See this:
So…which is the better plan:
or
Three guesses which solution I’m for.
Ummm… correlation is not causation, or hadn’t you heard yet?
Enjoy your “debate”.
“Two-thirds of women who have abortions cite “inability to afford a child” as their primary reason (Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life).” (from the OP’s link)
I think stated cause pretty well implies causality, though.
Well, John, do you have any alternative explanations? Ten years of economic expansion and decreasing abortion. 4 years of economic conraction and escalationg abortion. Note also the #1 reason given by women getting abortions.
So if you have any other explanation, I’d be happy to consider it.
I wonder how much the abstinence-only approach is sex-ed is affecting the rates.
False dilemna. Complex question. Appeal to Pity. Complex cause. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Was there a sale at the logical fallacies store?
Except that you have not shown that:
Bush is responsible for the overall state of the economy, let alone any given job.
There is no alternative to not getting pregnant in the first place
There is no alternative (such as adoption) other than abortion to give up a baby.
Well, that’s an interesting point. Had the people involved practiced abstinence, that would have made the abortion issue moot, right? That is the one known birth control method to be 100% effective.
Hey, Stoid! The logical fallacy store called, and they’re all out of “correlation isn’t causation”! 
Still waiting John. Care to even speculate?
Here’s the simple data:
For ten years, abortion was steadily decreasing.
Since 2000, it’s been steadily increasing.
And one more piece of information: the majority of women state economic reasons as the overriding ones in deciding to get an abortion.
Okay, now you go. Why would this be? I’m not asking for proofs of anything, just some believable and logical possible explanations. Is it…just cuz? One of those things? Gee who knows? Or maybe it’s actually Clinton’s fault: he created a sluttier America where girls just sleep around more, perhaps? Or maybe it’s Bush’s fault in a positive way: people are jsut so damn happy he’s in the Oval office they are fucking themselves silly? (Which of course still wouldn’t account for the abortion rate, only pregnancy itself, but I’m just suggesting possible ideas you might come up with.)
Anything at all, or is “nuh uh” the best you got?
Actually the more capitalistic and prosperous a nation… the less children they have (usually). So even though that probably means less abortions due to more careful sexual atitude and education … that wouldn’t be enough for anti abortionists.
Even if there were Zero abortions… but there was still a law allowing for abortion to be made… they would still probably want to take down Roe vs Wade.
I don’t need to. You made the claim, you need to back it up. Burden of proof is on you. And it’s impossibeleto prove, because the only way you can use the economic reason would be to prove that the economy would’ve been better under Gore. If you want to take a stab at proving that, go ahead, but the fact is it’s not a provable assertion.
I know I won’t convince you about whether Bush bears any responsibility for the economy, but I don’t care. Reasonable people accept that the president has some bearing on the economy.
Of course there’s an alternative. And you know what? It doesn’t work. People have always gotten pregnant when they didn’t want to. People sign abstinence pledges and get pregnant. They see the consequences of having a baby when they have no way to care for it and get pregnant. They swear before God to wait until marriage for sex and get pregnant. Always have, too - this isn’t a recent phenomenon.
You know what? In a crappy economy, fewer people will adopt.
Moreover, none of that matters since women who get abortions cite economic factors as the reason. The OP’s not talking about how people should behave, it’s talking about what will lead to fewer abortions. John says, “they could have given it up for adoption.” So what? They didn’t. They chose abortion, because of economic conditions. *John says, “they could have not gotten pregnant.” So what? They didn’t do what you said they should. Better economic conditions would have led to fewer abortions (unless you find logical fault with P implies Q implies not Q implies not P).
Stoid:
Except Bush wasn’t declared victor until Nov. 2000, and didn’t assume office until January. His economic policies (that is, those that he had a direct hand in crafting and instating) wouldn’t have gone into effect until October of 2001 (his first annual budget), and their full effects felt for at least a minimum of 2 financial quarters. But, as some may forget, an already shaky and flighty market was given to even further instability on September 11th of that year.
The first market flutters heralding the tech-bubble pop came in Q3 of 2000, IIRC. It was the pop that led to the market correction which led to the recession we experienced the last 3 years.
Fed. Chairman Greenspan was warning of “irrational exuberance” before Bush was anything more than a Governor in Texas and a darkhorse, whispered-rumor possible contender for the 2000 Presidency race; he was warning of and an impending market correction about the time Bush was cinching the Republican nomination for the Presidency.
While I’d certainly agree the Bush’s fiscal policy and international adventurism hasn’t done much to help the economy (arguably, it’s made it worse), blaming him for an economic trend that began in 2000 and which was predicted by the nation’s foremost economic guru 4 years previously is not merely asinine, it’s fucking idiotic.
So, as a Malthusian & advocate of population control, should I favor Bush 'cos he’ll hurt the economy & send young fertile men to die in war? Hm.
Nah.
That’s an interesting little argument - the economy has been poor under Bush, so he’s causing more abortions, so vote for Kerry to lower the abortion rate.
To be convincing, you’d have to show significant evidence that the decline in abortion rates has been reversed on a nationwide basis (and there’s no data to back such a claim, only that abortion rates have increased in a limited number of states that have been surveyed, and declined in a smaller number).
Then you’d have to be convinced that Kerry holds the key to an economic turnaround that will purportedly send abortion rates plunging again.
It’s hard to believe that anyone whose vote is significantly swayed by anti-abortion rights fervor would be affected by such lame arguments.
Why not just emphasize that there is a continuing threat to abortion rights based on potential appointment of anti-abortion judges to the Supreme Court, and suggest that people consider their Presidential vote accordingly?
I don’t think that it has anything to do with this thread, but I was sitting here reading the snipe and countersnipe, and I realized something.
I’m pro-choice.
Before I’ve always been a fence sitter. I could never think I could bring myself to personally be involved in an abortion (being a man, I wouldn’t have much say in such a matter, but it would have distressed me nonetheless), but was open to the woman’s right to choose. I drew the line at the first trimester.
I don’t think anything of that is really going to change. But I just suddenly had this epiphany that an unborn child is not a human being. I don’t know where it came from, or why. I guess it is more like a caterpillar -> butterfly thing - when it is in the cacoon, do you kill an ugly caterpillar, or a beautiful butterfly? However far along it is in the developmental process, it isn’t a butterfly until it is complete and independent (so to speak). Until then, it is larva.
This has nothing to do with this thread, and please carry on your nitpicks, but I just had one of those rare moments of clarity, and thought I would share.
So, if I’m to understand your argument, an unborn child isn’t entitled to protection by the law because it’s “ugly”?
Every single one of my three children were born prematurely. I can assure you that they weren’t larvae when they were born. They were all absolutely beautiful kids, too, right from the start.
Abortion is legal in America right up to the due date. My kids were born two months early for the twins, and one month early for my youngest son.
Sorry, but I’m not one of those people that can blithely excuse this. It is fundamentally wrong.
“Blithely”, is it, Moto? Do you imagine the women do not recognize the gravity of the action? Do they arise of a morning with their “to-do” list, pick up dry cleaning, get hair done, nip over to the clinic for a quick abortion?
For myself, I find the very idea of abortion repellent. But they will happen, they happened when abortion was illegal in every state in the union. With one very important difference: the privileged could whisk off to another country for a discreet procedure. Performed by doctors, in hygenic circumstances.
For a woman of lesser means, such accomodations were not at hand. For her the alleys, the taxicab, the bewildering foray into an illegal underground.
If you are justified in presenting anecdote as evidence, so am I. I knew a young woman who faced just this crisis: very young, very frightened. She got her abortion at the hands of a woman who claimed to be a nurse. Perhaps she was.
My dear K. developed an infection, and very nearly died. The infection rendered her sterile. Today she is, I’m given to understand, a first rate pediatrician.
If you and yours are successful in your attempt to legislate your morality and impose your will, young women will die. By the thousands. This much can be guaranteed. And they will die in fear, darkness, and pain.
If you would do this in the name of Jesus then you must have gone to a different Sunday School than I did.
Where did I mention Jesus?
I’ve been pro-life for far longer than I’ve been an observant Christian and Catholic. The scientific education I’ve received convinced me that life begins far earlier than is taken into account in the abortion law.
And I never claimed it wasn’t an agonizing decision, the decision to kill a baby. The pro-choice political position is often blithely taken up, by folks who believe it the default viewpoint, especially given its standing in law and electoral majorities.
I submit that women will never die from illegal abortions at the rate unborn children are being killed. You, elucidator, mentioned deaths in the thousands. I believe that’s overstating the case tremendously.
In 2000, there were 1.31 million abortions in the United States.
Are you pleased with that number? Or does it turn your stomach? If you’re fine with it, you indeed went to a different Sunday school than I did.
Those are the only two options I am permitted? Either I am shocked and sickened, or I advocate opening a “D&C’s R Us” next to every Wal-Mart in the country?
I think not. I think I am permitted to find abortion repellant, but not believe I have any moral standing to impose that personal belief on another person who shares neither my opinions nor my gender.
The decision concerns only a woman, her doctor, and her God. I am none of these, and, I daresay, neither are you.