The Math Quiz

[gullivers travails]

The population argument does not address any of the core reasons for allowing abortion; it is therefore a straw-man in toto.

Addressing 'abortion' in ANY manner is a colossal waste of time. If the abortion rate in America dropped in half to about 600K per year, that would then drop the world abortion count down to about 49.4 million. Heck! Most of those performing abortions outside the U.S.A. have no concept of abortion as these discussions attempt to define. And, as the world population continues to grow, you can be sure that the abortion rate world-wide will continue to grow. At least, legal abortion does slow it down a miniscule bit. But, a 'bit' is not going to do the job!

 

[Jerry]

Addressing 'abortion' in ANY manner is a colossal waste of time. If the abortion rate in America dropped in half to about 600K per year, that would then drop the world abortion count down to about 49.4 million. Heck! Most of those performing abortions outside the U.S.A. have no concept of abortion as these discussions attempt to define. And, as the world population continues to grow, you can be sure that the abortion rate world-wide will continue to grow. At least, legal abortion does slow it down a miniscule bit. But, a 'bit' is not going to do the job!

On another thread I was really hoping that PCer OKGranny could provide some hard evidence backing up her argument that banning abortion would only force women to take wire hangers to themselves, possibly ending their lives in the process.

Had she don so I would now be providing you with the argument that we should ban abortion so that said women gift man kind with a 2-for-1 deal: not only will they abort their own child, but they will take themselves out in the process.

The wire hanger argument remains as irrelevant as the over population argument.

Over population is a problem, to be sure. However, abortion has so little impact on over population that that concern is an Unrepresentative Sample of the reasons why abortion should remain legal.

These are, in fact, 2 very different problems.

There can be a near ban on abortion with a stable population. The key is in not making the unwanted pregnancies in the first place. Do that and no one needs to worry about abortion or over population. You kill 2 birds with one stone.

 

[gullivers travails]

Over population is a problem, to be sure. However, abortion has so little impact on over population that that concern is an Unrepresentative Sample of the reasons why abortion should remain legal.

There can be a near ban on abortion with a stable population. The key is in not making the unwanted pregnancies in the first place. Do that and no one needs to worry about abortion or over population. You kill 2 birds with one stone.

First, legal abortion holds down the rate of abortions.

Second, avoiding unwanted pregnancies could be a huge step in the right direction. But remember, heads of governments are hard at work on figuring out a way to get the world's population down to 2 or 2.5 billion. So, even wanted pregnancies add to the problem in that particular scenario.

Like I've reiterated, discussing abortion is a waste of time - it's not a true, valid issue in a world overpopulated by at least 4 billion people.

 

[Jerry]

First, legal abortion holds down the rate of abortions.

Source please.

Second, avoiding unwanted pregnancies could be a huge step in the right direction. But remember, heads of governments are hard at work on figuring out a way to get the world's population down to 2 or 2.5 billion. So, even wanted pregnancies add to the problem in that particular scenario.

Yup.

Like I've reiterated, discussing abortion is a waste of time - it's not a true, valid issue in a world overpopulated by at least 4 billion people.

Well it's been nice speaking with you. I hope to see you around :2wave:

 

[gullivers travails]

Source please.

World wide statistics chronically show more abortions in countries without legal abortion.

Of the 50 million abortions last measured, 28 million were in non legal areas - 22 million were in legal abortion areas.

Those against legal abortion are just making thousands of garage 'doctors' drool in greed in the prospect of abortions becoming illegal. Forget about that 'coat hanger' garbage!

I'm sorry in a way that my inputs have cooled your desire to debate.

God bless you!

 

[1069]

World wide statistics chronically show more abortions in countries without legal abortion.

What's that language you're speaking (or is it some sort of obscure regional dialect)?
It sounds almost like... "reason". :?
Not many of us speak that language, round these yere parts.
Don't be surprised if you get some blank/hostile looks.

