I've been thinking.... abortion isn't the problem

[vern_humphrey]

Who is impelled to stop your work against abortion?

Then why do you keep challenging Bob’s experience, telling us it won’t work and so on?

What is your aim here?

 

[estesbob]

Maybe we can get someone from Planned Parenthood who can talk about the twenty-five years she has interviewed members who have had abortions. Then she can tell us how happy they are, how well adjusted they are, and how they have no regrets. Then she could impute the happiness of her self-selected sample set to all the 1.2 women who have abortions each year.

?

How would they know? Planned Parenthood has no contact with these women once they have had an abortion. But then you evidently know as little about this as you do everything else connected to the issue. You have been asked several times-what expertise do you bring to this dicsussion?

 

[estesbob]

Then why do you keep challenging Bob’s experience, telling us it won’t work and so on?

What is your aim here?

To him its an issue-to us its a life. In his mind if nothing can be done about abortion he can vote for pro-abortion canidates with no remorse.

 

[GreenJeans]

I notice you did not answer my question about how many women you have counseled.

But Bob’s experience tallies with mine – although I have not been at it so long, nor in such a populated area. I’ve worked with about 60 women and girls.

And his experience tallies with that of all the other crisis pregnancy centers I’ve consulted with.

So what’s your basis of experience?

And once again, what’s your motivation for attacking people who are trying to reduce abortion in this country?

Bob’s experience probably does tally with yours. You both deal with self-selected groups of women with problems.

OK. Tell us about your sample set of 60. Why did they approach you? Was it because they had a problem with what they did? If so, is it valid to impute their characteristics to all 1.2 million?

The fact that someone wants to reduce abortion in this country is no reason to accept bogus statistical inferences. Is it?

 

[GreenJeans]

Then why do you keep challenging Bob’s experience, telling us it won’t work and so on?

What is your aim here?

My aim is to challenge bogus statistical inferences being used to mislead people. I find it a noble calling. Challenging, but deeply satisfying. Don’t fret, I challenge the abortion proponents on their bogus stuff, too.

 

[GreenJeans]

How would they know? Planned Parenthood has no contact with these women once they have had an abortion. But then you evidently know as little about this as you do everything else connected to the issue. You have been asked several times-what expertise do you bring to this dicsussion?

Do you think her conclusions would be correct? Why?

 

[seekerz]

A word to the wise – don’t ever commit a serious crime, because your understanding of how the judicial process works is seriously flawed.

Did you somehow get your law degree between this post and your last one?

I asked a simple question, you respond with a jeer. Is that how a rational discussion is carried out?

Don’t worry, I get the message, anyone who does not think exactly as some pro-life people here think could not possibly be pro-life! Regardless of how far I have personally gone to save a single life, I have “off the wall” objections, so rather than address specifics you dismiss me as a traitor to the cause. Fine with me; the babies lives that are saved are still saved, regardless of your opinion.

I would however like to hear from those who have experience reaching out to doctors who perform abortions or soon-to-be doctors who may have to make the decision for or against. That approach is one I’d like to be involved in…If less people performed abortions, more lives would be saved - today, not in some distant tomorrow.

 

[estesbob]

My aim is to challenge bogus statistical inferences being used to mislead people. I find it a noble calling. Challenging, but deeply satisfying. Don’t fret, I challenge the abortion proponents on their bogus stuff, too.

I take it then you answer to the question about your experience is you have none. Your comment about woman not being forced to have an abortion showed such profound igiorance of the issue I had to start asking where you were coming from . Like I told Vern its waste of time debating someone who has little or no knowledge of the area being debated. Hes all yours vern-Im outahere.

 

[seekerz]

Green Jeans, I don’t know where you stand on the issue of abortion, but it’s difficult enough having a rational discussion. Did you have to bring statistics into it? At the best of times it’s been the bane of my existence…

(You know I’m only kidding right?)

 

[GreenJeans]

I take it then you answer to the question about your experience is you have none. Your comment about woman not being forced to have an abortion showed such profound igiorance of the issue I had to start asking where you were coming from . Like I told Vern its waste of time debating someone who has little or no knowledge of the area being debated. Hes all yours vern-Im outahere.

OK. Sorry to see you go. I think it’s important for people to have accurate information, and peddling bogus information is a disservice to both one’s cause, and the people to whom it is being directed.

Here’s the basic problem. If we want to determine the characteristics of a large group, like the 1.2 million women who get abortions each year, we have two approaches. First, we can interview each and every one. That’s really hard. Second, we can craft a sample set that is statistically representative of the group, and interview them.

This is what happens with all those polls we keep hearing about. Pollsters try to get a sample set of about 1,000 people who represent the whole population. Usually they do it by random phone calls. It is far from perfect, and can lead to misleading results, but it is about the best we have yet devised.

Now, suppose I wanted to know who would win the presidential election. Further, suppose I got a list of all the the Democratic county chairmen in the country. Then I call each one and ask who they will vote for. Would anyone be suprised if my poll showed the democrat would win by a huge margin?

This is because the sample set does not reflect the population. It is all democrats, with no republicans represented.

This is what Bob’s sample set is like. It contains only people who have problems with their abortion decision. These are the people who come for counseling. So, using Bob’s sample set gives us what is called a skewed result. It is skewed in favor of people who have problems.

Of course Bob’s sample set shows lots of people with problems because only people with problems are in the sample set. It’s just like the sample list of democrats. Of course they would show a democratic victory because they are all democrats.

So, Bob’s sample set doesn’t tell us anyhting about the 1.2 million women who have abortions each year. It just tells us about the ones with problems. It doesn’t include the people who do not have problems. That’s why it is invalid, and that’s why it can’t tell us anything about those 1.2 million women.

 

[GreenJeans]

Green Jeans, I don’t know where you stand on the issue of abortion, but it’s difficult enough having a rational discussion. Did you have to bring statistics into it? At the best of times it’s been the bane of my existence…

(You know I’m only kidding right?)

I am conflicted about that. It’s not an easy path I have chosen.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Bob’s experience probably does tally with yours. You both deal with self-selected groups of women with problems.

OK. Tell us about your sample set of 60. Why did they approach you? Was it because they had a problem with what they did? If so, is it valid to impute their characteristics to all 1.2 million?

The fact that someone wants to reduce abortion in this country is no reason to accept bogus statistical inferences. Is it?

First you tell us about your sample. Tell us about your hands-on experience in this field.

Most young women who wind up at pregnancy crisis centers are truly in need – and a great many are being pressured to have abortions by parents, boy-friends and so on.

 

[GreenJeans]

First you tell us about your sample. Tell us about your hands-on experience in this field.

Most young women who wind up at pregnancy crisis centers are truly in need – and a great many are being pressured to have abortions by parents, boy-friends and so on.

Looks like both you and Bob are peddling bogus information. Why? Isn’t your argument strong enough to stand on the truth? That’s shameful. It’s shameful you mislead, and it’s shameful you disrespect your cause like that.

It’s really no stretch to say people who end up at a crisis enter are in need. What’s your point? It’s just another self-selected sample set.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Looks like both you and Bob are peddling bogus information.

Tht remark is a violation of the rules. We both are entitled to an apology.

Why? Isn’t your argument strong enough to stand on the truth? That’s shameful. It’s shameful you mislead, and it’s shameful you disrespect your cause like that.

What’s shameful is when you use childish accusations like this.

It’s really no stretch to say people who end up at a crisis enter are in need. What’s your point? It’s just another self-selected sample set.

And what’s your point? That abortion isn’t wrong?
That women who are under extreme pressure don’t go to crisis centers?

 

[GreenJeans]

Tht remark is a violation of the rules. We both are entitled to an apology.

What’s shameful is when you use childish accusations like this.

And what’s your point? That abortion isn’t wrong?
That women who are under extreme pressure don’t go to crisis centers?

No violation of any rule, and no apology. You and Bob are trying to tell us that your limited experience with self-selected groups validly translates to 1.2 million women. It doesn’t.

By shameful I mean the intentional transmission of bogus information. When you and Bob do that it is shameful. If you cannot champion your cause without such tactics, I suggest you pass the baton to someone who can. Many can do it. Some can’t.

My point is that a self-selected group of people with problems is not a valid sample set from which to infer the characteristics of 1.2million.

Ain’t this a great country?

 

[vern_humphrey]

No violation of any rule, and no apology. You and Bob are trying to tell us that your limited experience with self-selected groups validly translates to 1.2 million women. It doesn’t.

You are quite free to present any data you have that refutes us.

By shameful I mean the intentional transmission of bogus information. When you and Bob do that it is shameful. If you cannot champion your cause without such tactics, I suggest you pass the baton to someone who can. Many can do it. Some can’t.

I see that when you run out of arguments, you resort to insults.

 

[GreenJeans]

You are quite free to present any data you have that refutes us.

I see that when you run out of arguments, you resort to insults.

I think I have done quite a good job already. Nothing more is needed. What do you think?

I don’t mean to insult you. I just observe that people who mislead others about their cause are not fit advocates for their cause. They do more harm than good. Perhaps their time is done, and they should just let others take over.

 

[mary_bobo]

Well, is the self-selected group of people you counsel representative of the 1.2 million women who get abortions? What causes them to seek such counseling?

Suppose I found a group the same size as your counseling group, and they were comfortable with their decisions? Would that indicate 1.2 million women were comfortable with their abortion decision?

I see that you are a new member. Welcome to the forum. Since you did not deem to put any personal informtion on your bio, I can only assume that you are not a Catholic. Did you join merely to criticize?

 

[vern_humphrey]

I think I have done quite a good job already. Nothing more is needed. What do you think?

I think your’e blowin’ smoke.

I don’t mean to insult you. I just observe that people who mislead others about their cause are not fit advocates for their cause. They do more harm than good. Perhaps their time is done, and they should just let others take over.

Yes you did mean to insult Bob and I. And the proof is you kept doing it after you were called.

Insults are no substitute for rational debate. You have lost the debate through your ungentlemanly behavior.

End of story.

 

[GreenJeans]

I see that you are a new member. Welcome to the forum. Since you did not deem to put any personal informtion on your bio, I can only assume that you are not a Catholic. Did you join merely to criticize?

I criticize misleading people. What do you think?