Teen Pregnancy Drops as Planned Parenthood Vanishes

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

I know usmccds423 can handle his shiznit but before my children wake up I have to knock this incorrect statement out. The child is NOT a parasite. Look up the definition of parasite then come back with a rebuttal. One question, where does the child belong? Can your hormone profile support the life the mother nourishes? Oh yeah, we also have a perfectly innocent child in the equation.

Thank you for the high point to start my day!!

[quote]cryogen wrote: Nope, that’s utter bullshit.

It’s not a child when it’s a blastoma. It’s not a child when it’s a foetus. It’s still a parasite, until the moment of birth.

Given that our own bodies can also act in a parasitic fashion against ourselves, only a fucking arsehole would try to enforce their own idiotic religious insecurities on other people.

Why is it that for the most part, anti-abortionist fuckwits seem to be ok with drone strikes and wars?

You’re only pro-life when you can use the argument to make yourselves feel superior to others.

The worst part is that the fucking christians who have been responsible for the most atrocious genocides and subjugations throughout history are claiming that abortion is somehow a genocide.

You’re fucking insincere cunts who have no right stealing my oxygen. Go kill youselves and find out if you’ve been good enough to go to your pathetic afterlife.[/quote]

142

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Anyone has the “right” to do what they want with their body. Since a fetus is attatched to a woman’s body, she can do what she wants. That’s what the “law” says. You are mixing up questions about INNATE “god” given rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness (which I responded to) and then using that to imply that I was speaking of “god” given rights in my original post, when in fact I was referring to rights guaranteed under the Constitution and the current law of the land. Two very different ideas. Clever argument though, I’ll give you that.

As for Jews in Nazi Germany before WWII, what does that have to do with this discussion? They certainly FAILED to defend themselves effectively from Nazis and as a result of that failure, many Jews ended up dying horrible deaths. I don’t think anyone can dispute that.

But Jews are hardly the only group that has experienced attempted genocide. They are not even the most recent. So what does THAT tell you? If they had an “inalienable right” to life, then they wouldn’t have been rounded up and killed, now would they?

Speaking of genocide (since YOU brought it up), how about the genocide preached by Christianity. And, no I’m not talking about the Crusades, although you guys really out did yourselves there. I’m talking about Mathew.

13:49 So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just,
13:50 And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Included in the wicked are people who don’t believe that Jesus is the Lord.

That’s from John 3:18: Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

Right now, if the “second coming” was tomorrow, as a Christian, you’d be fine with the genocide of about 4 BILLION people.

So how about we get off our moral high horse, Mmmmkay?

See what I did there? I can change a subject too![/quote]

You’re one of my favorite posters Angry, I appreciate your straight foward responses; however, you tend to not differentiate posters. I have not nor will I ever enter a discusion here on T-Nation using Christianity as the basis of my argument. It hasn’t happened in any of the multiple abortion threads I been in. Don’t lump me in with folks like the OP. I am not like them.

I brought genocide, specifically the Jew, up because of your statement here:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
How about trying to get behind something that doesn’t violate the rights of other people’s liberty? [/quote]

and here:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
We have a right to that which we can PROTECT. [/quote]

The Jew’s obviously weren’t able to protect their rights, so by your logic, they didn’t have them. If I’m understanding you it is only the STRONGEST that have any rights because they are they only ones that can protect those rights. Life or Liberty, it makes no difference if being able to protect these rights is the litmus test.

Quick list of people that apparently have no rights:
1.) A quadriplegic
2.) A 3 year old child
3.) A person anesthetized for surgery
4.) A sleeping person
5.) A unborn baby

Let’s look at American history. Slaves, obviously could not protect their right to liberty as defined in the constitution. It was LEGAL to own slaves. Again following your logic here:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Abortion is legal. Deal with it. If abortion were illegal IT WOULD STILL HAPPEN. [/quote]

We can sub salvery in for abortion. Slavery was legal, it still happens TODAY in parts of the world including the U.S., and slaves do not have the ability to PROTECT themselves.

So, they don’t have a right to Liberty as defined by the Constitution? If they do have this right, what makes an unborn baby any different?

