Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: speekinout
Ask anyone who was a teenager or adult pre-Roe, and you will find that almost all of them knew "some" who had illegal abortions.

"Everyone" knows someone who has been shot, who has been raped, who is gay, who is blah, blah, blah. The plural of "anecdote" is not "data." Your claim is unsupported nonsense. There has never been a single shred of proof that the pro-abortion advocates' mythical claims of millions of deaths by coathanger and back alley abortions.

Your common sense claim is typical of those who have nothing else other than blind emotion to back their claims. After all, it's common sense that guns cause crime and that more guns in private hands will lead to more shootings and more accidents. Except that those "common sense" claims are really just guesses by people who see only those facts that support their pre-existing ideologies.

Your claim that making something illegal does not change behavior is just as absurd as your claim to knowledge of the number or rate of abortions pre-Roe. There will always be people who violate the law, but society works because the vast majority of people do conform their behavior to legal requirements. How many 17-round magazines did you buy between 1993 and September 2004 that were stamped "For Law Enforcement Use Only"? How many rapes have you committed lately? Murders? Did you file your tax return last year? Pay taxes this year?

More poignantly, pre-Roe there were many children available for adoption. Post Roe, couples who cannot have children generally must leave the country to find an adoptable infant. Those mothers were obviously not all out there getting back alley abortions - the law against abortions, perhaps together with existing moral outrage against murdering babies in their mothers' wombs, clearly modified their behavior.

There's no point in continuing since both of our ideologies are obviously fixed.

19 posted on 02/15/2005 3:18:07 PM PST by FateAmenableToChange
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]


To: FateAmenableToChange
More poignantly, pre-Roe there were many children available for adoption.

Another case where you're misusing data. Pre-Roe, single mothers were not subsidized by the American tax-payers. Those subsidies started just a few years before.
If you want to claim that abortion had more to do with the lack of babies for adoption than subsidies for single mothers, you have to have a study to back it up.
I am open to being convinced, if you can point me to the data.

22 posted on 02/15/2005 3:41:02 PM PST by speekinout
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson