Teen Pregnancy Drops as Planned Parenthood Vanishes

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
So this is BS than, correct?

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

And since this is BS, the argument that abortion shouddl be legal otherwise it infringes on the Liberty of woman is also BS, correct? [/quote]

are you calling a fetus a man ?
[/quote]

I’m calling an unborn baby a person…[/quote]

if that is your point then we are in disagreement of the period before viability
[/quote]

Yes we do disagree on what “viability” means.

82

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Perhaps you’ll give me straight answer.

Does this:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Hold true or not?[/quote]

On a purely philosophical level? Of course. On a practical level? Well, your mileage may vary.

Are all human beings “created” equal, in terms of intelligence and genetic potential? Of course not. Are they endowed by virtue of their creation with unalienable rights? Well, sure, but define unalienable. In practice these rights are alienated all the time, whether they should be or not.

What then do we do about it?

Jefferson said that the rights of “all men” are unalienable. We assume he was including women and children into the blanket pronouncement, but I wonder how self-evident that the proposition that an unborn female African baby had identically unalienable rights as a white Virginia property owner would have been in 1776.

And yes, we are the only species which has developed the technology to practice infanticide before the babies are actually born, but we are not by any means the only species to practice infanticide.

83

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Your graph shows the trend of planned parenthood shutting down clinics. As the number of clinics drop, correlationally, aside from a minor bump around 2005, the numbers of teen pregnancies also dropped.
[/quote]

No no. The first graph plotted the teen pregnancy rate over a span from 1988 to 2006. Aside from the first and last years shown, the rate fell through the entirety of the timespan. During that precise span of time, per the PP Clinic graph, the number of PP clinics rises considerably and then falls back down to just about exactly the same y-axis location that it began with. It shows, on other words, just about a zero net change from 1988 to 2006.

So: PP clinics rise and then fall (with some smaller rises and falls tucked in between) and yet teen pregnancy falls the whole way through. On this evidence, there is exactly no way to argue a correlation between PP Clinics and teen pregnancy rates. None whatsoever.

Every peak and every drop in the PP clinic graph has exactly no analogue in the teen pregnancy rate graph. I’m not saying that there isn’t a 1:1 correlation, I’m saying that there is absolutely no correlation to speak of whatsoever. If PP clinics had, by virtue of their existing, an inflationary effect on teen pregnancy rates, the teen pregnancy rate would have to reflect this in some or another way. It does not, at all. It falls and falls with no care vis-a-vis the trend or absolute position of the PP clinic graph.[/quote]

Both show a reduction. One shows a reduction in teen birth the other shows a reduction in pp clinics. There being a wiggly line on the pp graph does still show that the trend is downwards.

You cannot disassemble the correlation when you display data that shows both trending down. That is more indicative of correlation than it is not.

84

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
On a purely philosophical level? Of course. On a practical level? Well, your mileage may vary.
[/quote]

Then the argument about women’s right to liberty hold no water because it requires ignoring an unborn child’s right to life.

I agree.

Again, I agree.

[quote]
And yes, we are the only species which has developed the technology to practice infanticide before the babies are actually born, but we are not by any means the only species to practice infanticide. [/quote]

Right, pre-birth, which is different than any other species. What’s ironic (suppose that’s the right word) is that we are okay with pre-birth infanticide, but not post birth infanticide. Where as in the wild it’s quite the opposite. Although I doubt in the wild animals really “care” one way or the other.

Again, for the record, this entire line of thought was directed at the use of “Liberty” as a reason abortion should be legal while ignoring “Life” when it comes to an unborn child. I think that’s inconsistent.

85

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]flipcollar wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

1988 to 2005
PP clinics drop by 2% (about 20 of over 800)
Teen births drop over 30%[/quote]

Yep. Now do the same thing for 1988 to 2000 and see if there’s any evidence of correlation there.