Edit: Spelling

143

[quote]cryogen wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
What I do know is that if you use liberty as your argument for abortion, you must believe in unalienable rights, and if you believe in liberty as an unalienable right you must also believe in life. Thus ignoring the unalienable right to the life of an unborn child, while simultaneously using liberty as your defense of abortion, is inconsistent at best. [/quote]
Nope, that’s utter bullshit.

It’s not a child when it’s a blastoma. It’s not a child when it’s a foetus. It’s still a parasite, until the moment of birth.

Given that our own bodies can also act in a parasitic fashion against ourselves, only a fucking arsehole would try to enforce their own idiotic religious insecurities on other people.

Why is it that for the most part, anti-abortionist fuckwits seem to be ok with drone strikes and wars?

You’re only pro-life when you can use the argument to make yourselves feel superior to others.

The worst part is that the fucking christians who have been responsible for the most atrocious genocides and subjugations throughout history are claiming that abortion is somehow a genocide.

You’re fucking insincere cunts who have no right stealing my oxygen. Go kill youselves and find out if you’ve been good enough to go to your pathetic afterlife.[/quote]

  1. It’s not a parasite at 3 days old?

  2. I did not bring religion up. My arguments have all been based on Life & Liberty. Maybe they’re ooff or out right wrong, but they still have zero to do with religion.

  3. War & Abortion are two different things.

  4. You are a moron.

144

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]xboxwarrior wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
What I do know is that if you use liberty as your argument for abortion, you must believe in unalienable rights, and if you believe in liberty as an unalienable right you must also believe in life. Thus ignoring the unalienable right to the life of an unborn child, while simultaneously using liberty as your defense of abortion, is inconsistent at best. [/quote]

Sure, but as long as you understand that even if we are all in agreement that natural rights exist, that they are unalienable, and that the right to life trumps all others, we are not in agreement as to who qualifies for these unalienable rights. This is the crux of the issue, and if there were anything near a consensus, either philosophically, ethically, legally or medically, there would be no debate.

The burden is on the antiabortionists to demonstrate that the unborn have the same unalienable rights as the born. So far this has not been accomplished. Simply saying, or even believing it with all your heart, doesn’t necessarily make it so.

Prove that a fetus is equal to a child, and that it deserves equal rights. Not to me or to anyone on this forum. Prove it to the medical community, and to the legislature, and to the Supreme Court. They are the ones whose opinion matters.[/quote]

Why is the burden of proof on the antiabortionists? Why doesn’t the one potentially committing mas genocide have to prove behind a shadow of a doubt that a fetus doesn’t have these unalienable rights? If the abortionist is wrong they are responsible for the worst genocide in the history of humanity.

[/quote]

The burden of proof is on the antiabortionists because the Supreme Court says so.[/quote]

I thought everyone hated the government on here??

Was the Supreme Court okay with slavery? I don’t know. [/quote]

The burden is on the ones who want to change the current law. If everyone is happy with the current law then no one has to prove anything, it just remains until someone disagrees.[/quote]

So the burden of proof was on slaves, to prove they are people, in early American History?

This is a bit confusing to me. When a person is put on trial, for say murder, the burden of proof is on the state to prove without a shadow of a doubt that they are guilty. However, when it comes to abortion law it’s on, well I guess the fetus and pro-lifers, to prove an unborn baby is in fact a person.

These are obviously two different things, but in my mind they relate and are inconsistent.

145

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
You support abortion, you support the slaughter of innocent children.[/quote]

Kneedragger, while I won’t go quite as far as smh in inviting you to go fuck yourself, I do object to your characterization of my post in such terms. In fact, it was a facetious anticipation of just such a response. There’s a very strong “us vs. them” feeling to the whole abortion debate, another characteristic it shares in common with the gun control debate, or the war against terrorism.

Much in the same way as you should not interpret my opinion that the Sandy Hook and Naval Yard shootings may have been staged operations to press gun prohibition legislation as my implicit support the murder of schoolchildren and civilian contractors; much in the same way as you should not interpret my opinion that the US military is needlessly overextending itself through a foreign policy of intervention in Africa and the Middle East as my implicit support of Islamic extremism and terrorism, I think you are being incredibly intellectually lazy in assuming, just because my position on this particular issue is not in lockstep with yours, that I must be an advocate of the murder of the unborn.

I won’t, as Pat has suggested, copy and paste every one of my posts from other threads which might serve to prove which side of the issue I am on, but I invite you to peruse them at your leisure. For the record, I believe that a human fetus is alive, and human, and probably deserves to live. I would be delighted if someone were to suggest a workable alternative to abortion, one that would both prevent the conception of unwanted children on the one hand, and find adoptive parents for all of the unwanted babies that have been conceived on the other. So far, we don’t have that. Not even close.

Telling teenagers not to have sex, or “scaring” them into not having sex is a step in the right direction, but an absolute eradication of the practice of abortion in this country is going to involve a legal and cultural paradigm shift that, to my mind anyway, the country is not yet ready for. If we were a totalitarian theocracy, with the power to implant all teenage girls with a subdermal contraceptive at puberty, which would be removed by the state upon marriage, and only upon both partners showing proof of financial stability suitable for raising a child, while imposing stiff civil and criminal penalties on any couple conceiving a child out of wedlock, or without proper authority, then abortion would cease.

I don’t want to live in a country like that. Do you? What is the alternative, and why has it not been tried yet?

146

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
For the record, I believe that a human fetus is alive, and human, and probably deserves to live. I would be delighted if someone were to suggest a workable alternative to abortion, one that would both prevent the conception of unwanted children on the one hand, and find adoptive parents for all of the unwanted babies that have been conceived on the other. So far, we don’t have that. Not even close.

Telling teenagers not to have sex, or “scaring” them into not having sex is a step in the right direction, but an absolute eradication of the practice of abortion in this country is going to involve a legal and cultural paradigm shift that, to my mind anyway, the country is not yet ready for. If we were a totalitarian theocracy, with the power to implant all teenage girls with a subdermal contraceptive at puberty, which would be removed by the state upon marriage, and only upon both partners showing proof of financial stability suitable for raising a child, while imposing stiff civil and criminal penalties on any couple conceiving a child out of wedlock, or without proper authority, then abortion would cease.

I don’t want to live in a country like that. Do you? What is the alternative, and why has it not been tried yet?
[/quote]

I would be in support of Planned Parenthood, through tax dollars, offering “free,” sterilization for men & women.

147

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
So the burden of proof was on slaves, to prove they are people, in early American History?[/quote]

No, the burden was on the abolitionist movement, to get the laws changed.

[quote]This is a bit confusing to me. When a person is put on trial, for say murder, the burden of proof is on the state to prove without a shadow of a doubt that they are guilty. However, when it comes to abortion law it’s on, well I guess the fetus and pro-lifers, to prove an unborn baby is in fact a person.

These are obviously two different things, but in my mind they relate and are inconsistent.
[/quote]

It’s confusing to you because you aren’t thinking things through.

Who is on trial here?

You say that abortion is murder. That means you are accusing those who practice it of murder. The burden of proof is always on the accuser. Prove that laws were broken. Prove that “natural rights” were violated.

148

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
For the record, I believe that a human fetus is alive, and human, and probably deserves to live. I would be delighted if someone were to suggest a workable alternative to abortion, one that would both prevent the conception of unwanted children on the one hand, and find adoptive parents for all of the unwanted babies that have been conceived on the other. So far, we don’t have that. Not even close.

Telling teenagers not to have sex, or “scaring” them into not having sex is a step in the right direction, but an absolute eradication of the practice of abortion in this country is going to involve a legal and cultural paradigm shift that, to my mind anyway, the country is not yet ready for. If we were a totalitarian theocracy, with the power to implant all teenage girls with a subdermal contraceptive at puberty, which would be removed by the state upon marriage, and only upon both partners showing proof of financial stability suitable for raising a child, while imposing stiff civil and criminal penalties on any couple conceiving a child out of wedlock, or without proper authority, then abortion would cease.

I don’t want to live in a country like that. Do you? What is the alternative, and why has it not been tried yet?
[/quote]

I would be in support of Planned Parenthood, through tax dollars, offering “free,” sterilization for men & women.[/quote]

They used to. They had a very active eugenics program.

Spay or neuter your human today!

149

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
So the burden of proof was on slaves, to prove they are people, in early American History?[/quote]

No, the burden was on the abolitionist movement, to get the laws changed.