 

[Jerry]

World wide statistics chronically show more abortions in countries without legal abortion.

Of the 50 million abortions last measured, 28 million were in non legal areas - 22 million were in legal abortion areas.

Those against legal abortion are just making thousands of garage 'doctors' drool in greed in the prospect of abortions becoming illegal. Forget about that 'coat hanger' garbage!

I'm sorry in a way that my inputs have cooled your desire to debate.

God bless you!

This is correlation, not causation; and it does not explain how abortions in America have risen since it was made legal. If your argument were true, then abortions in America would have decreased since 1973, but they have risen.

 

[gullivers travails]

This is correlation, not causation; and it does not explain how abortions in America have risen since it was made legal. If your argument were true, then abortions in America would have decreased since 1973, but they have risen.

If this country's population were the same as in 1973, then there likely could be a decrease in abortions.

But, the real measurment is not what's happened under legal abortion - it's the measurement of abortions experienced in an illegal environment as compared to those in a legal environment. And, though records supposedly show the number of abortions during the illegal stage, historians and statisticians will argue that the rate was grossly understated - afterall, people didn't file for illegal abortion.

 

[Jerry]

If this country's population were the same as in 1973, then there likely could be a decrease in abortions.

But, the real measurment is not what's happened under legal abortion - it's the measurement of abortions experienced in an illegal environment as compared to those in a legal environment. And, though records supposedly show the number of abortions during the illegal stage, historians and statisticians will argue that the rate was grossly understated - afterall, people didn't file for illegal abortion.

Will they?
Let's here them.
Post your sources.

Do as okGranny refused and show the per-capita abortion rate in 1973 and 2001.

 

[gullivers travails]

What's that language you're speaking (or is it some sort of obscure regional dialect)?
It sounds almost like... "reason". :?
Not many of us speak that language, round these yere parts.
Don't be surprised if you get some blank/hostile looks.

Sorry! But, I spent most of my working years writing policies and procedures for all levels of a business structure. And, I wrote many letters to NASA and to DoD. That has had an effect on how I express myself informally - kinda stiff.

 

[1069]

Sorry! But, I spent most of my working years writing policies and procedures for all levels of a business structure. And, I wrote many letters to NASA and to DoD. That has had an effect on how I express myself informally - kinda stiff.

No, no; that was my nerdy attempt at humor.
I liked your post. I was complimenting you on it.
Sometimes things don't come across that well, I guess, over the internet. :shrug:

 

[FutureIncoming]

Jerry, if you say I said something that I did not actually say, then you are lying and I have every right to label you a liar.

abortion can be part of an overall solution {{to overpopulation}}
Also, it is a part that is working right now, by preventing 40 million unwanted mouths-to-feed from being born each year, worldwide. And nothing you can write, about eliminating abortion, can elminate that fact.
And since that IS a fact, that's one valid reason for opposing the elimination of abortion. Not a straw man at all.

The population argument does not address any of the core reasons for allowing abortion; it is therefore a straw-man in toto.

UTTERLY FALSE. First, what is your basis for assuming that all arguments that oppose the elimination of abortion must be related to arguments for allowing abortion? Second, the more that the world becomes overpopulated, and the more that fact is recognized/accepted as being true (because I'm aware that lots of idiots out there seem to think it is impossible for the world to have too many humans on it), the more the need to curb overpopulation can become one of the core reasons for allowing abortion (as one part of the solution). Therefore, again, I am not raising any iota of a straw-man argument.

 

[tecoyah]

Will they?
Let's here them.
Post your sources.

Do as okGranny refused and show the per-capita abortion rate in 1973 and 2001.

Close as I can get:

"The national legal induced abortion ratio increased from 196 per 1,000 live births in 1973 (the first year that 52 areas reported) to 358 per 1,000 live births in 1979 and remained nearly stable through 1981 (Figure 1) (Table 2). The ratio peaked at 364 per 1,000 live births in 1984 and since then has shown a nearly steady decline. In 2000, the abortion ratio was 245 per 1,000 live births in 49 reporting areas and 246 for the same 48 reporting areas available for 1999. This represents a 3.8% decrease from 1999 (256 per 1,000 live births) for the 48 reporting areas (Table 2) (6)."

