I don’t need to insult you or Bob. The truth has been far more effective. Sorry to put you through it, but it was your choice.I think your’e blowin’ smoke.
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.
Actually, he misleads by his criticism.I criticize misleading people. What do you think?
By shameful I mean the intentional transmission of bogus information. When you and Bob do that it is shameful.
What truth? You have been challenged again and again to present your data – and you have ducked, dodged and played peek-a-boo.I don’t need to insult you or Bob. The truth has been far more effective. Sorry to put you through it, but it was your choice.
First of all, a few cases is enough to make Bob’s point – it’s your pretense that this is an exercise in statistics.Perhaps you can tell us how your limited exprience with self-selected sample sets translates to the 1.2 million women who abort each year?
Actually, Bob contends his experience with a limited sample set translates to all 1.2 million women who abort each year. That is the issue. I dispute that and showed why.Actually, he misleads by his criticism.
EstesBob rightly points out that many women who have abortions do so under coersion – from parents, boy friends and so on.
Greenjeans then pretends this is a matter of statistics – and that Bob is somehow “misleading” people by presenting his own experience.
Greenjeans then goes on to make nasty remarks like:
The truth is that self-selected sample sets of women in counseling do not translate to 1.2 million women. That’s simple and true.What truth? You have been challenged again and again to present your data – and you have ducked, dodged and played peek-a-boo.
First of all, a few cases is enough to make Bob’s point – it’s your pretense that this is an exercise in statistics.
Secondly, insults don’t equal rational debate.
You’ve conceded the debate through your ungentlemanly behavior.
What are some of the ways we could select a sample that would be representative of the 1.2 million who abort (I think they call it a randomized sample)? There are enormous pressures on some women who abort and there are also those who act like they really couldn’t care less. Statistically how could we find a way to determine the proportion of of the whole that each group comprises?The truth is that self-selected sample sets of women in counseling do not translate to 1.2 million women. That’s simple and true.
A few cases is certinly not sufficient to draw any conclusion about 1.2 million women.
I agree insults do not make an argument. Hence, I have presented the flaws in your notion that characteristics of self-selected sample sets translate to1.2 million women.
You keep claiming victory. A winner doesn’t have to do that.
What’s with all this about self-selected sample-set? Did Bob claim to be a statistician with a sample-set? And where did he “contend” that his experience with women who have had abortions are representative of 1.2 million? He was asking a question to provoke reasonable doubt as to whether that amount of women,given women’s maternal instinct,would have an abortion on their own.That’s more like a hint than a contention. In any case,he would be justified to make such a contention,based on his over quarter-century’s experience and on observational reasoning. Even if statistical evidence appeared which contradicted what Bob believes,he would have justifiable reason to doubt it,because someone else’s statistics cannot overrule one’s own accumulated experience and personal observation on an issue like this.Actually, Bob contends his experience with a limited sample set translates to all 1.2 million women who abort each year. That is the issue. I dispute that and showed why.
Presenting his own experience as his own experience is quite valid. Presenting it as representative of 1.2 million women is statistically invald.
It is shameful for you to mislead people. It does not indicate a leader. Step back.
Amazing, so on the topic of abortion we simply chuck statistics out the window? Why does it have to be “someone else’s statistics”; can’t we do our own? Everything today comes down to studies and numbers; if we want to be taken seriously on any issue, we shouldn’t avoid statistics, we should use it to prove our points.Even if statistical evidence appeared which contradicted what Bob believes,he would have justifiable reason to doubt it,because someone else’s statistics cannot overrule one’s own accumulated experience and personal observation on an issue like this.
What’s so amazing about the idea that statistical thinking shouldn’t overrule reason based on observation and experience on this issue? Statistics are like a crutch,or a prop,or a sorry replacement for real thought. If we were discussing natural phenomena,or physics, then statistics might be more useful and reliable. But this issue involves human feelings,human morality,the killing of human life.Amazing, so on the topic of abortion we simply chuck statistics out the window? Why does it have to be “someone else’s statistics”; can’t we do our own? Everything today comes down to studies and numbers; if we want to be taken seriously on any issue, we shouldn’t avoid statistics, we should use it to prove our points.
It will not be from verbal responses given during a time of crisis, maybe a follow up contact 2 years later?What are some of the ways we could select a sample that would be representative of the 1.2 million who abort (I think they call it a randomized sample)? There are enormous pressures on some women who abort and there are also those who act like they really couldn’t care less. Statistically how could we find a way to determine the proportion of of the whole that each group comprises?
So the problem would be with getting a sample that’s truly representative of the whole, not anything intrinsically wrong with the application of statistics to the study of the abortion issue.It will not be from verbal responses given during a time of crisis, maybe a follow up contact 2 years later?
There is something to what Green Jeans is saying, it would be easy to find 60 women who support these activities, even 60 who support after participation however the key word is “find”. Frankly I place skepticism on all the Q&A statistics from the abortion/plan parenting survey. My guess is many women who have participated would not participate in any activity other than denial.
What’s wrong is in this discussion to pretend that because Estesbob has stated that many women are forced to have abortions – and backed it up with his experience from working for many years with women seeking abortions – that somehow because he didn’t do a deep study, his comments are “bogus.”So the problem would be with getting a sample that’s truly representative of the whole, not anything intrinsically wrong with the application of statistics to the study of the abortion issue.
My own feeling is that the emotional response to abortion is a valid and human reaction, but to be effective in any intelligent debate we can’t just throw science out of the window. We have to understand it and use it.
Just as it’s wrong to divorce science from morality, it’s counterproductive to divorce morality from scientific fact and rational thought.
Insults (intended or unintended) aside, the fact is most of the women Estebob would have met are likely (I say likely because I have no way of knowing for sure) to have been people who were not at peace about having had an abortion. We have no way of knowing what proportion of the people whom he didn’t meet, had no such regrets or qualms of conscience.What’s wrong is in this discussion to pretend that because Estesbob has stated that many women are forced to have abortions – and backed it up with his experience from working for many years with women seeking abortions – that somehow because he didn’t do a deep study, his comments are “bogus.”
That was an insulting accusation that added nothing to the debate, and served only as a red herring.
None of which is germane to the issue – which is that many women are coerced into having abortions.Insults (intended or unintended) aside, the fact is most of the women Estebob would have met are likely (I say likely because I have no way of knowing for sure) to have been people who were not at peace about having had an abortion. We have no way of knowing what proportion of the people whom he didn’t meet, had no such regrets or qualms of conscience.
It is germane, because generalizations were being made which we cannot show are valid (although they very well may be).None of which is germane to the issue – which is that many women are coerced into having abortions.
Bob knows personally of many cases. I have not had as much time, nor am I in such a heavily-populated area as Bob, but I have encountered a significant proportion of those I have helped. Other crisis pregnancy centers I have visited report the same thing.
This reminds me of Brigadier “Boy” Browning – when shown ariel photographs of German armored vehicles in the drop area for the Arnheim bridge, he discounted them – because they only amounted to three photographs out of thousands taken.
Guess what happened to the British and Polish paratroops who dropped into that area?
In all my years of counseling women contemplating abortion or who had had an abortion less than a half dozen made thedecision on their own. Enormous pressure is put on them by their boyfriends/classmates/parents/parents of the father of the cjild/ect
If these assumptions are wrong and the rest of those 1.2 million really have no problem suppressing their “maternal instinct”, then our strategy may end up being wrong.That is why I always find the idea of “choice” so ludricous. Given a Womans natural maternal isntinc do your really think 1.2 million women a year would choose to kill their child on their own?
No, it’s a red herring. It has no bearing on the truth of what Bob said.It is germane, because generalizations were being made which we cannot show are valid (although they very well may be).
They are not “assumptions,” they are observations.If these assumptions are wrong
“Our” strategy?and the rest of those 1.2 million really have no problem suppressing their “maternal instinct”, then our strategy may end up being wrong.
You aren’t taking “a scientific approach.” You’re using a red herring to attack someone who has worked long and hard to prevent abortion.What’s so wrong in taking a scientific approach? The people who need to be convinced have been fed bad science in many cases and this needs to be counteracted by good science. Why should we be afraid to do that?
Bob didn’t make a generalization or a contention,he asked a question expressing reasonable doubt,based on observation and experience. What’s wrong with the scientific approach is that this is a human and moral issue. How is anyone going to be convincedIt is germane, because generalizations were being made which we cannot show are valid (although they very well may be).
If these assumptions are wrong and the rest of those 1.2 million really have no problem suppressing their “maternal instinct”, then our strategy may end up being wrong.
What’s so wrong in taking a scientific approach? The people who need to be convinced have been fed bad science in many cases and this needs to be counteracted by good science. Why should we be afraid to do that?