[quote]This is a bit confusing to me. When a person is put on trial, for say murder, the burden of proof is on the state to prove without a shadow of a doubt that they are guilty. However, when it comes to abortion law it’s on, well I guess the fetus and pro-lifers, to prove an unborn baby is in fact a person.

These are obviously two different things, but in my mind they relate and are inconsistent.
[/quote]

It’s confusing to you because you aren’t thinking things through.

Who is on trial here?

You say that abortion is murder. That means you are accusing those who practice it of murder. The burden of proof is always on the accuser. Prove that laws were broken. Prove that “natural rights” were violated.
[/quote]

You’re right, I hadn’t thought of it that way. The only thing I will say is that ultimately the state has to prosecute murder correct? It’s not a civil tort. But the state says it’s not murder, so how can it be changed?

150

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
For the record, I believe that a human fetus is alive, and human, and probably deserves to live. I would be delighted if someone were to suggest a workable alternative to abortion, one that would both prevent the conception of unwanted children on the one hand, and find adoptive parents for all of the unwanted babies that have been conceived on the other. So far, we don’t have that. Not even close.

Telling teenagers not to have sex, or “scaring” them into not having sex is a step in the right direction, but an absolute eradication of the practice of abortion in this country is going to involve a legal and cultural paradigm shift that, to my mind anyway, the country is not yet ready for. If we were a totalitarian theocracy, with the power to implant all teenage girls with a subdermal contraceptive at puberty, which would be removed by the state upon marriage, and only upon both partners showing proof of financial stability suitable for raising a child, while imposing stiff civil and criminal penalties on any couple conceiving a child out of wedlock, or without proper authority, then abortion would cease.

I don’t want to live in a country like that. Do you? What is the alternative, and why has it not been tried yet?
[/quote]

I would be in support of Planned Parenthood, through tax dollars, offering “free,” sterilization for men & women.[/quote]

They used to. They had a very active eugenics program.

Spay or neuter your human today![/quote]

I read the other day that UK, I think it was the UK, allows gender specific abortion. Interesting…

151

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
So the burden of proof was on slaves, to prove they are people, in early American History?[/quote]

No, the burden was on the abolitionist movement, to get the laws changed.

[quote]This is a bit confusing to me. When a person is put on trial, for say murder, the burden of proof is on the state to prove without a shadow of a doubt that they are guilty. However, when it comes to abortion law it’s on, well I guess the fetus and pro-lifers, to prove an unborn baby is in fact a person.

These are obviously two different things, but in my mind they relate and are inconsistent.
[/quote]

It’s confusing to you because you aren’t thinking things through.

Who is on trial here?

You say that abortion is murder. That means you are accusing those who practice it of murder. The burden of proof is always on the accuser. Prove that laws were broken. Prove that “natural rights” were violated.
[/quote]

You’re right, I hadn’t thought of it that way. The only thing I will say is that ultimately the state has to prosecute murder correct? It’s not a civil tort. But the state says it’s not murder, so how can it be changed?[/quote]

The same way slavery was ended in this country, probably. Through bloody civil war and a constitutional amendment.

Which didn’t end slavery, by the way, for anyone convicted of a crime. Which effectively (given prison demographics) transferred ownership of black slaves from the hands of individuals to the hands of the state and federal governments, an increasingly to corporations.

152

Some interesting things I just learned about Planned Parenthood:

Abortion accounts for only three percent of their clinical services.

Screenings for testicular, ovarian and breast cancers account for 16 percent.

Screening and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases accounts for 35 percent.

Another 35 percent is spent on contraceptive services, which would seem counterproductive for an organization devoted to killing babies. How are you gonna kill 'em if they aren’t around to kill in the first place?

The bulk of their funding comes from private donations, and only a third comes from the federal government. The president who authorized this was a Republican.

I guess it’s kind of like the Army. The bulk of their expenditures go for training, equipment and maintenance of equipment, buying food, fuel, and other expendable materiel, and only a tiny percentage of their budget actually goes toward killing people.

153

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Another 35 percent is spent on contraceptive services, which would seem counterproductive for an organization devoted to killing babies. How are you gonna kill 'em if they aren’t around to kill in the first place?
[/quote]

Exactly.

