Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Southern California, USA
    Posts
    2,018
    Post Thanks / Like

    Time for some encouraging news boys and girls!

    Yesterday CNSNews reported that the abortion rate had fallen to its lowest since 1973.

    "A recent Guttmacher Institute study shows that the abortion rate in the United States has fallen to its lowest level since 1973, but the study's authors insist that new state-level abortion restrictions had little, if anything, to do with it."

    "With abortion rates falling in almost all states, our study did not find evidence that the national decline in abortions during this period was the result of new state abortion restrictions. We also found no evidence that the decline was linked to a drop in the number of abortion providers during this period," said Rachel Jones, lead author of the study."

    "But pro-life advocates aren't convinced."

    “This Guttmacher report bends over backwards in trying to deny that record-setting, pro-life legislation has made tremendous strides in curbing abortions in the United States," said Dr. Janice Shaw Crouse, executive director of Concerned Women for America’s Beverly LaHaye Institute.

    "Further, the authors try to convince the American public that suddenly couples are using contraception better and timing the spacing of their children better, all the while denying the concrete data showing that abstinence education is improving the future for the nation’s teens and common sense legislation is exposing the profit-centered motivation of the abortion industry." Crouse said fewer young women are engaging in too-early sex, fewer are choosing abortion, fewer doctors are willing to do abortions, and more clinics are closing.”

    This is amazing, given the record unemployment rate, the fact 47% of Americans are not making enough to pay any federal income taxes or so little they qualify for some sort of means-tested federal assistance, and that for the last five years now we've had the most rabidly pro=abortion Administration EVER in the White House. So long as the poor child still has a toe in the birth canal, Obama is perfectly happy to see it murdered; then goes to a prayer breakfast where the pious hypocrite is reported to have said "killing the innocent is the ultimate betrayal of God's will"...referring not to the tens of millions of American citizens we don't have because of Roe v Wade, but to terrorism; although I'm confident he used the "Obama-speak term "Man-caused Disaster".

    Let's all give a shout out to the American woman, who apparently is starting to wake up to the moral atrocity that is abortion.

  2. #2
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,800
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Time for some encouraging news boys and girls!

    Quote Originally Posted by cstamford View Post
    "Further, the authors try to convince the American public that suddenly couples are using contraception better and timing the spacing of their children better, all the while denying the concrete data showing that abstinence education is improving the future for the nation’s teens and common sense legislation is exposing the profit-centered motivation of the abortion industry." Crouse said fewer young women are engaging in too-early sex, fewer are choosing abortion, fewer doctors are willing to do abortions, and more clinics are closing.”

    Well, she would have evidence for that, no?

    and does that study know how many women are fleeing the country and having abortions abroad?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  3. #3
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Time for some encouraging news boys and girls!

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Well, she would have evidence for that, no?

    and does that study know how many women are fleeing the country and having abortions abroad?
    FYI - more information about the group opposing is here: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conten...-women-america. That is a right wing evangelical political group; hardly the best place to rebut a study.

    If you are worried about the lack of facts and abundance of bluster the note no further than Wendy Wright, the group's president, argue with Richard Dawkins that there is no evidence for evolution - http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YFjoEgYOgRo.

    Total time: 5mins to debunk on an iPhone.

  4. #4
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    447
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Time for some encouraging news boys and girls!

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    FYI - more information about the group opposing is here: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conten...-women-america. That is a right wing evangelical political group; hardly the best place to rebut a study.

    If you are worried about the lack of facts and abundance of bluster the note no further than Wendy Wright, the group's president, argue with Richard Dawkins that there is no evidence for evolution - http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YFjoEgYOgRo.

    Total time: 5mins to debunk on an iPhone.
    I don't necessarily disagree with your findings, but ad hominems are not the same as debunking. Just because she is a major player in a group you don't like, doesn't mean everything she says is wrong. Would she be a liar if she said the sky is blue simply because she's part of an evangelical group? I think not. Debunk her facts. Don't attack her character.

  5. Thanks Squatch347 thanked for this post
  6. #5
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Time for some encouraging news boys and girls!

    Quote Originally Posted by LagerHead View Post
    I don't necessarily disagree with your findings, but ad hominems are not the same as debunking. Just because she is a major player in a group you don't like, doesn't mean everything she says is wrong. Would she be a liar if she said the sky is blue simply because she's part of an evangelical group? I think not. Debunk her facts. Don't attack her character.
    Well, I was more explaining why there was a lack of evidence than debunking her per se.

    But as a general rule YECs are not worth debating since we aren't even in the same universe.

    So we may well both agree that the blue but then she'll say that it's this say because God didn't like orange.

    In context, whatever she says will have a Biblical source which is supposed to divined from God. So there's no argument at some point - it's not even worth trying IMHO.

  7. #6
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    447
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Time for some encouraging news boys and girls!

    Quote Originally Posted by JimJones8934 View Post
    Well, I was more explaining why there was a lack of evidence than debunking her per se.

    But as a general rule YECs are not worth debating since we aren't even in the same universe.

    So we may well both agree that the blue but then she'll say that it's this say because God didn't like orange.

    In context, whatever she says will have a Biblical source which is supposed to divined from God. So there's no argument at some point - it's not even worth trying IMHO.
    I read the article. So far you're the only one that has brought up God. She brought up waiting periods and abstinence education, neither of which you have debunked. While you might not have time to debate her based on factors that aren't even part of this article, I do notice you had time to attack her for her beliefs. Kinda telling.

  8. #7
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,399
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Time for some encouraging news boys and girls!

    Quote Originally Posted by LagerHead View Post
    I don't necessarily disagree with your findings, but ad hominems are not the same as debunking. Just because she is a major player in a group you don't like, doesn't mean everything she says is wrong. Would she be a liar if she said the sky is blue simply because she's part of an evangelical group? I think not. Debunk her facts. Don't attack her character.
    I think it is meant to discredit the claim because the claimant has no discernible basis for it. This woman is claiming the study is wrong, but she offers no reason for that and her background in no way gives her a voice of authority on scientific matters, quite the contrary she has a history of denying the products of science for her dogmatic views.

    This makes her argument without any basis other than a simple unsupported claim.


    Interesting they are happy to accept the studies claims when it suits them (that abortion is at an all time low), but selective dispute its other claims that this has little to do with legislation.

    And for the record. Obama is not pro abortion, he is pro choice. He is not advocating that women get abortions, he is advocating they be allowed to decide for themselves if it is right or wrong to have one. He is a strong proponent of contraceptives which arguably reduce the need for abortion more than nearly anything else.


    Cstamford edited his quote from the article to omit the following paragraph which appeared just prior to "But pro-life advocates aren't convinced."
    "Rather, the decline in abortions coincided with a steep national drop in overall pregnancy and birth rates. Contraceptive use improved during this period, as more women and couples were using highly effective long-acting reversible contraceptive methods, such as the IUD. Moreover, the recent recession led many women and couples to want to avoid or delay pregnancy and childbearing."

    Why? Why cut out the actual explanation from the study and selectively include the unscientific doubters?
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  9. #8
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Southern California, USA
    Posts
    2,018
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Time for some encouraging news boys and girls!

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    I think it is meant to discredit the claim because the claimant has no discernible basis for it. This woman is claiming the study is wrong, but she offers no reason for that and her background in no way gives her a voice of authority on scientific matters, quite the contrary she has a history of denying the products of science for her dogmatic views.
    "Janice Shaw Crouse, Ph.D., Senior Fellow at the Beverly LaHaye Institute, the think tank for Concerned Women for America, is a recognized authority on sex trafficking, the United Nations, U.S. domestic issues, as well as national and international cultural, children’s and women’s concerns. She has twice served the President as an official delegate to the United Nations (2002 and 2003). She serves on five national Task Forces and Coalitions on national and international issues: Against Sexual Trafficking, Against Abuse of Women, Against Childhood Obesity, Promoting Human Rights, and Promoting Religious Freedom. The Heritage Foundation nominated her for the 2003 Bradley Prize for her influence on contemporary issues." (Concerned Women Blog)

    So much for the claim "her background in no way gives her a voice of authority", and since she wasn't speaking on "scientific matters" (the methodology or results of such studies not being "scientific" in any meaningful sense of the word), we can safely ignore that here. What her "voice" does is present a viewpoint with which you disagree when it is not at all clear the disagreement doesn't stem more from an ideological conflict than any actual facts, and you're simply dressing a pig in an evening gown with the reference to "science" in your remarks. Fyi, the Guttmacher Institute is not a "scientific" institution. It's a think tank supportive of abortion on demand. In that respect it is similar to the Discovery Institute...which I doubt you'd accept is a "scientific" anything! The use of "dogmatic" in your above also suggests an ideological, rather than a "scientific" or fact-based clash.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried
    This makes her argument without any basis other than a simple unsupported claim.
    Matched if not exceeded only by your own. Or have you received your PhD and I didn't get the memo? Maybe served as a presidential speech writer? Been recognized as an international authority? Been a delegate to the United Nations?

    I think we're forced here to go with "exceeded"; and by a very wide margin. I'm not suggesting her word amounts to proof, just that it carries much more weight than yours does, so you're a little light, shall we say, if all you're bringing against her "voice" is your "voice".

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried
    Interesting they are happy to accept the studies claims when it suits them (that abortion is at an all time low), but selective dispute its other claims that this has little to do with legislation.
    By "interesting" I assume you mean mystifying. Let me clear away the haze. The abortion numbers are a matter of simple data. The relation those numbers have to the legislation data is a matter of evaluation and the methodology employed, and as such is not nearly as certain; as in, rationally open to contestation. Hope this helps.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried
    And for the record. Obama is not pro abortion, he is pro choice.
    Sig, this is a truly hackneyed semantic dodge that I would have thought beneath you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried
    He is not advocating that women get abortions...
    And, of course, no one has EVER suggested that being pro-abortion means one is advocating women get abortions. A detail that doesn't seem to stop this sort of semantic nonsense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried
    Cstamford edited his quote from the article to omit the following paragraph which appeared just prior to "But pro-life advocates aren't convinced."
    "Rather, the decline in abortions coincided with a steep national drop in overall pregnancy and birth rates. Contraceptive use improved during this period, as more women and couples were using highly effective long-acting reversible contraceptive methods, such as the IUD. Moreover, the recent recession led many women and couples to want to avoid or delay pregnancy and childbearing."

    Why? Why cut out the actual explanation from the study and selectively include the unscientific doubters?
    You'll have to explain this to me. Who are the "unscientific doubters"? And where did I include them at the expense of the "actual explanation"? Crouse claims the explanation includes that fewer women are "engaging in too-early sex, fewer are choosing abortion, fewer doctors are willing to do abortions, and more clinics are closing". Why should her opinion simply be dismissed and the Guttmacher study be hailed as "scientific"? Have you examined the study? Do you know enough about the methodology used in this study to know whether or not it is flawed? Of course you don't, and neither do I, so what's your complaint? And why are you making it seem as if I've done something underhanded here; not quite up to your ethical snuff, so to speak? I find that very offensive, coming from you. I expect it from others, but not you.

  10. #9
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Time for some encouraging news boys and girls!

    Quote Originally Posted by LagerHead View Post
    I read the article. So far you're the only one that has brought up God. She brought up waiting periods and abstinence education, neither of which you have debunked. While you might not have time to debate her based on factors that aren't even part of this article, I do notice you had time to attack her for her beliefs. Kinda telling.
    Sure but it really doesn't take long for the intellectual taint of YEC-think to leak through. You may or may not have seen the Nye/Ham debate but when he claimed that all animals were vegetarians before the flood in order to explain how the lions didn't eat everyone else, that's what people of that ilk do.

    So unfortunately, for me the bozo bit is turned on for those kinds of people. I know it's unfair but it does save everybody more Life Force to deal with more productive issues. Luckily, there's no YECs on ODN that I could tell so far - they're generally unpleasant people when debates reach a point they have clearly lost. The Internet is full of such debates and they all lead nowhere.

    However, although she does raise points she doesn't provide evidence in the article, which was my point - don't expect any. If there is evidence then perhaps it is worth arguing further.

 

 

Similar Threads

  1. Backstreet Boys?
    By Mr. Hyde in forum Shootin' the Breeze / Off-Topic
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: November 28th, 2006, 10:42 PM
  2. Samurai, Narnia, and encouraging blind faith
    By Zhavric in forum Religion
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: December 26th, 2005, 09:37 AM
  3. Hello Again, Boys And Girls
    By DeviantNorm in forum Shootin' the Breeze / Off-Topic
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: October 20th, 2005, 10:00 AM
  4. Encouraging news about our border security.
    By KevinBrowning in forum International Affairs
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: June 19th, 2005, 12:00 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •