koshergrl
Diamond Member
- Aug 4, 2011
- 81,129
- 14,025
- 2,190
We see our own less astute baby killers on this site repeatedly making this cynical, and completely untrue, assertion. ABORTIONS SAVE BABIES! KILLING BABIES PROTECTS BABIES! TEARING BABIES APART PREVENTS PAIN!
Lol. It's not true, in other words, it's a lie...and I'm not the only intelligent person to have notice.
"This claim has understandable appeal to the pro-choice-but-uneasy- about-it side of the abortion debate, which is why it’s repeated so often and accepted so uncritically. But as I’ve had reason to argue before (going back years and years), it also runs into some empirical difficulties...."
First off, the evidence shows the exact opposite. There are more abortions in states where Planned Parenthood has a large and ominous presence:
"First, whether you go state by state in the U.S. or make comparisons across developed countries (within Europe as well as North America), there is very little evidence for the kind of correlation between liberal social policies and lower abortion rates that the alleged “pro-life” case for Planned Parenthood assumes. In the U.S. especially, as I’ve noted before, the correlation often runs the other way: Abortion rates are generally lower in (conservative) states that have more abortion restrictions and fewer publicly funded family planning programs, and higher in (liberal) states where public policy is friendlier to Planned Parenthood, comprehensive sex education, public provision of contraception, etc."
And in fact, abortions decline sharply in direct correlation with the removal of federal funding. Go figure. How can that be? We all know federal funds aren't used for abortions...right? right? RIGHT?
"The steep decline coincides with the very sort of reduction in federal funding that he claims will lead to more abortions overall."
You often hear the baby killers stating that abortions have resulted in a reduction over the past decade or two...but the reality is here:
"... the nationwide abortion rate has been in steady decline since either the 1980s or the early 1990s. Over that same period, inflation-adjusted Title X funding — again, the funding that is allegedly essential to keeping the abortion rate low — has dropped by 60 percent, according to the Guttmacher Institute’s estimate. So again, Congressional Republicans have been following precisely the policy course that Milbank insists will drive up the abortion rate, not for a few years, but for more than a generation … and the results have been, again, the opposite of what he predicts."
How embarrassing for the anti-social mass murdering wannabes.
http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/08/05/there-is-no-pro-life-case-for-planned-parenthood/?_r=1
Lol. It's not true, in other words, it's a lie...and I'm not the only intelligent person to have notice.
"This claim has understandable appeal to the pro-choice-but-uneasy- about-it side of the abortion debate, which is why it’s repeated so often and accepted so uncritically. But as I’ve had reason to argue before (going back years and years), it also runs into some empirical difficulties...."
First off, the evidence shows the exact opposite. There are more abortions in states where Planned Parenthood has a large and ominous presence:
"First, whether you go state by state in the U.S. or make comparisons across developed countries (within Europe as well as North America), there is very little evidence for the kind of correlation between liberal social policies and lower abortion rates that the alleged “pro-life” case for Planned Parenthood assumes. In the U.S. especially, as I’ve noted before, the correlation often runs the other way: Abortion rates are generally lower in (conservative) states that have more abortion restrictions and fewer publicly funded family planning programs, and higher in (liberal) states where public policy is friendlier to Planned Parenthood, comprehensive sex education, public provision of contraception, etc."
And in fact, abortions decline sharply in direct correlation with the removal of federal funding. Go figure. How can that be? We all know federal funds aren't used for abortions...right? right? RIGHT?
"The steep decline coincides with the very sort of reduction in federal funding that he claims will lead to more abortions overall."
You often hear the baby killers stating that abortions have resulted in a reduction over the past decade or two...but the reality is here:
"... the nationwide abortion rate has been in steady decline since either the 1980s or the early 1990s. Over that same period, inflation-adjusted Title X funding — again, the funding that is allegedly essential to keeping the abortion rate low — has dropped by 60 percent, according to the Guttmacher Institute’s estimate. So again, Congressional Republicans have been following precisely the policy course that Milbank insists will drive up the abortion rate, not for a few years, but for more than a generation … and the results have been, again, the opposite of what he predicts."
How embarrassing for the anti-social mass murdering wannabes.
http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/08/05/there-is-no-pro-life-case-for-planned-parenthood/?_r=1