If I’m not mistaken, though, there is some paranoid drivel floating about that avers that contraceptives are “designed to fail” in some kind of “plot.” I may have interpreted that incorrectly, but for some reason, I really don’t think so.

And well, if that’s the case, I’m probably shooting blanks, seeing as how I’ve been using contraceptives since the get-go. I guess there are no small smh_23’s on the horizon.

154

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
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.

[/quote]

Yes you are smart enough. The amount of depth we’re looking for here can be got at with the eyeball. We’re not authoring research papers here. It is pretty damn clear that those two lines in the picture you posted could be linked by an inversely correlative relationship. And it is even clearer that the two lines in the two graphs that I proffered early on in this thread are moving with absolutely no regard for each other, i.e. that they are not correlated either directly or inversely in any way.[/quote]

The two lines were not inversely correlated. A beta of 1.0 is perfectly correlated. Inversely or negatively correlated is a -1.0 Beta.
[/quote]

Where are you getting that Apple had a beta of 1.0 from Nov. 2012 to Oct. 2013?

Edit: anyway, that graph means nothing to me. I can’t plot the points in a chart and there is an unmanageable number of them anyway. Beta is calculated retroactively, right? So what was it for those exact dates? That chart is hieroglyphs whereas the graphs on the first page is See Spot Run. Can correlation exist over the long term even when it appears not to in the short run? Yes, it can. But that isn’t the argument here. The argument here is inductive: do those two graphs imply a correlative relationship between the data they respectively represent? And the answer is absolutely not. This is not the same as saying that if you were to wait until the year 2400 and plot 450 years worth of this data, you would not see a correlative relationship. This is saying that none can be averred from what we’ve seen.[/quote]

Based on what you posted, they are correlative. Both trending downward over the same period of time is a correlation. It doesn’t speak to the nature of the correlation or how much correlation, just that one exists. It may be a minute correlation, but still it is one.

155

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]Karado wrote:
Anti-abortionists would argue however that the ‘‘inalienable rights’’ for the unborn is just as valid as the born because
those rights come from God, the giver of life, and it makes no difference whether that infant inside the womb or outside,'point is it’s alive and human because the fetus is a result of human reproduction.
The human fetus is just as helpless at the moment birth as it is in the womb, so why should ‘‘inalienable rights’’ apply to only humans that can help themselves?

I casually spoke with a Muslim who lives in my complex about this today, and she said in Islam Abortion at any stage because it is a LIFE no matter how big or small it was in the womb… he said Muslims don’t darken the doors of
Abortion Clinics, ‘‘God Forbid’’…he said they DO protest in accord Christians at clinics sometimes…I’ve never noticed them,
however seeing Catholics with their trinkets is fairly common…A cool dude, I learn a lot from him and his brothers, one of whom I saw pray in front of the Fed-Ex store last month…laying out his Carpet right there in the parking lot.

An abortion can occur on its own, AKA a ''miscarriage" but an abortion that’s deliberate or due to harm inflicted on the woman’s womb, is prohibited in Islam.

[/quote]

All that is well and good. I 100% agree that Christans and Muslims SHOULD NOT, under ANY CIRCUMBSTANCE, get an abortion. Because that would violate THEIR beliefs. It would affect their quality of life and ruin their reputations in their religious community. Cool. Christians and Muslims - NO ABORTIONS!

Now, as for the rest of us who don’t believe in fairy tales, or “books” that have been used throughout history (and in the current times) as grounds to commit FAR GREATER atrocities than a single abortion, we HAVE THE RIGHT to get all the abortions we want.

Fair enough?

Who are THEY (Christians and Muslims) to FORCE thier beliefs on to ME? [/quote]

Funny you seem to turn any thread in to a religious argument. A hateful anti-religious rant, but you’re bringing in religion and nobody else is.

156

You know, Kneedragger, even though you have bald-facedly and erroneously stated, twice, on this thread, that I am an advocate of, as you so colorfully put it, “the slaughter of innocent children”, I bear you no ill will. Although I am within my rights to sue you for libel, I am not a litigious person, and will instead forgive you, four hundred and ninety times as Jesus recommended I do for a brother who has wronged me, for you clearly know not what you say.

In fact, since you probably believe in the power of prayer, here is my prayer for you: I pray that someday soon, neurobiological technology will progress to the point where your brachial plexus avulsion and other neurological damage will be completely healed, and you will have full use of your body again.

However, I also pray that this technology will only be available through the use of embryonic stem cells, and that the treatment is done without your knowledge of the fact that human embryos were harvested in order for your body to be made whole again. You believe that God allowed…nay, commanded that his own son be sacrificed so that you might avoid an eternity of torment in the next world. Surely he won’t mind the sacrifice of a few embryos in order to save you a life of torment in this one.

That is my prayer for you. God’s will be done.

157

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
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.

[/quote]

Yes you are smart enough. The amount of depth we’re looking for here can be got at with the eyeball. We’re not authoring research papers here. It is pretty damn clear that those two lines in the picture you posted could be linked by an inversely correlative relationship. And it is even clearer that the two lines in the two graphs that I proffered early on in this thread are moving with absolutely no regard for each other, i.e. that they are not correlated either directly or inversely in any way.[/quote]

The two lines were not inversely correlated. A beta of 1.0 is perfectly correlated. Inversely or negatively correlated is a -1.0 Beta.
[/quote]

Where are you getting that Apple had a beta of 1.0 from Nov. 2012 to Oct. 2013?

Edit: anyway, that graph means nothing to me. I can’t plot the points in a chart and there is an unmanageable number of them anyway. Beta is calculated retroactively, right? So what was it for those exact dates? That chart is hieroglyphs whereas the graphs on the first page is See Spot Run. Can correlation exist over the long term even when it appears not to in the short run? Yes, it can. But that isn’t the argument here. The argument here is inductive: do those two graphs imply a correlative relationship between the data they respectively represent? And the answer is absolutely not. This is not the same as saying that if you were to wait until the year 2400 and plot 450 years worth of this data, you would not see a correlative relationship. This is saying that none can be averred from what we’ve seen.[/quote]

Based on what you posted, they are correlative. Both trending downward over the same period of time is a correlation. It doesn’t speak to the nature of the correlation or how much correlation, just that one exists. It may be a minute correlation, but still it is one.[/quote]

if it’s minute, it’s not statistically relevant. The number of K Mart’s in the US has a downward trend since 1988. That doesn’t mean it correlates to the downward trend in PP’s or teen pregnancies in any significant way. More importantly, IT STILL DOESN’T IMPLY CAUSATION, so it doesn’t further any argument implying that reducing the number of PP clinics will reduce the number of teen pregnancies.

158

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Da Man reloaded wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
lol on the graph fail.

The peak closing of clinics correlates very well with the teen pregnancy drops. You illustrated kneedraggers point to the T.[/quote]

What?

From 1990 to 1996, the number of PP clinics in the United States rose from about 880 to 936. Concurrently, the teen pregnancy rate fell from 120 to 100 (per thousand).

Again, the number of PP clinics rose and fell and rose and fell and this is not reflected in the teen pregnancy rate even slightly.

The study cited in the OP is about as shoddy as this kind of thing can get.[/quote]

overall trend is down. curve fit that bitch.[/quote]

Not in the years that correspond with the teen pregnancy-rate graph. The overall trend is effectively static. A net change of essentially nothing.

And even if the two were both trending down overall, this would say exactly nothing about correlation. If statistically significant, sustained peaks and valleys don’t match up, then you’re fighting an uphill battle trying to tell anyone that correlation is present.

Alright, I’m done arguing over statistics and graphs. If you can look at those two data visualizations and see correlation, then you need to reevaluate your understanding of basic mathematics, or the bias-blindness which allows you to ignore your intelligence–because I know for a fact that I’m arguing with intelligent people here–and instead conclude what you’d like to conclude. Also, I consider a math debate to be over once Dr. Matt weighs in on it, which he has.

Next time, let’s argue about the quadratic equation.[/quote]

Incorrect. You can make a correlation with anything that has a commonality with another. In this case the common thread is a downward trend. To show that the two data sets do not correlate you have to show they have nothing in common.
The correlation may be low, but it’s still there based on that very small amount of data which objectively we don’t even know to be accurate.