Abortion Surveillance --- United States, 2000

 

[Jerry]

Close as I can get:

"The national legal induced abortion ratio increased from 196 per 1,000 live births in 1973 (the first year that 52 areas reported) to 358 per 1,000 live births in 1979 and remained nearly stable through 1981 (Figure 1) (Table 2). The ratio peaked at 364 per 1,000 live births in 1984 and since then has shown a nearly steady decline. In 2000, the abortion ratio was 245 per 1,000 live births in 49 reporting areas and 246 for the same 48 reporting areas available for 1999. This represents a 3.8% decrease from 1999 (256 per 1,000 live births) for the 48 reporting areas (Table 2) (6)."

Abortion Surveillance --- United States, 2000

I appreciate the source but I was hoping to see a comparison of abortion to population.

However, I am curious as to what occurred in 1984 which persuaded women to not abort. Was it economy?

 

[Jerry]

Jerry, if you say I said something that I did not actually say, then you are lying and I have every right to label you a liar.

I'll just keep reporting you when you do then, Steen.

DP makes no such provision to flaming, so even if you were correct you would still be obligated to refrain from name calling.

UTTERLY FALSE. First, what is your basis for assuming that all arguments that oppose the elimination of abortion must be related to arguments for allowing abortion?Second, the more that the world becomes overpopulated, and the more that fact is recognized/accepted as being true (because I'm aware that lots of idiots out there seem to think it is impossible for the world to have too many humans on it), the more the need to curb overpopulation can become one of the core reasons for allowing abortion (as one part of the solution). Therefore, again, I am not raising any iota of a straw-man argument.

Your argument has already concluded that I am wrong, so there is no point in answering your argument’s questions since it is not open to changing it’s theories when new information is presented.

 

[1069]

Jerry, if you say I said something that I did not actually say, then you are lying and I have every right to label you a liar.

DP makes no such provision to flaming, so even if you were correct you would still be obligated to refrain from name calling.

Did you really just say that?

The mods here are reasonable people, not despotic petty autocrats and tyrants.

I'm sure that if you are deliberately misquoting or misrepresenting what other posters say, it is you who will be censured.
Other forum members have every right to object- harshly- to this behavior, if in fact it is occurring.
It presents far more of a problem on a debate forum, than does calling someone a "liar" when they deliberately misrepresent your words.
If we are dishonest about quoting the words of others, that presents a major hindrance to open communication. It is not conducive at all to an environment wherein the exchange of ideas can flourish.

If this type of behavior is in fact occurring, the mods will- I have no doubt- address it swiftly and decisively.

 

[Jerry]

Did you really just say that?

The mods here are reasonable people, not despotic petty autocrats and tyrants.

I'm sure that if you are deliberately misquoting or misrepresenting what other posters say, it is you who will be censured.
Other forum members have every right to object- harshly- to this behavior, if in fact it is occurring.
It presents far more of a problem on a debate forum, than does calling someone a "liar" when they deliberately misrepresent your words.
If we are dishonest about quoting the words of others, that presents a major hindrance to open communication. It is not conducive at all to an environment wherein the exchange of ideas can flourish.

If this type of behavior is in fact occurring, the mods will- I have no doubt- address it swiftly and decisively.

That's the thing, I'm not misquoting or misrepresenting anything, so claims that I am being dishonest are inflammatory.

If he feels that I didn’t get what his point was or don’t properly understand in some way, then he is perfectly capable of assuming the best and using constructive communication tools to clarify his argument.

There is no need to assume the worst and simply declare that I am knowingly stating a falsehood. I may be wrong, but I must know that I am wrong and proceed in spit in order for an accusation of “liar” can be acuret. FI has presented no evidence to that end, therefore his claim is inflammatory.

I don't care if the random member calls me a liar, but like Steen, FI is showing a pattern of regular, frequent abuse. Given that pattern I will report each and every single instance of it so as to curb his behavior.

 

[FutureIncoming]

DP makes no such provision to flaming, so even if you were correct you would still be obligated to refrain from name calling.

And how many provisions does DP have to obligate people from distorting the Debate with lies, eh? Besides banning liars, of course. Or is that what you want to happen to you, after sufficient evidence has been presented, that you have lied?

Your argument has already concluded that I am wrong, so there is no point in answering your argument’s questions since it is not open to changing it’s theories when new information is presented.

My argument concludes that that your argument is flawed, partly because of Bad Logic, and partly because of your basing it on data which also is flawed. For example, if you claim that God created Man in God's image, then you have made a statement that lacks any supporting objective evidence whatsoever. {{It's not even logical, when one considers other claims that God's existence is nonphysical, and therefore cannot have an image that can be copied to the Form of Man.}} It is just a claim that you seem to think people should swallow, regardless of evidence. Likewise, various sorts of shamans/preachers/priests/etc claim to Represent God, and they seem to expect people to swallow that, also without any supporting objective evidence. --Oh, and the believers should regularly send them 10% of their income also, please. On that basis, I could claim to own the Brooklyn Bridge, and offer it for sale, right?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

If I claimed to own the Brooklyn Bridge, that would be rather more than an ordinary claim, wouldn't it? So, without evidence, claims are supposed to be considered suspect/flawed, and arguments based on those claims are equally unswallow-able.

If you can present some data and associated argument which is not flawed, I will welcome it to the Debate. So far, though, you have plain-and-simply failed to do that.

I am curious as to what occurred in 1984 which persuaded women to not abort

I will GUESS that increased use of contraception may have had something to do with it. Earlier, in Msg #41 of this Thread, I presented a link with data about that (usage has increased as the years have gone by). Remember that even if contraception is only 90% effective, it means 9 out of 10 who use it, who didn't use it before, do not become faced with an unwanted pregnancy, and any abortion-related Decision. I know there are claims that increased availability of contraception leads to increased sexual activity, and I have no reason to deny that --but for it to increase 9 or 10 times (such that the number of unwanted pregnancies would remain constant as a result) seems doubtful. More likely, the two sets of data are simply providing evidence that contraception is effective at reducing the abortion rate, when it is used properly.

 

[Jerry]

And how many provisions does DP have to obligate people from distorting the Debate with lies, eh? Besides banning liars, of course. Or is that what you want to happen to you, after sufficient evidence has been presented, that you have lied?

If you feel that I have broken any forum rule then you are free to report me at your discretion.

It is my argument that since concerns about population control are not a part of any origin of abortion law, arguments defending abortion law based on over population are straw-man arguments.

If you feel that that argument is a reportable offence, then just click that lil red triangle and report me.

If you observe any post of mine misquoting any post of yours, then report me.

 

[FutureIncoming]

there is no point in answering {{an}} argument’s questions {{when}} it is not open to changing it’s theories when {{"new information"}} is presented.

It is my argument that since concerns about population control are not a part of any origin of abortion law, arguments defending abortion law based on {{anything else}} are straw-man arguments.

The paraphrases merely extend the specific to the generic.
I see #65 means that in #69, you are enabling yourself to be hoisted by your own petard.

I have always claimed that abortion can be part of an overall solution {{to the overpopulation problem}}.
Also, it is a part that is working right now, by preventing 40 million unwanted mouths-to-feed from being born each year, worldwide. And nothing you can write, about eliminating abortion, can elminate that fact.

YOU LOSE, Jerry. And you helped yourself lose, too. Thanks!

 

[Tashah]

Moderator's Warning:

Let's chill. Either debate with civility or step away.