There simply isn’t any correlation between the two data sets. PP Clinics rise and fall and rise and fall and rise and fall, and teen pregnancy falls. And that’s it.[/quote]

And we should know that coorelation does not equal causation anyways. Unless we would like to argue that Democratic Presidents lead to a decrease in teenage pregnancy considering the lower rates under Obama vs. Bush. [/quote]

good point. Even if the graphs HAD shown close correlation, one could have just as easily made the argument that fewer teen pregnancies were what led to PP clinics closing (lower demand).
[/quote]

You’re both absolutely right, correlation/causation fallacy would come into play.

In this case though, there isn’t even correlation. Just two lines doing their thing with no regard for each other.[/quote]

The data is correlative. Causation is another thing altogether. If you show two different things with a common thread, i.e. a downward trend you are implying there is a correlation. You would want to show data where one goes up or stays the same as the other trends downward. It is the case however, that both charts show a downward trend.

86

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
So sufiandy do unalienable rights exist or not? [/quote]

Depends on your definition of them. I was only disputing that ours are different than animals, assuming they exist for the sake of this discussion.[/quote]

Well we can start with:

Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Are these unalienable rights?

[/quote]

Yes.

Are these unalienable rights for non-humans?

87

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
So sufiandy do unalienable rights exist or not? [/quote]

Depends on your definition of them. I was only disputing that ours are different than animals, assuming they exist for the sake of this discussion.[/quote]

Well we can start with:

Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Are these unalienable rights?

[/quote]

Yes.

Are these unalienable rights for non-humans?[/quote]

I’m not non-human, so I can’t really answer that. Can animals “Pursue Happiness?” I don’t know.

88

[quote]pat wrote:

Both show a reduction. One shows a reduction in teen birth the other shows a reduction in pp clinics. There being a wiggly line on the pp graph does still show that the trend is downwards.

You cannot disassemble the correlation when you display data that shows both trending down. That is more indicative of correlation than it is not.[/quote]

They do not. Look at years of concurrence and then come back. The PP Clinic graph shows effectively zero net change over the years of concurrence. This is not a reduction. It is a spike and then a drop back to the level that it began with. Over this time, the teen pregnancy rate does not spike and then drop, and does not show a net change of zero. It simply falls.

To make a larger point, the “look at what both graphs are doing–falling” argument–which, as I’ve proved again and again, is factually inaccurate for the years of concurrence between the two graphs–is not how correlation is suggested. Correlation implies that when one data set trends in a particular, statistically-significant direction over a number of time-intervals, another data set will follow. This is absolutely, unequivocally not borne out in the data that I presented. The teen pregnancy rate never rises between 1989 and 2005, whereas the number of PP clinics absolutely does on a number of occasions. This, again, is absolutely not evidence of correlation. It is precisely the opposite.

Let me try it this way. The following information is going to be presented for each year of overlap between the two graphs, beginning in 1988 and ending in 2006 (which represents the entirety of their concurrence), in the following manner: [rise/fall in number of CC clinics], [rise/fall in teen pregnancy rate], [X for identical trend, O for unidentical trend]

RISE, RISE x
FALL, RISE o
RISE, FALL o
RISE, FALL o
NO CHANGE, FALL o
FALL, FALL x
RISE, FALL o
FALL, FALL x
NO CHANGE, FALL o
FALL, FALL x
NO CHANGE, FALL o
RISE, FALL o
NO CHANGE, FALL o
NO CHANGE, FALL o
FALL, FALL x
FALL, FALL x
RISE, FALL o

Overall, there is effectively no change in PP clinic number and a large change in the teen pregnancy rate. If you want to get into specifics–which is problematic in its own right–there are six year-long intervals during which the two data sets trend in the same direction, and eleven during which they trend in opposite directions (6 years) or unidentical directions (5 years).

Now, there is absolutely no way to draw correlation from a juxtaposition of these sets of data. None whatsoever.

89

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
So sufiandy do unalienable rights exist or not? [/quote]

Depends on your definition of them. I was only disputing that ours are different than animals, assuming they exist for the sake of this discussion.[/quote]

Well we can start with:

Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Are these unalienable rights?

[/quote]

Yes.