159

[quote]flipcollar wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
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.

[/quote]

Yes you are smart enough. The amount of depth we’re looking for here can be got at with the eyeball. We’re not authoring research papers here. It is pretty damn clear that those two lines in the picture you posted could be linked by an inversely correlative relationship. And it is even clearer that the two lines in the two graphs that I proffered early on in this thread are moving with absolutely no regard for each other, i.e. that they are not correlated either directly or inversely in any way.[/quote]

The two lines were not inversely correlated. A beta of 1.0 is perfectly correlated. Inversely or negatively correlated is a -1.0 Beta.
[/quote]

Where are you getting that Apple had a beta of 1.0 from Nov. 2012 to Oct. 2013?

Edit: anyway, that graph means nothing to me. I can’t plot the points in a chart and there is an unmanageable number of them anyway. Beta is calculated retroactively, right? So what was it for those exact dates? That chart is hieroglyphs whereas the graphs on the first page is See Spot Run. Can correlation exist over the long term even when it appears not to in the short run? Yes, it can. But that isn’t the argument here. The argument here is inductive: do those two graphs imply a correlative relationship between the data they respectively represent? And the answer is absolutely not. This is not the same as saying that if you were to wait until the year 2400 and plot 450 years worth of this data, you would not see a correlative relationship. This is saying that none can be averred from what we’ve seen.[/quote]

Based on what you posted, they are correlative. Both trending downward over the same period of time is a correlation. It doesn’t speak to the nature of the correlation or how much correlation, just that one exists. It may be a minute correlation, but still it is one.[/quote]

if it’s minute, it’s not statistically relevant. The number of K Mart’s in the US has a downward trend since 1988. That doesn’t mean it correlates to the downward trend in PP’s or teen pregnancies in any significant way. More importantly, IT STILL DOESN’T IMPLY CAUSATION, so it doesn’t further any argument implying that reducing the number of PP clinics will reduce the number of teen pregnancies.[/quote]

Not true. Minute still may be statistically relevant. As lifters we hang on correlational data no matter how small to affirm that something we are doing is working.
Aside from your K-mart analogy these two factoids do have more in common than just the downward trend. Both have something to do with female reproduction. You have two charts whose data both have something to do with female reproduction and both trend downwards. So they have at least two commonalities implying a correlation. It doesn’t say which way the correlation is going, nor how much of one there is, just that their is one.
Never said anything about causation.

160

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I thought everyone hated the government on here?? [/quote]

How I feel about the government is immaterial. I took an oath, as I know you did as well, to uphold and defend the Constitution. I have never rescinded that oath, nor is it contingent on who occupies the seats of power.

The Constitution is silent on the subject of any god-given unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The words “god” or “creator” do not appear anywhere in the document. We just assume that all rights not specified as belonging to the federal government belong to the states, and by extension the people, as guaranteed by the 10th amendment.

But again, who is guaranteed ANY rights according to the constitution? Well, the people, of course. But which people? Only the citizens? Or everyone in the United States? Let us say that not only US citizens are guaranteed rights under the constitution, but that citizens of all nations have equal protection under US law.

What is a citizen? How does one become a citizen of any nation?

Try to answer that question without using the word “born”.

The unborn have no rights. They are citizens of no country. Nobody will issue a fetus a passport. They are not considered persons under the law. You may not like it, but this is the legal reality in this country right now. If you want to change the law, then you will need to speak to someone who can either write a new law, amending the constitution to include the unborn into the umbrella of equal protection, or else speak to the Supreme Court to interpret the constitution so that the People also includes those who haven’t quite made it out of the birth canal.

This is why I said that the burden of proof is on the antiabortionists. If you want the law changed, you will have to prove why it should be.
[/quote]

Burden of proof is such a highly misunderstood thing. The moral\ ethical burden of proof is on the pro-abortionist to prove that the human life inside the uterus is not a human being when there is no scientific or objective proof that it is not.

The law already accepts that the child in utero is a human in many cases as in the case of Kermit Gosnell and Scott Peterson are in prison for murder of unborn babies.
The legal precedent is there already. Both of the above cases the individuals were tried and convicted in court of murder of unborn children.