 

[Jerry]

The paraphrases merely extend the specific to the generic.
I see #65 means that in #69, you are enabling yourself to be hoisted by your own petard.

YOU LOSE, Jerry. And you helped yourself lose, too. Thanks!

The fact that you don't even realize how you took all of that out of context shows that there is no convincing you of what you have already decided is true, so pointing out the 3 errors you made in that post would be foolish on my part.

Believe what you will, FI, there's no convincing you otherwise.
Be well :2wave:

 

[nancyboy]

YOU LOSE ????

must we really be so immature?

 

[FutureIncoming]

The fact that you don't even realize how you took all of that out of context

Tsk, tsk. I merely applied the Golden Rule to #65, that anything you say to me could, if you are foolish, also apply to you. So all I really did is take out the "you"-specific stuff, that directed your nonsense toward me, and make it less specific, so that it could be directed toward anyone, including you. Then, in #69, the modification I did was to reveal how silly it can be to make a stand that arbitrarily denounces valid data. Because there is nothing invalid about the overpopulation data I have presented. Your very specific statement:

The population argument does not address any of the core reasons for allowing abortion; it is therefore a straw-man in toto.

STRONGLY implies that no matter what argument is presented, that "does not address any of the core reasons for allowing abortion", you will consider it to be a straw-man argument. So all I did was turn that implication into plain language, in paraphrasing your reiteration of that in #69. Which thereby becomes foolish, in terms of generic #65.

Net result:

As you sow, so shall you reap.

You have no argument that works in an overpopulated world, to force abortions to cease being done. None. And any attempt to depict this fact in other terms, such as calling it a "straw man argument", just reveals your further inability to back up such a claim with any data whatsoever. Because the overpopulation problem is real, and abortion does work, right now, to lessen the extent at which the problem becomes worse.

And that, in a nutshell, is why I stated that you have lost. Unsupported blather never wins any points in a Debate.

 

[Jerry]

Tsk, tsk. I merely applied the Golden Rule to #65, that anything you say to me could, if you are foolish, also apply to you. So all I really did is take out the "you"-specific stuff, that directed your nonsense toward me, and make it less specific, so that it could be directed toward anyone, including you. Then, in #69, the modification I did was to reveal how silly it can be to make a stand that arbitrarily denounces valid data. Because there is nothing invalid about the overpopulation data I have presented. Your very specific statement:

STRONGLY implies that no matter what argument is presented, that "does not address any of the core reasons for allowing abortion", you will consider it to be a straw-man argument. So all I did was turn that implication into plain language, in paraphrasing your reiteration of that in #69. Which thereby becomes foolish, in terms of generic #65.

Net result:


You have no argument that works in an overpopulated world, to force abortions to cease being done. None. And any attempt to depict this fact in other terms, such as calling it a "straw man argument", just reveals your further inability to back up such a claim with any data whatsoever. Because the overpopulation problem is real, and abortion does work, right now, to lessen the extent at which the problem becomes worse.

And that, in a nutshell, is why I stated that you have lost. Unsupported blather never wins any points in a Debate.

Too funny.
You never stop and ask, FI, you just assume and proceed.

I actually thought your summery of my post was spot on. I looked it over carefully for mischaracterization and found none. Yet here you’re defending yourself as though I accused you if misrepresenting my post.

Good stuff.

The cream of your comedy is that you keep claiming that I "loose" even though I refuse to engage your argument. There has been no battle to be lost.

Really, I don't know why you haven't just rolled your eyes and moved on to someone else. It seems that as a debater you are very sensitive to someone's objection to any portion of your post.

Yes, I hold that any abortion-law supporting argument which does not address the reasons abortion was sanctioned is a straw-man argument. But so what? I think you’re wrong, you think I'm wrong, and that's how this crazy place works.

So, I'll just role my eyes and walk away now, just as you should have done.

Be well.
:roll: :2wave: