Is Father Newman correct?

  • Thread starter Thread starter w_stewart
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Your thinking is skewed. It is not true that the majority of women seeking abortions are poor. That is utterly false. And how exactly is giving anyone license to kill their offspring a viable way of serving them? I didn’t even mention serving or not serving the poor. It looks like you are grasping at straws. Typical, when one has run out of ideas. How much more crystal do you need “THOU SHALT NOT MURDER” to be?
While AgingCatholic is debating whether or not to take 5 minutes to print and sign the NRLC petition against the Freedom of Choice Act, I should also provide a reminder that AC promised us statistical analysis of abortion trends for the data I linked to earlier.

The correlation coefficient between poverty rate and abortion rate would be good to include in that analysis, in addition to the hard data concerning abortion rates by income. Quintiles would be fine; that’s the standard approach for economic analysis. Make sure to use real (inflation-adjusted) dollars, AC.
 
We have no idea why individual people choose particular sins. We only know that the majority of women procuring abortions in the US live at or near the poverty line and about half of them are already mothers.

Yes, Jesus said that the poor will always be with us, but he also answered questions on salvation the same basic themes. In Matthew 25 they are repeated four times in a parable to make them crystal clear.

If you think that we are not deeply obliged to service the poor, then you might want to look up the origins of the word Gospel.
You may find this analysis from Catholics in Alliance of interest: Reducing Abortion in America: The Effect of Socioeconomic Factors (pdf).

To quote:Recent research finds that the abortion rate among women living below the poverty level is more than four times that of women above 300% of the poverty level. This study of all U.S. states finds that social and economic factors such as higher male employment, lower poverty rates and economic assistance to low-income families have contributed significantly to reducing the number of abortions in the United States in the 1990s.

rossum
 
You may find this analysis from Catholics in Alliance of interest: Reducing Abortion in America: The Effect of Socioeconomic Factors (pdf).

To quote:Recent research finds that the abortion rate among women living below the poverty level is more than four times that of women above 300% of the poverty level. This study of all U.S. states finds that social and economic factors such as higher male employment, lower poverty rates and economic assistance to low-income families have contributed significantly to reducing the number of abortions in the United States in the 1990s.

rossum
And would you care to share who Catholics in Alliance are?
 
Your thinking is skewed. It is not true that the majority of women seeking abortions are poor. That is utterly false. And how exactly is giving anyone license to kill their offspring a viable way of serving them? I didn’t even mention serving or not serving the poor. It looks like you are grasping at straws. Typical, when one has run out of ideas. How much more crystal do you need “THOU SHALT NOT MURDER” to be?
Actually, it is inarguably true. More than half of women who procure abortions in the US live at or near the poverty line. About half (49%) are already mothers and 27% are Catholic. These are things we can count and, as Pope Benedict pointed out, Reason and Faith are compatible, not at odds.

If your view of faith cannot be matched to measurable reality, your view of faith is wrong.

The interesting part about your “grasping at straws” argument is that you are having an argument with someone who is not here.

I have never questioned the Church’s teaching on life, including abortion. I have merely noted that every single Catholic who voted for a major party candidate would have had to apply proportionate reasons to do so - because all the candidates have intrinsically evil positions.

Jesus directly mocked the argument that pointing to someone else’s sins was a valid excuse for one’s own sins before God (see the parables in Luke).

I am just saying that beating your chest and professing your own piety and the inarguable sinfulness of others is neither compatible with the scriptures or Catholic doctrine (which I have quoted).
 
You may find this analysis from Catholics in Alliance of interest: Reducing Abortion in America: The Effect of Socioeconomic Factors (pdf).

To quote:Recent research finds that the abortion rate among women living below the poverty level is more than four times that of women above 300% of the poverty level. This study of all U.S. states finds that social and economic factors such as higher male employment, lower poverty rates and economic assistance to low-income families have contributed significantly to reducing the number of abortions in the United States in the 1990s.

rossum
Actually, I don’t mind the secular research to the contrary. A connection between poverty and an evil like abortion makes Jesus message all the more reaffirming and relevant.
 
You may find this analysis from Catholics in Alliance of interest: Reducing Abortion in America: The Effect of Socioeconomic Factors (pdf).

To quote:Recent research finds that the abortion rate among women living below the poverty level is more than four times that of women above 300% of the poverty level. This study of all U.S. states finds that social and economic factors such as higher male employment, lower poverty rates and economic assistance to low-income families have contributed significantly to reducing the number of abortions in the United States in the 1990s.

rossum
Congratulations—you’ve uncovered the most error-ridden analysis I’ve seen!

Two sleights of hand performed here:
  1. Note that confidence levels on significance of primary interactions has been reduced to 90%. Sodak can weight in, but what that tells us is they failed to attain the 95% confidence which is the minimum standard commonly used in statistical analysis. It is FAR easier to falsely discriminate variables at 90% than at 95% or 99% confidence levels. It is a sure sign of book-cooking.
  2. They have performed multivariate analysis as univariate. What this means is that they calculated R-sq (model fit—how well a regression fits the data) for each main effect. Of course, these effects are not independent and sequential but dependent and simultaneous. In any model, one must examine interactions as well as primary effects. They have not done this.
  3. I also don’t see anything but the summary results here. I can’t see any evidence that multivariate analysis was performed at all—say, an ANOVA table. The table at the bottom of Table 2 indicates that the data was filtered differently for each variable—for example, Kansas results were included in some but not all. Moreover, two columns were “weighted” and seem to have used different transformations. This is problematic because the independent and dependent variables must be transformed the same way—just as when transforming an algebra equation one must perform identical actions to each side of the = sign.
  4. The proper way to run such multivariate analysis is to first screen variables, determing significance at 95% confidence level, rerun the model with only significant factors, and check the R-sq for model fit. I generally don’t accept a model with an R-sq < .64 (2 variables, each having to correlate 80% or higher with the dependent variable). Other rules of thumb apply; some won’t take an R-sq < 80% and presume they’ve missed a variable if they get less than that.
Is there a full-blown paper which provides the raw data and all the statistical analysis?
 
You might have missed this, TMC—what say you?

I downloaded mine, printed it, and my wife and I filled it out. Tomorrow our friends will sign it (non-Catholics mainly) and by Monday it will be in the mail to the National Right to Life Committee, where it will be consolidated and sent to Congress to let them know we will not stand idly by as this abominable legislation is considered.

Will you print it, sign it, and send it in TMC?

AgingCatholic, feel free to join us as well. Stand up for the unborn!
bump bump, AC
 
And would you care to share who Catholics in Alliance are?
You have access to exactly the same information as I do:Who We Are

Welcome to Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good. The Alliance promotes awareness of the Catholic Social Tradition and its core values of justice, human dignity and the common good to Catholics, the media and Americans of all faiths. Catholics in Alliance is committed to building a consistent culture of life that reverences the dignity of the human person at all stages over a culture of greed, materialism and the politics of division

Source: catholicsinalliance.org/

rossum
 
While AgingCatholic is debating whether or not to take 5 minutes to print and sign the NRLC petition against the Freedom of Choice Act, I should also provide a reminder that AC promised us statistical analysis of abortion trends for the data I linked to earlier.
Actually no, that is one of several debates you are having. You have never addressed my point. Namely, that in declaring your own involvement with evil inarguably righteous and prudential judgements different from your own inarguably evil, you are placing yourself above the Church in terms of moral authority and are seemingly dismissing Christ’s direct warning against such messages.

I have quoted the Church extensively on the matter, and you keep citing political sources and poor statistics of your own devising. The question ultimately becomes are you, or are you not, a true believer in an apostolic Church?

I point to Rome, you point to politics, the seeming answer would be no, but I could not presume that against someone else because I am instructed to view your words in deeds in the most favorable light. But it is a question every Catholic should repeatedly ask himself (or at least so Pope Leo said).

Being in agreement on a specific issue is not the same as accepting the Catholic reasoning behind a specific Church position. Take your reasoning on abortion related voting on the basis of ‘math’.

When you say the issues is a simple numerical comparison (1.2 million is huge!) you have already somewhat abandoned the Catholic foundation for our position. Imagine the following (and with no disrespect to Senator McCain, who is a fellow Vietnam Vet and someone I met several times through my work at Walter Reed):

Let’s say that voters learned that Senator McCain kept you, and only you, a prisoner in one of his basements. You were forced to wear leather bondage attire and kept chained with a dog collar to the wall. Though forced to live in your own filth, you were well fed with scraps from the table and anything that the pets did not finish. However, to help with his well known anger issues, he would periodically come down and beat you, with special attention to your genitalia, with a ceremonial golf club I once saw him receive (for physical reasons, I sincerely doubt he golfs). On rare occasions he would hose off the filth and sodomize you.

Using your math based reasoning, Senator McCain would still be the inarguable choice for President, since the 1.2 million murders would trump 1 imprisonment.

But I do not know many (any?) practicing Catholics who would vote for a candidate who kept a house slave to beat and sodomize. That is because they know, instinctively, that it is a horrific attack against the inalienable rights of the human person. Intrinsic evil is, as Pope John Paul II explained, simply a line which Christians do not pass.

