To: Solon who wrote (17304 ) 6/22/2001 6:28:12 PM From: TimF Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 82486 Well, it was a very good idea. China is a COMMUNIST country. It had a ONE CHILD POLICY. It utilized forced abortions and sterilizaton. Children (beyond one) were ILLEGAL. It does weaken any specific argument that "developing countries" is a good proxy for "countries where abortion is illegal" when the two most populated countries in the world (with about 1/3 of the world's population) are developing countries where abortion is legal. I'll grant that China's forced abortions artificially inflate its abortion rate and including it would distort the statistics so overall excluding it was probably a good idea, however excluding it means you are throwing away a large chunk of the world's population and thus narrowing the base from which the stats are derived. If it is only China that was removed from consideration I no longer have any objection to doing so but that doesn't say anything about India. I think India is reasonably considered to be a developing country. If you throw out the developed countries and the totally undeveloped countries, and you also throw out China, India could be as much as half of what is left, at least it is a third and abortion is legal in India. Even if not a single other developing country had legal abortion (and a number of other developing countries do) that in and of itself would ruin the use of the set "developing countries" as a proxy for the set "countries where abortion is illegal".It was clear to me that many variables influence birth rate and abortion rate world wide. Most of these variables are present and common in different degrees in countries with illegal and illegal abortions. But the legal does not always mean affordable, and the illegal does not always mean back alley (money talks). So unless you are credentialed in the field, I think it more appropriate that we accept the commentary of experts while (of course) watching for biased motivations, etc. I don't think it particularly appropriate to accept the logic or the commentary of experts in the field just because they are experts, esp. when experts disagree particularly in controversial issues such as abortion. Since I have not researched it myself and I am not an expert in statistics or in the prevalence of abortion in the third world I do consider it appropriate to accept the data from your experts unless I find a reason to think it would be wrong (evidence that they are biased, other data from expert sources that disagrees with their data, or something else along these lines). I assume your sources know what they are talking about so I accept their data but I derive my own conclusions from it. If they had data more directly comparing abortion rates in countries where it abortion is legal and those where it is illegal then the data would more directly lead to a conclusion but if they have such data you have not posted it. Most likely they either do not have such data or for some reason they have not made it available. As to your points: The only points obvious to me were that you were unwilling to concede any meaning to the stats I quoted, even though the authors were assigning meaning, interpretation, and additional commentary, for which they (of course) did not bother to include the thousands of pages of reporting data that would had to have been examined and incorporated into their rendering. It is easy to say there MIGHT be other variables. Of course there ARE other variables. And they are infinite in number, and a statistical figure cannot ever be entirely concretized in the interpretive arena. Such an oposition, however, is not an "argument." It is a mutual recognition of incompleteness, and it is an automaticaly assumed disclaimer for all such data. As I said above I look to experts for information but not for my own opinion, only for information to develop and support my opinion. Your right that there almost always might be other variables but you are wrong in stating that pointing out such incompleteness is not an argument. In this case the data is very incomplete so pointing this out shows a weakness in the argument based on this data. It does not show the argument based on the data is false, just shows that the evidence for it is weak. Also this answers only one of my objections (number 3 "There are a great number of differences between developing and developed countries that can easily have a great effect on the abortion rate besides the legality of abortion.) and while it does reasonably answer my objection it does not refute it. While there will always be other factors in this type of research the proper thing to do is to try to minimize them. One way this could have been done is to compare countries that as as similar as possible in ways other then the legal status of abortion. The authors of your study apparently did not do this (and if they did you did not post it). Your argument does not even address my other points. #1 (which I already mention in this post) How India make using "developing countries" as a good proxy for "countries where abortion is illegal"; #2 The countries with the highest abortion rates have are developing countries where abortion is legal; number 4 (which is based on 1 and 2) A number of abortions in developing countries do occur in countries where it is legal. Unless you have information specifically about the abortion rates in countries where it is illegal your statistics are close to useless; and number 5 that the abortion rate is still higher in developed countries according to your own data. for instance, I have not opposed the stats of 34 and 39 that you now consider important to your cause. You want me to accept the conclusion of your experts but you have a problem with me accepting their data? I was giving you the benefit of the doubt by accepting any data that you and your sources put forward. Not ppposing your own data is not doing me a favor it is doing one for yourself because if you manage to show that the data is weak or faulty why should I accept anything from your sources? At the end of your post you have a paragraph that deals with the whole abortion issue rather then with all of the side issues. It is IMO the best argument from you so far in this discussion that we have been having over the last few days. Your claim that legalizing abortions harms embryos is an odd one, and I am unsure why a non religious person would throw it in. It as if you think a smudge of cells is equal in value to somebodies mother. I don't get where you come from. It seems a very cold and calloused attitude. I believe you said that you don't believe in a soul entering the yolk, and that you don't believe that humans have any divine value over and above other life forms, and yet you still act as if every unwanted smudge of sperm should be forced into existence even if it means destroying the lives and the happiness of real living persons with families and loved ones. I didn't specifically said I don't believe in ensoulment, but for purposes of this argument what I said was not different enough to be all that important. I said my faith was weak and uncertain and I don't base my opposition to abortion on it. What I do base it on is my opinion that the basic rights of all members of the human species should be protected and that fetuses are members of the human species. I would further add that when rights and interests conflict the right to live is more important then the right to control every circumstance of your life. I don't believe that fetuses have a greater level of rights then pregnant women but I think their lives are in far more risk in an abortion then the lives of most pregnant women are from either having an abortion or not having one. Another point is when you are talking about abortions you are not talking about an "unwanted smudge of sperm" it is not sperm at all. It is a fetus. Is there any point of a woman's pregnancy where you would not allow legal abortion? If not then this talk of "smudges of cells" or "smudges of sperm" does not reflect your whole position. Tim