Are these unalienable rights for non-humans?[/quote]

I’m not non-human, so I can’t really answer that. Can animals “Pursue Happiness?” I don’t know. [/quote]

So killing them is OK as long as you don’t know the answer to that question?

90

[quote]pat wrote:

The data is correlative. Causation is another thing altogether. If you show two different things with a common thread, i.e. a downward trend you are implying there is a correlation. You would want to show data where one goes up or stays the same as the other trends downward. It is the case however, that both charts show a downward trend.[/quote]

The data is not correlative at all. There is absolutely no indication that any change in the number of PP clinics corresponds with a change in the teen pregnancy rate. This is very obvious from the fact that the former spikes significantly from 1988-1995 while the latter shows absolutely no evidence of caring at all and instead simply falls and falls. You can’t talk about causation when fully half of your x-axis has the two set of data moving in exactly opposite directions.

As I said before, if anything, the spike in PP clinics corresponds almost exactly with the sharpest downturn in the teen pregnancy rate. Which is the opposite of what you’d like to conclude from this.

91

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
So sufiandy do unalienable rights exist or not? [/quote]

Depends on your definition of them. I was only disputing that ours are different than animals, assuming they exist for the sake of this discussion.[/quote]

Well we can start with:

Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Are these unalienable rights?

[/quote]

Yes.

Are these unalienable rights for non-humans?[/quote]

I’m not non-human, so I can’t really answer that. Can animals “Pursue Happiness?” I don’t know. [/quote]

So killing them is OK as long as you don’t know the answer to that question?[/quote]

I don’t have a problem killing non-humans for a number of reasons. Do I know if a pig can “Pursue Happiness,” no I don’t. I also don’t think it’s possible to know and I don’t really care. As far as I’m concerened these unalienable rights apply to humans.

We can keep talking about a cats right to Liberty if you’d like, it’s got nothing to do with abortion…

Again, this entire unalianable rights discussion in based on the use of “Liberty,” as a defense of abortion, but “Life,” being ignored when it comes to an unborn person.

92

Sufiandy, do you shed a tear every time Bambi’s mother (all deer) is shot? Maybe Bambi should sue because his mother’s “pursuit of happiness” just ended.

You and I both know that is pretty stupid.

93

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Sufiandy, do you shed a tear every time Bambi’s mother (all deer) is shot? Maybe Bambi should sue because his mother’s “pursuit of happiness” just ended.

You and I both know that is pretty stupid. [/quote]

I don’t even know what’s happening at this point.

Liberty is used to defend abortion

I point out Life is ignored

Somehow we are at a Salmon’s right to Pursue Happiness…That’s PWI for you.

94

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

The data is correlative. Causation is another thing altogether. If you show two different things with a common thread, i.e. a downward trend you are implying there is a correlation. You would want to show data where one goes up or stays the same as the other trends downward. It is the case however, that both charts show a downward trend.[/quote]

The data is not correlative at all. There is absolutely no indication that any change in the number of PP clinics corresponds with a change in the teen pregnancy rate. This is very obvious from the fact that the former spikes significantly from 1988-1995 while the latter shows absolutely no evidence of caring at all and instead simply falls and falls. You can’t talk about causation when fully half of your x-axis has the two set of data moving in exactly opposite directions.

As I said before, if anything, the spike in PP clinics corresponds almost exactly with the sharpest downturn in the teen pregnancy rate. Which is the opposite of what you’d like to conclude from this.[/quote]

If both graphs were unlabeled, and just represented numbers of some abstract concept, no one in their right mind would say they show correlation. The only reason Pat is arguing that they do show correlation is because it suits his purpose. This is bad thinking.

95

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
On a purely philosophical level? Of course. On a practical level? Well, your mileage may vary.
[/quote]

Then the argument about women’s right to liberty hold no water because it requires ignoring an unborn child’s right to life.

I agree.

Again, I agree.

Would you say that the three “certain unalienable rights” listed as examples in the Declaration are in order of importance? In other words, Life trumps Liberty, Liberty trumps Pursuit of Happiness? Let’s say that it does.

Would you therefore say that the right to life of one individual trumps the rights of liberty of everyone else? Or only “innocent” life? Should we sacrifice the life of one man so that others can be free? Who has the right to decide?

And what about the right to life of one individual trumping the right to life of another? Whose life is more valuable? Baby Jamal Muhammad’s, or Lance Corporal Johnny America’s? Like I said, we care more about our own group, tribe, and family.

But what about the life of the mother versus the life of her unborn child? Are their lives, and their rights to them, equivalent? A mother may elect to give up her life to save that of her child, but should she be forced to? Why or why not, assuming that the lives of a woman and her unborn baby (whose continuing development threatens the life of its mother) are equivalent?

Granted, this situation is rare, but if we want to remain consistent, we need to author principles that apply to all eventualities.

96

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Maybe Bambi should sue because his mother’s “pursuit of happiness” just ended.

You and I both know that is pretty stupid. [/quote]

It’s only a matter of time.

97

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
So sufiandy do unalienable rights exist or not? [/quote]

Depends on your definition of them. I was only disputing that ours are different than animals, assuming they exist for the sake of this discussion.[/quote]

Well we can start with:

Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Are these unalienable rights?

[/quote]

Yes.

Are these unalienable rights for non-humans?[/quote]

I’m not non-human, so I can’t really answer that. Can animals “Pursue Happiness?” I don’t know. [/quote]

So killing them is OK as long as you don’t know the answer to that question?[/quote]

I don’t have a problem killing non-humans for a number of reasons. Do I know if a pig can “Pursue Happiness,” no I don’t. I also don’t think it’s possible to know and I don’t really care. As far as I’m concerened these unalienable rights apply to humans.

We can keep talking about a cats right to Liberty if you’d like, it’s got nothing to do with abortion…

Again, this entire unalianable rights discussion in based on the use of “Liberty,” as a defense of abortion, but “Life,” being ignored when it comes to an unborn person. [/quote]

It is relevant. Is an animal’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness contingent upon that animal being self-aware, cognizant of the difference between freedom and captivity, and the ability to experience pleasure and pain?

Are we the only animals on this planet who are capable of these?

Is a fetus capable of any of them?

98

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Granted, this situation is rare, but if we want to remain consistent, we need to author principles that apply to all eventualities.
[/quote]

Consistency is a good goal, but is it an overriding goal? What if consistency simply isn’t possible in all circumstances?

99


Are these correlated? Statistics give Apple vs S&P 500 perfectly correlated with a Beta of 1.0

Just because a chart does not look correlated does not mean it is not.

Now I am not smart enough to do the statistical analasis of the two charts to state whether they are correlated or not.

100

[quote]flipcollar wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

The data is correlative. Causation is another thing altogether. If you show two different things with a common thread, i.e. a downward trend you are implying there is a correlation. You would want to show data where one goes up or stays the same as the other trends downward. It is the case however, that both charts show a downward trend.[/quote]

The data is not correlative at all. There is absolutely no indication that any change in the number of PP clinics corresponds with a change in the teen pregnancy rate. This is very obvious from the fact that the former spikes significantly from 1988-1995 while the latter shows absolutely no evidence of caring at all and instead simply falls and falls. You can’t talk about causation when fully half of your x-axis has the two set of data moving in exactly opposite directions.

As I said before, if anything, the spike in PP clinics corresponds almost exactly with the sharpest downturn in the teen pregnancy rate. Which is the opposite of what you’d like to conclude from this.[/quote]

If both graphs were unlabeled, and just represented numbers of some abstract concept, no one in their right mind would say they show correlation.[/quote]

Yes, exactly. The “downturn” referenced in the PP graph’s title doesn’t even kick in until 1995, which is just a single year before the other graph comes to a dead end on the x-axis. An appropriate title, for our purposes, would actually look more like: Number of Planned Parenthood clinics rises and falls a bunch of times and then settles back where it started." In which case I don’t think we’d be having this confusion.

As you said, you cannot look at that data and take away correlation. It simply can’t be done.