Is this article evil or not?

[MRT144]

Once more.

AGI asserts that there are the same number of 'legal' as there were 'illegal' abortions.

Therefore, there were around a million abortions every year in the US prior to legalisation.

AGI asserts that 1/570 illegal abortions results in the death of the woman. This would mean if we extrapolate this across a million abortions, that there were 1750 deaths due to abortion every year in America prior to legalisation.

You following me here? If A is true and B is true, then C is the result.

the problem with this is that there were only around 1250-850 maternal deaths every year through all causes, childbirth etc. Clearly one of two things must be true.

1. There were not a million abortions performed each year, or
2. Illegal abortions were much safer than AGI claims.

or 3. Some combination of the two.

You don't have a firm grasp of statistics do you?

[Ben Kenobi]

So you truly believe that Planned Parenthood wants to increase the amount of abortions they perform purely for financial gain.

You don't become the biggest player in the abortion industry by accident. Abortion is hugely profitable for Planned Parenthood. 1 billion in profits, make it the richest 'not-for-profit' charity. I think it's very cool that the government is funding them to the tune of 350 million dollars a year, while they take three times that much home.

[Ben Kenobi]

You don't have a firm grasp of statistics do you?

What's the problem with my logic? The math works.

[Wezil]

Oxymoron alert!

[MRT144]

You don't become the biggest player in the abortion industry by accident. Abortion is hugely profitable for Planned Parenthood. 1 billion in profits, make it the richest 'not-for-profit' charity. I think it's very cool that the government is funding them to the tune of 350 million dollars a year, while they take three times that much home.

If performing more abortions was their aim, why would they offer preventative services for pregnancy? You're ****ing ****.

And stats aren't logic. You're making bad assumptions for data you don't have.

[Ben Kenobi]

If performing more abortions was their aim, why would they offer preventative services for pregnancy?

Simple reason. It works the same way as a conglomerate that operates on a parallel business model. Make the things you buy, all the way down the chain, and you make a profit at every step.

The standard business model for Planned Parenthood is to get kiddos having sex and using condoms. This follows up with abortions later on. Works great! The more people use condoms, the more likely they are to need an abortion later on.

The question I have for you, if they weren't interested in selling abortions, why on earth are they america's largest abortion provider? By accident?

And stats aren't logic. You're making bad assumptions for data you don't have.

What exactly is the problem with my logic? You've said I'm making bad assumptions. Fair enough. Where have I gone wrong.

[MRT144]

Simple reason. It works the same way as a conglomerate that operates on a parallel business model. Make the things you buy, all the way down the chain, and you make a profit at every step.

The standard business model for Planned Parenthood is to get kiddos having sex and using condoms. This follows up with abortions later on. Works great! The more people use condoms, the more likely they are to need an abortion later on.

The question I have for you, if they weren't interested in selling abortions, why on earth are they america's largest abortion provider? By accident?



What exactly is the problem with my logic? You've said I'm making bad assumptions. Fair enough. Where have I gone wrong.

You're seriously ****ing demented if you think the bolded. And illogical to boot. And totally devoid of any understanding of economics. And it ignorant of facts.

As for your faulty assumptions they rest on one central thing;

You don't know what the **** you're talking about with statistics. Simple averages don't work with varied and different populations contributing to an aggregate number. You're a ****ing failure at trying to bull**** your way to a point. You don't have any data that matters and the **** you do put up is laughably idiotic. Stop being the poster boy for why abortion is a public good.

[Theben]

Bebro, you didn't add any commentary of your own in the OP.

Clearly you started a bad trend. This is all your fault.

[Ben Kenobi]

You don't know what the **** you're talking about with statistics.

You've said this three times now without explaining where the gap in my logic exists.

Simple averages don't work with varied and different populations contributing to an aggregate number.

Uhh, ok. So because the population is 'diverse' the statistical principle called an 'average' no longer applies?

You're a ****ing failure at trying to bull**** your way to a point. You don't have any data that matters and the **** you do put up is laughably idiotic. Stop being the poster boy for why abortion is a public good.

I find it amusing. Look, if there's a logical fallacy, all you have to do is show where the argument fails. Crafting some bull**** about 'diversity' and 'aggregates' is weak. Averages apply just as well to diverse as homogenous populations. That's the entire point of the concept. There will be more variance across diverse population, but the average applies in the exact same manner.

You're seriously ****ing demented if you think the bolded.

It's a brilliant business model to the tune of 1 billion a year in profit. There are not that many businesses in America that make that much. Abortions and condoms are like a Big Mac and fries.

[MRT144]

You really don't know what you're talking about. You're claiming an illegal abortion in the united states circa 1950 is similar to an illegal abortion in sudan circa 1998. Furthermore your logic leads to disbelieving every statistic of comparing the United States to the world (Did 160,000 American infants die last year? Well the infant mortality rate for the world is 40 per 1000, so given that 4 million were born in the United States, 160,000 should have died) Do you know what a histogram is?

Secondly, stop [REDACTED INSULT] trying to compare Planned Parenthood to anything else. Abortion is lowest where contraception availability is highest. Did you read the article at all?

[loinburger]

You know who else was anti-abortion?

[Kontiki]

Personally, I'm a little curious when PP made $1 billion in profit, let alone that much from abortion.

[Ben Kenobi]

You're claiming an illegal abortion in the united states circa 1950 is similar to an illegal abortion in sudan circa 1998.

I'm addressing the principle that AGI is trying to assert that legalisation does not increase the abortion rate. This directly contradicts the evidence we do have.

Are you asserting that illegal abortions in the US are expected to have a lower fatality rate than 1/570?

Furthermore your logic leads to disbelieving every statistic of comparing the United States to the world (Did 160,000 American infants die last year? Well the infant mortality rate for the world is 40 per 1000, so given that 4 million were born in the United States, 160,000 should have died)

Which is why I used the US maternal mortality figures for 1950-1975, and not the world ones. Apples to apples. Are you contesting that I've gotten the rate wrong?

Do you know what a histogram is?

Yes.

Abortion is lowest where contraception availability is highest. Did you read the article at all?

Would you trust RNR selling smoking cessation aids? Yes, I read the article. Sadly, it's not at all the case. As I've shown, abortion rates have increased as condom usage increased.

[Ben Kenobi]

Man, Loin, that's an insightful comment.

Did you know L Ron Hubbard was the same way? The man was a prophet!

[MRT144]

I'm addressing the principle that AGI is trying to assert that legalisation does not increase the abortion rate. This directly contradicts the evidence we do have.

Are you asserting that illegal abortions in the US are expected to have a lower fatality rate than 1/570?

Yes. Absolutely. Worldwide the fatality rate now is 1/~643. It's obnoxious that you can't do basic math, and even more obnoxious that you think all illegal abortions are the same from country to country at any point in time and use that as a basis to make an argument fumbling your way through basic statistical analysis.

Which is why I used the US maternal mortality figures for 1950-1975, and not the world ones. Apples to apples. Are you contesting that I've gotten the rate wrong?

You took the current mortality rate for illegal abortions worldwide, applied it to the illegal abortions from 1950-1970, and then said "HEY YOU GUYS, THE NUMBERS DON'T ADD UP! ACCORDING TO THE MATH... " You're saying that an illegal abortion anywhere in the world is exactly the same across the world at every point in time. You also found some ridiculous "source" on abortion rates without even thinking about how they could possibly be inaccurate.

Would you trust RNR selling smoking cessation aids? Yes, I read the article. Sadly, it's not at all the case. As I've shown, abortion rates have increased as condom usage increased.

Then why does the Netherlands have one of the lowest abortion rates and at the same time one of the most open societies when it comes to sexual education and contraception. Where's your ****ing scatter plot for abortion rate and contraceptive accessibility by nation? You haven't shown **** at best and at worst you've made **** up.

There is nothing more to discuss here. You suck at life.