Child fatalities

[talloulou]

Read the first post: "Many of the restrictions are found to be significantly associated with increased homicide-resultant fatal injuries for white and black children, and increased unintentional fatal injuries for white children". Note the vocab choice: "significant"

Anyone can write an article. Please.

It's only significant if there's evidence that it's significant. I do think child abuse runs rampant but the numbers of fatal abuse are, I'm sure, very small.

Personally I'd rather be abused a bit, survive, and live long enough to flee my bad parents vs. being killed by a white coat.

I find the argument that we can stop abuse by allowing more mothers to kill indiscriminately, freed up from all those pesky restrictions, funny. Sick and twisted, but funny. Black humor.

 

[Scucca]

It is significant bunk unless you can provide the source and access to your data.

Data?

This study uses state-level longitudinal data on fatal-injury rates over the period 1981-2002 for all states and the District of Columbia. The data is obtained from the Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQAR), made publicly available by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It is based on the number of fatal injuries by cause of injury available from the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), and corresponding population estimates from the Census Bureau.

Your line of "Cause my secret pay per view study says so" is sophomoric at best.

Everyone can access the publication. We do not have to be rely on asking Billy Bob in the showers for evidence!

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Anyone can write an article. Please.

It's only significant if there's evidence that it's significant. I do think child abuse runs rampant but the numbers of fatal abuse are, I'm sure, very small.

Personally I'd rather be abused a bit, survive, and live long enough to flee my bad parents vs. being killed by a white coat.

I find the argument that we can stop abuse by allowing more mothers to kill indiscriminately, freed up from all those pesky restrictions, funny. Sick and twisted, but funny. Black humor.

I find it rather goofy in sort of a savage savant sort of way/.

 

[talloulou]

How come these great prochoice arguments never end up on bumper stickers?

"Abortion Nips Child Abuse in the bud."

Or

"Screw nipping it in the bud, kill when its got legs. No restrictions"

:rofl

 

[talloulou]

"Don't abuse the unwanted, kill 'em!"

 

[talloulou]

"Killing 'em now saves you from beating them later!"

 

[Scucca]

How come these great prochoice arguments never end up on bumper stickers?

You continue to be small fry. The thread isn't about pro choice versus pro life. It is about the rational policy once abortion is allowed. I've already typed this, so you must have a squint blocking your view

 

[talloulou]

You continue to be small fry. The thread isn't about pro choice versus pro life. It is about the rational policy once abortion is allowed. I've already typed this, so you must have a squint blocking your view

Which bumper sticker is rational? I mean really? Your entire premise is killing humans cuts down on their potential to be abused later!

Show me how to rationally discuss that.

 

[Scucca]

Your entire premise is killing humans cuts down on their potential to be abused later!

My entire premise is, assuming abortion is legal, what restrictions are rational? You have nothing to say in response. I'm reading your comments twice though just in case!

 

[talloulou]

My entire premise is, assuming abortion is legal, what restrictions are rational? You have nothing to say in response. I'm reading your comments twice though just in case!

No, now you're playing bait and switch. You OP claimed that abortion restrictions significantly increase child fatalities.

That alone sounds like bull. The little research I did on it stated most child fatalities come in the form of car accidents, bike accidents, drowning, and crib death. None of which has anything to do with abuse. So the OP remains false and unproven. There would be no logical reason to loosen abortion restrictions when theres no evidence doing so would have any significant impact on child fatalities, as you claimed.

And all of that doesn't even begin to address the illogical notion that we should kill an individual in order to save it from possible potential abuse at a later undetermined date.

 

[talloulou]

Let's make sure we kill now in case we might kill later?

Show me the logic?

 

[Scucca]

No, now you're playing bait and switch. You OP claimed that abortion restrictions significantly increase child fatalities.

And, given the empirical evidence presented, that does seem the case!

So the OP remains false and unproven.

You're showing ignorance of the empirical process. Significant effects are found (i.e. the null hypothesis that there are no increases on fatality rates is rejected).

 

[talloulou]

And, given the empirical evidence presented, that does seem the case!


You're showing ignorance of the empirical process. Significant effects are found (i.e. the null hypothesis that there are no increases on fatality rates is rejected).

You're full of it. I never saw any empirical evidence. When I looked up "child fatalities in the US" it seemed universally accepted that the number that are related to child abuse and neglect is small, incredibly so in comparison to most other factors.

 

[Scucca]

You're full of it. I never saw any empirical evidence.

I gave the abstract in the opening post. Need more info from the paper?

Many of the restrictions are found to be significantly associated with increased homicide-resultant fatal injuries for white and black children, and increased unintentional fatal injuries for white children

Stop playing dumb!

 

[talloulou]

I gave the abstract in the opening post. Need more info from the paper?

Many of the restrictions are found to be significantly associated with increased homicide-resultant fatal injuries for white and black children, and increased unintentional fatal injuries for white children

Stop playing dumb!

Where's the supporting evidence to back up the term significantly?

 

[Scucca]

Where's the supporting evidence to back up the term significantly?

Significant means that the hypothesis that there is no effect is rejected. You do understand basic stats don't you? (t ratios etc)

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

man who talk lot say so little. :roll:


Your contention is that if we killed the babies in the womb we would have a lower child mortality rate.

What you FAILED to answer is:


1. Demonstrate that if the laws were changed from the present state that more abortions would occur.

2. demonstrate that families would have chosen abortion but instead choice to have the child are more likley to be negletive parents.



Your hypothesis is barely a house of pseudo-intellectual nonsense.

funny how he ignores this.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Scucca, this seems to be your argument:

The argument is as follows. More restrictive policies on abortion, whilst having no significant effect on sexual activity, are associated with only a marginal reduction in abortion rates. This suggests that there is an upturn in unwanted births. This, in turn, increases the likelihood of child maltreatment and therefore child fatalities.

The empirical evidence supports this hypothesis. Whilst it cannot be used to discount the pro-life morality coercion, it does have repercussions for policy making once abortions have been allowed. Restrictive policies (e.g. "restrictions on publicly funded abortions, mandatory waiting periods, and parental involvement laws") should be avoided. Liberalism minimises child abuse and neglect.

You seem to be saying that there is a link between restrictive abortion policies and child fatalities. Since, due to publication restrictions, you are unable to link to the study, which I understand, I would like you to provide the following information, so I can examine the results:

null hypothesis and alternate hypothesis
T-Score analysis and/or Z-Score analysis
level of standard deviations/statistic significance used for the study (.05, .025, etc...)
confounding variables identified and how their impact was negated or accounted for
Level of causality

Also, in your first paragraph, you show a progression: more restrictive abortion laws ---> increased unwanted births ---> increases likelihood of child maltreatment ---> increase of child fatalities. It is the progression from step 2 to step 3 that I would like to see evidence of. Is this included in the study, and does the study show that this hypothesis has been accepted and a causational relationship was proven with the statistical significance noted in the tests that I requested above? Or are the steps I identified, solely your own opinion?

I think a key factor, here, is that whether this study shows causation (very valid) or correlation (usable as a tool, but less valid).

Also, I wonder, what was the rationale behind separating whites and blacks?

And as a precursor, I have a few issues with the study, just from the abstract:

1) Data was used from 1981-2002. Roe v. Wade was in 1973. The 1973-1981 data was not obtained. One must wonder if there was any increase right after abortion was legalized, what the restrictions in that early time were, and how the data from these years compared to the data from later years. This could identify some of the confounding variables, which could be more prominent in later years.

2) Data from prior to 1973 would need to be examined to further eliminate the impact of confounding variables. If the hypothesis holds true, child fatalities should have dropped dramatically, after abortion legalization, since this would be analogous to loosening abortion restrictions. I would be curious as to whether the study addresses this, as it is a major confound.

3) The study uses the 0-4 age group. Obviously, this omits those children over the age of 4. Though this may be a minor issue, it reduces the population size.

4) The abstract mentions "young, single, and low socioeconomic-status mothers". Is this the study focus? One problem I see with this, immediately, is that research shows that children of single parents, statistically do worse than those in two parent households, regardless of other factors. This would negate the causational effect of abortion restrictions on single-parent-child-outcomes, or, at the least, reduce its significance, greatly.

That's all I can see just from the abstract. I await data on the study's research.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

good post Captain!

 

[Scucca]

ull hypothesis and alternate hypothesis
T-Score analysis and/or Z-Score analysis
level of standard deviations/statistic significance used for the study (.05, .025, etc...)

The hypothesis is framed in general terms: i.e. “that there will be a higher incidence of child fatal injuries due to homicide and due to unintentional causes among child cohorts born in the presence of state policies that restrict abortion access”. The null is created by first coming out with an “index of restrictiveness”

Here's an example of the findings:

” In this final case, increases in the index of restrictiveness are found to be associated with increases in all fatal injuries among white children and homicide-resultant fatal injuries among black children. Specifically, with a one-point increase in this index, homicide resultant fatal injuries among white and black children increase on average by 11% and 12%, respectively (p < 0.01 in both cases), and unintentional and non-motor unintentional fatal injuries increase among white children by 3% and 4%, respectively p < 0.05 in both cases)”

confounding variables identified and how their impact was negated or accounted for
Level of causality

Given the need to exploit variation in laws within states over time, numerous time varying control variables were included. Examples include % of population in poverty, unemployment rate, % of population in rural areas, per capita alcohol consumption and AFDC benefit controls.

Also, in your first paragraph, you show a progression: more restrictive abortion laws ---> increased unwanted births ---> increases likelihood of child maltreatment ---> increase of child fatalities. It is the progression from step 2 to step 3 that I would like to see evidence of.

The progression provides the means to form the hypothesis. It would only be opinion if significance was not found. We still cannot accept the hypothesis (as you no doubt know, we never can), but the findings are certainly consistent with the logical progression.

I think a key factor, here, is that whether this study shows causation (very valid) or correlation (usable as a tool, but less valid).

The paper is not a data mine attempt to find correlations. It adopts a fatality rate regression approach (a negative binomial model) that enables tests of robustness and goodness of fit.

Also, I wonder, what was the rationale behind separating whites and blacks?

Fatality rates do differ considerably by race. Also previous evidence have confirmed racial differences (e.g. “Joyce and Kaestner (1996) found that parental consent laws affected abortion among white teens but not black teens”). Inclusion of simple racial terms may well disguise more complex relationships and lead to econometric bias. Separating is therefore warranted.

1) Data was used from 1981-2002. Roe v. Wade was in 1973. The 1973-1981 data was not obtained. One must wonder if there was any increase right after abortion was legalized, what the restrictions in that early time were, and how the data from these years compared to the data from later years.

All empirical studies have to consider data limitations. The data span adopted reflects data availability. It is sufficient to ensure variation in the “restrictiveness” variable and therefore does not generate any problems. There are more important data weaknesses. For example, the author refers to problems of reliability in data series and the need to employ proxy measures (e.g. use of police officers per 100,000 population)

3) The study uses the 0-4 age group.

This reflects the limitation of the WISQAR data, which is given as aggregation by age group

4) The abstract mentions "young, single, and low socioeconomic-status mothers". Is this the study focus?

The study is referring to how restrictive legislation, unwanted pregnancies and maltreatment are likely to be linked. It gives a list of reasons, ranging from childcare to correlation with hazardous neighbourhoods to conclude: "it may be hypothesized that policies that potentially increase the relative number of unplanned pregnancies and the relative proportions of children born to young, poor, and single mothers will contribute to an increase in child fatal injury rates from homicide and from unintentional causes"

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

restrictive legislation you say. Give us some examples of this. I thought abortion was legal here.


and your still ignoring my post, causing an issue with your thesis? :lol:

 

[Scucca]

restrictive legislation you say. Give us some examples of this. I thought abortion was legal here.

I've already given examples: restrictions on publicly funded abortions, mandatory waiting periods, and parental involvement laws

and your still ignoring my post

What am i ignoring? I normally just ignore drivel, but apologies if you've got something relevant to say

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

I've already given examples: restrictions on publicly funded abortions, mandatory waiting periods, and parental involvement laws

rather vague and ambiguous, no?

What am i ignoring? I normally just ignore drivel, but apologies if you've got something relevant to say

did you get beat up a lot? that's where my money is. :lol:




this is what you ignore:

Your contention is that if we killed the babies in the womb we would have a lower child mortality rate.

What you FAILED to answer is:


1. Demonstrate that if the laws were changed from the present state that more abortions would occur.

2. demonstrate that families would have chosen abortion but instead choice to have the child are more likley to be negletive parents.



now are you going to answer this or are you going to hurl peurile psedo-intellectual insults in an attempt to cut and run as usual?

 

[Scucca]

rather vague and ambiguous, no?

No

1. Demonstrate that if the laws were changed from the present state that more abortions would occur.

Consider reference to restrictions on publicly funded abortions. Those restrictions will increase the abortion cost and therefore, given the law of demand, one would expect some abortion changes (although it will be reduced by substitution to the "unsafe abortion" market). Try Medoff (2008, The Response of Abortion Demand to Changes in Abortion Costs, Social Indicators Research, Vol 87, pp 329-346) which notes that "over the period 1982–2000 approximately 20% of the decline in the incidence of abortion was due solely to the increase in the real price of obtaining an abortion"

2. demonstrate that families would have chosen abortion but instead choice to have the child are more likley to be negletive parents.

Why do you think I've referred to a paper that runs a fatality rate regression model and tests for the impact of restrictive legislation? This provides a direct test of the hypothesis that maltreatment increases with "unwanted pregnancies".

now are you going to answer this or are you going to hurl peurile psedo-intellectual insults in an attempt to cut and run as usual?

Puerile and pseudo! Tut tut

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

No

How poignant and astute. :roll: (That's NY sarcasm.)

Consider reference to restrictions on publicly funded abortions. Those restrictions will increase the abortion cost and therefore, given the law of demand, one would expect some abortion changes (although it will be reduced by substitution to the "unsafe abortion" market). Try Medoff (2008, The Response of Abortion Demand to Changes in Abortion Costs, Social Indicators Research, Vol 87, pp 329-346) which notes that "over the period 1982–2000 approximately 20% of the decline in the incidence of abortion was due solely to the increase in the real price of obtaining an abortion"

Demonstrate through example and other evidence that abortion is cost prohibitive in the US.

and you answered a question that was not posed. Lets try again:

1. Demonstrate that if the laws were changed from the present state that more abortions would occur.




oh An how does he arive at 20%. Stating so does not make it so,

Why do you think I've referred to a paper that runs a fatality rate regression model and tests for the impact of restrictive legislation? This provides a direct test of the hypothesis that maltreatment increases with "unwanted pregnancies".

:lol: This "kill the poor because they may abuse thier babies" crap is rather humourous. the quote states the same as you, without any evidence which is why I asked you:


2. demonstrate that families would have chosen abortion but instead choice to have the child are more likley to be negletive parents.


As usual you have failed to address the gaping holes in your **cough cough** thesis.

Puerile and pseudo! Tut tut

So we can call other posters statments drivel, yet we get upset when others respond in kind. If you can't take it, perhaps a higher level of decorum is warranted.