mn@dscvax2.UUCP (Matt Noah) (04/03/85)
>> Since abortion was made legal, child abuse in this country has more >> than doubled - is this respect for life? >> >> Why is the incidence of child abuse higher in families where the child >> was born in a WANTED pregnancy? >> >> Matt Noah > >There is a close correlation between sales of ice cream cones >and deaths by drowning. Obviously this means we should ban ice cream. What is the rest of people's opinion on the correlation between child abuse and abortion in this country? Does anyone besides me believe that it is possible that abortion has led to a more casual, i.e. lax respect for life? Is it possible that the ME mentality of the '70s is part of this problem? Matt
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (04/09/85)
In article <248@dscvax2.UUCP> mn@dscvax2.UUCP (Matt Noah) writes: >>There is a close correlation between sales of ice cream cones >>and deaths by drowning. Obviously this means we should ban ice cream. > >What is the rest of people's opinion on the correlation between child abuse >and abortion in this country? Does anyone besides me believe that it is >possible that abortion has led to a more casual, i.e. lax respect for life? Or perhaps it is the other way around, a more casual attitude towards life has led to more abortions. >Is it possible that the ME mentality of the '70s is part of this problem? > It is possible. The problem with a correlation between two things, say A and B is that A may have caused B, B may have cause A, *or* some unknown, or unconsidered thing (C) may have caused both. *Much* additional evidence is needed to determine which is true. It is even possible for the correlation to be a coincidence(under normal statistical reporting methods there is a 5% chance of a "false" or coincidental correlation) >Matt -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
barry@mit-eddie.UUCP (Mikki Barry) (04/10/85)
Statistics are like the Bible, they can be used to prove ANYTHING! How do you know abortion's legality hasn't REDUCED the number of possible child abuse cases because those who really didnt' want to have a kid, didn't. I am pro choice, but have a great respect for life that is living and breathing and walking on the earth. Surprise, right? Statistics ALSO say that there were no valid statistics for child abuse until 1979, AND even then, statistics weren't absolutes because so many cases were not reported, and are still not reported. The same is true for spouce abuse, and rape. Also, what is your definition of abuse? Is it the same as pre 80's definition whereby hitting children was just fine as long as you didn't leave marks? When the laws changed, and the definition of abuse became more strict, OF COURSE the numbers of reported cases rose, just as when the laws on rape were changed, and women didn't have to be black and blue to report a rape, reports rose. Why don't you go research child abuse before making silly statements?