Now here is the thing, the Church teaching that makes chaining your and beating your genitalia evil is the same teaching upon which I belief in the right to life is based. Look at Christifideles Laici (#38). Abortion is not some separate issue, it it tied, by name, to these other forbidden affronts to human life. And, not just by John Paul. The Pope quotes the Pastoral Constitution of the Church. Formed by ecumenical council, this is presumed to represent the highest form of the infallibility of the Church.

If the evils are the same, why are reactions different? If forced to vote for a violent slave keeping sexual offender, most Catholics would feel a huge amount of nagging self doubt. But I hear you profess to know self doubt about supporting the rendering of children limb from limb. The answer is something you will have to answer to God, but the appearance is that, while you claim to object to abortion, your underlying motives are not the same as the Church’s.

As far as the personal challenge, that is another form of moral relativism. You are, seemingly, arguing, ‘look at all I do, I’m not a bystander like you’. If you must know, I spent most of my working life reconstructing the bodies of people ravaged by war. At the risk of losing my anonymity, I also co-founded one of the largest private half way house programs for pregnant teens in the country. My attitude was, and is, if you want to stop abortions you have to give people other options. Now that I am retired, I do hospice care and provide respite care for families with severely disabled members.

This is not a matter of tooting my horn. As I am coming to the end of life, I spend a lot of time thinking about how little I have down in the service of others. I will be crawling before St. Peter and admission, if it occurs, will only be because of great forgiveness on the part of the Lord.

On that note, I will leave this discussion to you and others. Frankly, this site is not what I expected. I had expected that there would be a lot of people like myself, who are looking to learn more about their faith. It seems like most of the discussion is on who is the most righteous and who is the most evil. Frankly, that is not my thing.

Peace
 
  1. Note that confidence levels on significance of primary interactions has been reduced to 90%.
Please provide a reference to a study with a 95% confidence level then.
  1. They have performed multivariate analysis as univariate. What this means is that they calculated R-sq (model fit—how well a regression fits the data) for each main effect. Of course, these effects are not independent and sequential but dependent and simultaneous. In any model, one must examine interactions as well as primary effects. They have not done this.
What is preventing you from doing just this? When you have done it you can tell us whether or not the changed results have any impact on the paper’s conclusions.
  1. I also don’t see anything but the summary results here.
There is a list of data sources at the end of the paper. You are at liberty to go directly to those sources and perform your own analysis on the data.
  1. The proper way to run such multivariate analysis is to first screen variables, determing significance at 95% confidence level, rerun the model with only significant factors, and check the R-sq for model fit. I generally don’t accept a model with an R-sq < .64 (2 variables, each having to correlate 80% or higher with the dependent variable). Other rules of thumb apply; some won’t take an R-sq < 80% and presume they’ve missed a variable if they get less than that.
And your results from performing this analysis correctly are?
Is there a full-blown paper which provides the raw data and all the statistical analysis?
There is a list of data sources at the end of the study. If you contact the author directly he may well be able to provide further materials.

rossum
 
You might have missed this, TMC—what say you?

I downloaded mine, printed it, and my wife and I filled it out. Tomorrow our friends will sign it (non-Catholics mainly) and by Monday it will be in the mail to the National Right to Life Committee, where it will be consolidated and sent to Congress to let them know we will not stand idly by as this abominable legislation is considered.

Will you print it, sign it, and send it in TMC?

AgingCatholic, feel free to join us as well. Stand up for the unborn!
I’ll think about it, but I don’t think I will. I took a look at it, and I think its inaccurate. I also don’t think these kinds of mass signings have much effect. I can’t remember ever signing one. I usually directly contact my representatives on issues when I have something to say. None of them have come out in support of FOCA, but if it moves out of committee I will contact them. I think individual contacts from voters mean more to politicians than signature drives from organizations.
 
Please provide a reference to a study with a 95% confidence level then.
If I had the raw data I could simply calculate it for you. They have not provided it in what you attached. Perhaps there was a link to the data set they used?
What is preventing you from doing just this? When you have done it you can tell us whether or not the changed results have any impact on the paper’s conclusions.
I need the raw data. If they granted access to their data set, which is the honest, transparent practice, I would be glad to run the numbers.
There is a list of data sources at the end of the paper. You are at liberty to go directly to those sources and perform your own analysis on the data.
I will check them, but it’s not the same as having the raw data they used for the analysis. The way they list the links, I will have to completely reconstruct their data.
And your results from performing this analysis correctly are?
I will tell you when I get the data.
There is a list of data sources at the end of the study. If you contact the author directly he may well be able to provide further materials.
I will do that and publish the response I get if any here.
 
I’ll think about it, but I don’t think I will. I took a look at it, and I think its inaccurate. I also don’t think these kinds of mass signings have much effect. I can’t remember ever signing one. I usually directly contact my representatives on issues when I have something to say. None of them have come out in support of FOCA, but if it moves out of committee I will contact them. I think individual contacts from voters mean more to politicians than signature drives from organizations.
I am bookmarking this. I will ask you if it gets out of committee.
 
AC, TMC has responded.

You have neither delivered the data you promised, engaged in the mathematical discussion you promised, nor answered as to whether you will sign the NRLC petition opposing the Freedom of Choice Act which will force your fellow Catholic doctors to tear unborn children limb from limb or leave medicine.

As for my justification for McCain, I answered you in full, including the embryonic research position above. Look for the post where I compare Obama and McCain’s legislative record on abortion.

You have also for the record not stated whether or not you agree with the Church’s teaching on abortion.
 
Please do, but don’t hold your breath. Its been in committee in for twenty or so years and its not coming out anytime soon.
I hope you’re right, but Obama said it would be the 1st thing he did.

We’re both praying he’s a liar.
 
And before I am accused of dishonesty (again), here’s the video of Barack Obama promising that the 1st thing he’d do as President would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act. Comes at about 1:35.

youtube.com/watch?v=pf0XIRZSTt8
 
I have never questioned the Church’s teaching on life, including abortion. I have merely noted that every single Catholic who voted for a major party candidate would have had to apply proportionate reasons to do so - because all the candidates have intrinsically evil positions.
When this is the case, the Church has consistently taught that we are to then vote for the lesser of 2 evils. McCain is inarguably the lesser of 2 evils, and many of the Catholics Bishops have made this point, one which you continue to ignore. You never answered my question on Obama either.
I am just saying that beating your chest and professing your own piety and the inarguable sinfulness of others is neither compatible with the scriptures or Catholic doctrine (which I have quoted).
Nobody has done this. You are grossly exaggerating the arguments to the point they aren’t even recognizable.
  1. Note that confidence levels on significance of primary interactions has been reduced to 90%. Sodak can weight in, but what that tells us is they failed to attain the 95% confidence which is the minimum standard commonly used in statistical analysis. It is FAR easier to falsely discriminate variables at 90% than at 95% or 99% confidence levels. It is a sure sign of book-cooking.
That’s for sure.
 
Actually no, that is one of several debates you are having. You have never addressed my point. Namely, that in declaring your own involvement with evil inarguably righteous and prudential judgements different from your own inarguably evil, you are placing yourself above the Church in terms of moral authority and are seemingly dismissing Christ’s direct warning against such messages.
Actually, it’s quite easy to call abortion inarguably evil by the Church’s teachings. It’s been called an intrinsic evil by the Bishops and the Pope. What more do you need? There is no grey here, despite all your efforts at obfuscation.
I have quoted the Church extensively on the matter, and you keep citing political sources and poor statistics of your own devising. The question ultimately becomes are you, or are you not, a true believer in an apostolic Church?
I would ask you the same thing. You seem to take delight in moral relativism. Your quotes are selective cherry picking to support a position. You’ve not answered many questions.

Do you consider abortion evil? Yes or no.
Let’s say that voters learned that Senator McCain kept you, and only you, a prisoner in one of his basements. You were forced to wear leather bondage attire and kept chained with a dog collar to the wall. Though forced to live in your own filth, you were well fed with scraps from the table and anything that the pets did not finish. However, to help with his well known anger issues, he would periodically come down and beat you, with special attention to your genitalia, with a ceremonial golf club I once saw him receive (for physical reasons, I sincerely doubt he golfs). On rare occasions he would hose off the filth and sodomize you.
This kind of nonsense has no place in a Catholic forum.
On that note, I will leave this discussion to you and others. Frankly, this site is not what I expected. I had expected that there would be a lot of people like myself, who are looking to learn more about their faith. It seems like most of the discussion is on who is the most righteous and who is the most evil. Frankly, that is not my thing.
Again, you’re accusing someone falsely. This is a discussion about the intrinsic evil of abortion. Something you can’t seem to admit.

I also notice you are ducking doing the math, something that you promised to do earlier.
 
I hope you’re right, but Obama said it would be the 1st thing he did.

We’re both praying he’s a liar.
Y’know, the whole “FOCA has no chance of passing” argument had been bothering me, but I couldn’t articulate why. I thought of something this morning:

If a candidate promised to immediately pass legislation eliminating all welfare programs for blacks, would this cause you to re-evaluate your support?

Why not? No chance of passing (and let’s say one major party had been trying to get the anti-welfare for blacks bill through congress for YEARS), right? Or does this give you enough insight to the character of the candidate and his goals to cease supporting him because he’s a racist?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top