keep getting bogged down in semantics or misunderstandings, so let me state clearly what I am believing from the sources I have tapped: 1). Countries where abortions are illegal do not appear to have a significant reduction in abortion procedures (indeed, the opposite). 2). In countries where abortions are illegal, the risk of maternal death increases dramatically. 3). If there is a benefit to keeping abortions illegal (in the minds of those whom oppose it) it is either: A). To kill and hurt more women, B). To make sure that abortions take place at least as frequently as in those countries where abortion is legal, C). Some other benefit not yet identified to me, D). Any or all of the above.