Obvious Proof that Legalized Abortion Causes More Abortions

That does not lead you to your conclusion and of course you can not provide true correlation between legalization and the number of abortions.
The rise in the years post legalization can be attributed to many factors and most certainly not only to the legal aspect.

 

The correlation is proven by the chart that was actually sourced from a pro abortion site.

Then show us. Prove your point. I have supported mine.

 

I think a mother should only be entitled to one abortion, after that she is just being selfish. The rights of one woman should not trumph that of two babies.

 

Why would they trump the life of one baby?

 

Have you done a study on how many men become infected with STDs because they didn't use a condom? WTF??

How is this relevant to the abortion issue?

Legalized abortion doesn't cause more abortions. Government funding of it does!! If poor people didn't have the means to get an abortion they'd just have the baby and get a bigger rise in their welfare checks.

Education is important, not criminalizing a contraceptive measure that is there because the government refuses to step aside.

 

How is it relevant? It is relevant because some pro abortion posters here have claimed that legalized abortion decreases the frequency of abortion. She backed off after being called out with this chart though.


You seem to be spewing forth some nonsensical opinion here backed by nothing. My assertion is supported by the chart sourced from a pro abortion site. Where is your evidence that govt funding was the deciding factor?

 

The evidence is clear. Liberal laws and social programs reduce the number or unwanted pregnancies and thus abortions, while restrictions do not. This you well know yet you are still choosing to lie about it.

Your assertion is a self serving lie. You can not offer any support for your theory linking the frequency to the legalization.

 

The stats shown on the pro abortion site chart don't lie. You on the other hand....

 

Except the numbers do not show what you are interpreting them to be. Show the correlation if you wish to prove something. ON the other hand, abortion rates in Canada, which has NO laws and other nations that have liberal abortion laws and social support programs ARE in fact lower than in the US.

You have yet to show a single instance where I lied, while your lies are demonstrated all the time.

 

Again, the correlation is shown by the chart. Legalized abortion resulted in dramatically higher abortion rates in the US, if you beleive the pro abortion site's chart. The chart absolutely shows this clearly.

 

The chart shows that the number of reported abortions rose. The chart can't possibly show why. I an find stick charts that will match that. Will that mean that Roe caused a stock price to go up?
So again the chart show numbers not reasons or how the data in the chart is related to anything. That is not the role of a chart, it being only an illustration. Now do you have something that actually proves that Roe caused the number of abortions to raise?

 

I said there is a correlation, and there is. My point is proven definitively.

 

You have said many many things none of which were ever supported. I guess this is just one more of those.

 

The chart itself shows the correlation. The fact that you don't know what a correlation is is not my fault!

 

The chart shows numbers and dates. It does not demonstrate correlation regardless how many times you will claim it does. It is no different than the claim that abortions reduced crime rates.

 

a correlation is merely a relationship. There is clearly a relationship between increasing abortion numbers and the legalization of abortion. People can draw their own conclusions with regard to causation.

 

People cannot "draw their own conclusions" with regard to causation with any accuracy without some evidence. People "drawing their own conclusions" leads to misinformation like that you are falsely touting as truth.

 

But there is nothing you can offer to substantiate that there IS a relationship. As I said, if we were to scour stock charts we could find one that would be close enough to abortion rates. That does not mean if we drew a chart that the two are in any way related.
As for drawing conclusions, one should not just draw their own, one should do so based on the evidence.

 

There is a relationship by the two simply happening in the same time frame. Is there causation? That is for everyone to draw their own conclusion, but it seems obvious to me. The evidence is the chart!

 

That is called coincidence. Look it up in one of your dictionaries.

Of course not.

Only idiots draw conclusions without evidence.

Obviously

Riiiiight........

 

Well you are clearly mistaken. There is no "Study" out there on this subject that isn't tainted by the author's pre conceived notion of where it should lead. If you were honest, you would admit that.

 

That is counter intuitive and there is no proof.

Don't be so hard on yourself!

 

Calling two events taking place at the same time coincidental is counter intuitive for you? Especially when you can not show a relationship?
Can you be more blatantly disingenuous?

It was YOU who suggested drawing conclusions without evidence. I prefer to look at the evidence, you are avoiding it like the plague.

 

I know you have difficulty with well reasoned posts, so I'll try again. It is logical and reasonable that making something legal that was previously illegal, will increase the frequency of the act in question. That is intuitive.

I am looking at the evidence. The number of abortions skyrocketed immediately after the law suddenly allowed them when it did not before. A reasonable inference can be drawn that there is a causal effect. It makes sense and is logical to think so.

 

I guess you are lacking in logic and reason then, because that is not what the evidence indicates worldwide. "Intuition" is not a reliable predictor of events.

"Skyrocketed"??? LOL, guess again. It does NOT make sense to assume a causal effect from a correlation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

Correlation does not imply causation" (related to "ignoring a common cause" and questionable cause) is a phrase used in science and statistics to emphasize that correlation between two variables does not automatically imply that one causes the other (though correlation is necessary for linear causation in the absence of any third and countervailing causative variable, and can indicate possible causes or areas for further investigation; in other words, correlation can be a hint).[1][2]

The opposite belief, correlation proves causation, is a logical fallacy by which two events that occur together are claimed to have a cause-and-effect relationship. The fallacy is also known as cum hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for "with this, therefore because of this") and false cause. By contrast, the fallacy post hoc ergo propter hoc requires that one event occur before the other and so may be considered a type of cum hoc fallacy.