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 : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tsigprofit who wrote (11608)	6/15/2004 1:39:53 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

Sorry, I didn't see the post. If you wonder about the statistics, see if you can find them somewhere else. Of course many times the stats are massaged in the way that they are labeled- for example, in the article I posted, I wondered just what "no religious affiliation" really meant. Does it mean they aren't attached to a particular type of Xtian church? In order to know if stats have meaning you need to know 1. what the words around the stats mean and 2. what the sample questions were. The articles I posted were interesting, but unless I did a lot more research, I wouldn't take the stats as anything more than entertainment, now would I take anyone else's as anything more than that.

To: tsigprofit who wrote (11608)	6/15/2004 8:57:20 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

Boy, did you make a mistake! The table was posted on a prolife webite. HOWEVER, the data comes from this journal article: agi-usa.org Notice the "agi" in the link? That stands for the Alan Guttmacher Institute, which publishes the Family Planning Perspectives journal. Now, what is the Alan Guttmacher Institute and who was Alan Guttmacher? Let's see: ALAN F. GUTTMACHER 1898-1974 The Alan Guttmacher Institute, an independent, nonprofit, tax-exempt organization with offices in New York and Washington, D.C., was established in 1968 to provide research, policy analysis and education in the fields of reproductive health, reproductive rights and population. It was named to honor a distinguished obstetrician-gynecologist, author and leader in reproductive rights. While Alan F. Guttmacher was president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and a leader in the International Planned Parenthood Federation in the 1960s and early 1970s, he saw the need for the institution that now bears his name, and he nurtured its development. ..... He joined the birth control movement in the 1920s when he was an intern, after witnessing a woman die from a botched abortion. In Baltimore, he was an effective advocate, organizer and worker for family planning at The Johns Hopkins and Sinai Hospitals and the Planned Parenthood affiliate. Following his appointment as Director of Obstetrics and Gynecology at New York's Mt. Sinai Hospital in 1952, he assumed increasing leadership of the national Planned Parenthood organization, first as member, then as volunteer chairman of Planned Parenthood's National Medical Committee and, in 1962, as full-time national President. ..... "No woman is completely free unless she is wholly capable of controlling her fertility and...no baby receives its full birthright unless it is born gleefully wanted by its parents." ..... He had the satisfaction of witnessing many of the principles of voluntary fertility control to which he devoted his life inscribed in the law of the land by the U.S. Supreme Count in the Griswold and Baird cases on contraception and the Wade and Bolton cases on abortion. agi-usa.org Well, what do you know. I wouldn't believe any statistic presented by this anti-choice group! Not even if the statistic was published by a pro-choice journal, apparently. I wouldn't believe them on anything they have to say, as they are totally biased. Have a change of mind, now?

To: tsigprofit who wrote (11608)	6/16/2004 5:13:05 AM
From: zonder	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20773

tsig - I see nothing wrong with those statistics. They actually sound fairly plausible to me - women who have a mind of their own and don't necessarily follow what the society at large tells them to do (ex: those who don't believe in God) are probably not going to wait long past their puberty to live their sexuality. A longer sexual life (especially one including teenager years where contraception might not be faithfully adhered to) could very well equal a higher probability of unwanted pregnancies and hence abortions. I am not sure exactly what that guy means by "demographic groups more likely to vote Democratic", but that sounds credible as well, since anti-abortion fervor a la "baby-killing" etc is rarely associated with democrat voters. However, there is one glaring error in that post: It seems obvious that abortion will have a demographic impact over a period of decades. And one of these demographic impacts is that the pool of people likely to be liberal Democrats will be smaller as a result of abortion. The only thing that is obvious is that the maker of this statement is not very bright. His statement is a travesty of logic and all we know about genetics and behaviour. It literally assumes that political affinity is a genetically transmissible trait, like blood type and skin color - kids of Democrats will always vote Democrat, and kids of Republicans will always be Republican. That is a demonstrably false assumption. And, if I may say, also a ridiculously dumb one.