I don't know about that. They examine two non-randomly chosen group of people and make extrapolations from that. (After all, there's going to be a reason the women denied the abortion were in fact denied it.)
The conclusions would be a very useful point if valid, but the shitty methodology means the conclusions can't be trusted.
This information was created/compiled by people who explicitly support these policies. You've stated you wouldn't accept data which could have been corrupted by motivated reasoning; well, this data exists in exactly the state, in the opposing ideology, as the data you said you wouldn't accept.
Sure. But if you wouldn't accept parallel data from the other side, why would you expect them to accept this data from ours?
What I'm getting at is that this data doesn't actually add anything substantive to the debate. It looks great from where you're sitting, but you're not motivated to seriously question it. The most obvious question to me - what the difference between the control group and the test group was, given that they weren't sorted into these groups randomly, but on some policy basis - remains unanswered.
This data is perfect in one sense - because it has a serious unresolved issue, it allows both sides to convince themselves that its existence proves them correct. Those whose position it supports can take it as-is, and those whose position it contradicts can take the obviously poor methodology (unspecified policy-based sorting) to be proof that the output of the obviously good methodology (truly random sorting) was discarded by its creators.
Not really, for some people who don't try I guess. But I do know people who aren't going to have sex until they know it's the right guy and they know all about kids. You can never be fully prepared to have kids because it's so crazy, but you should at least realize that fucking=kids. And keep that in mind... just saying
It's a good idea on a personal level, and even though humans are a species that has sex for pleasure it's still an ideal to go for since having kids when you're super young and poor is a bad idea, but... unfortunately it doesn't work out practically on a wide enough scale.
If we were robots without biological urges then yes it would be that easy. I don't know about you, but I am human, and as a human I love sex because it's fun. Having children; not as much fun. And both humans and dolphins are the only two animals on the planet who have sex for both procreation and fun.
If you're not ready to have children, you should not be having sex. It's as easy as that. If you're not ready to have children, you should not be having sex. It's as easy as that. If you're not ready to have children, you should not be having sex. It's as easy as that. If you're not ready to have children, you should not be having sex. It's as easy as that. If you're not ready to have children, you should not be having sex. It's as easy as that. If you're not ready to have children, you should not be having sex. It's as easy as that. If you're not ready to have children, you should not be having sex. It's as easy as that. If you're not ready to have children, you should not be having sex. It's as easy as that. If you're not ready to have children, you should not be having sex. It's as easy as that. If you're not ready to have children, you should not be having sex. It's as easy as that.
It's not as easy as that, your implying that the reason to have sex is to have kids. When in the real world people also have sex for fun, joy, and out of love. Put on your big boy pants and step the fuck into the real world.
The reason to have sex is NOT to have kids (most of the time), but, if you are not ready to have a kid, then you should not be doing something that produces a kid. If you can't feed it, don't breed it. Yes the government should encourage smart mating habits. Kids born without supporting parents end up just being a leech on society
Until we tackle the problem of having any unwanted pregnancies at all, abortion is always going to be a necessary evil that it's up to the woman whether she wants to take it or not.
And yeah, I really don't get how people can say the rights and needs of the fetus matter... but the rights and needs of the living, breathing, feeling, already-existing human are apparently irrelevant. Especially since the rights and needs of the fetus often magically stop mattering to many folks in the pro-life movement once it's born.
I have a hard time accepting the overall pro-life movement as being anything other than an attempt to control women. Anyone genuinely pro-life would be over with the pro-choicers trying to do their damndest to increase access to birth control and increase support to struggling mothers who choose to keep the child.
I don't mean to take any side but I stopped taking that study seriously when you said the number "956". 956 individuals doesn't make up a significant enough part of the fertile female population to give anyone a good enough argument pro- or against abortion or make such ridiculous general statements.
Out of the billions of women able to get pregnant and of those, probably hundreds of millions who get abortions, 900 women out of one country in the world have about as much to say about the reasons women get abortions as a fart in the wind.
I don't know how you could write the stupid generalising title that you wrote.
There is a scientific argument for distrusting studies such as these. Mainly correlation does not equal causation in a study that contains multiple variables.
Scientific burden requires that there be double blind testing done against various control groups to determine a bias when assessing certain individuals.
Variable-A: A woman gets an Abortion. Variable-B: The same woman develops Breast Cancer.
Variable-C: Statistically, African American women develop breast cancer more often than white women. Variable-D: Sample woman who gets an Abortion was African American.
Statistics like these introduce a certain bias into the study that can be left open to interpretation that can be used to skew the data one way or another. Ultimately these studies don't prove much and real statisticians don't trust them either outside of propaganda value.
It is like the old saying goes there are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics.
So you're deliberately ignoring the needs of, what, 99.999% of the population just to get your point across? You're not researching anything, you're just cherry-picking out of the skimpy study information that you find on news and gossip websites. What you linked to there isn't "research on scientific studies", it's two skimpy paragraphs that had less effort put into them than an article about Angelina Jolie's new haircut.
But like I said, you're ignoring all other genuine research and day-to-day truths and any form of reason whatsoever just to get your point of glorifying abortion across. Cause if you do a bit more research on, what, DailyMail or PerezHilton.com, you might find that abortion is actually healthy for you and there's really no reason not to have one, and why would women be so stupid as to subject their bodies to 9 months of parasitical torture just for a crying little bag of shit, right?
Well why don't you let women make that decision for themselves rather than push your beliefs of what they should do with their lives?
Ignoring the needs of 99.999% of the population? Do you have statistics? Studies? Anything other than YOU pushing YOUR beliefs on women who just want to have an abortion and then continue bettering their lives so that they can actually raise a happy, healthy child later?
Also, please note that no in-depth study can review EVERY SINGLE WOMAN IN THE COUNTRY. If you want every woman to vote on whether abortion should be allowed or not, why don't you make a poll and ask every woman in the country yourself? Oh wait. You can't. You don't have the resources.
Did you even bother to actually read the links? Even the i09 link (i09 being the closest of the links to an actual gossip site) used well over a dozen paragraphs! Oh, and the other links are from the American Health Organization, which brings together doctors and medical scholars and professionals from throughout the country. Clearly, this is not the work of gossip columnists.
You realize you sound like a hypocrite, right?
Also, don't ever, ever compare the American health organization to gossip tabloids again, or I will personally punch you through the internet.
Right, well you go on blindly believing everything that the people in white coats are telling you, I'm sure you know all of them and you know everything about anything ever cause you've read it on the internet. You go on.
Both of my parents are doctors. I've grown up learning about medicine and science my entire life. I would really like to know your medical background and what justification you have for calling everything you've seen on that sight crap.
And as I thought you don't know anyone. So please, you go on.