Re: [TruthTalk] Kerry and Abortion

[David Miller]

ï Jonathan Hughes wrote: > I take issue in that you claim I have misled you > and the others on this forum. I don't think you purposely misled me.  I was trying to communicate that I felt misled.  Based upon what you wrote, I expected to find substance and objectivity, and instead I found political motivations from the liberal camp.  It may be that I misread you.  I don't blame you.  I hope you understand that.   Jonathan Hughes wrote: > Note that Stassen claims to be trained in statistical analysis.    Is there any Ph.D. who is not trained in statistical analysis?  All that means to me is that he has taken classes in statistical analysis.  To be a statistician means more.  It means that you teach statistics and that your area of expertise is statistical math.    I have been trained in statistical analysis, and I have taught statistics at the university level.  I also have been consulted by scientists concerning statistical analysis, but I do not consider myself a statistician because my interests lie outside that area.   Jonathan Hughes wrote: > His email address is [EMAIL PROTECTED]  If you wish I shall > email him asking where he was trained in statistical analysis.     I don't care about where he was trained.  I know enough about statistics to talk with him directly and challenge him on his methodology.  How about writing him and inviting him to this forum.  I don't have time to do all the homework, but if he has an interest in this, maybe I can help him ask the right questions and do the right kind of analysis.   Jonathan Hughes wrote: > The article's author Joshua Holland called Glen a statistician > and ethicist.  Perhaps he should have said that he was statistically > trained ethicist.    Yes, that would have been better.   Jonathan Hughes wrote: > Note also that abortion was at a 24 year low, > completely nullifying Perry's 'lag' theory.   It does not nullify Perry's 'lag' theory, but only points to other factors that should be considered.  For example, I understand that teen pregnancy also went way down during this time.  Was this because of economic hardship?  Could the decrease in teen pregnancy have contributed to the decrease in abortions?    Another factor:  distribution of condoms.  During the last four years, there has been a rash of "emphasis on safe sex" and free distribution of condoms.  Could this have resulted in more sexual activity and higher incidences of abortion as a result?  There are a lot of factors that need consideration, and economic hardship is not highest on the list, in my opinion.   Jonathan Hughes wrote: > 1)  The person who did the study is a Christian man who claims > to be statistically trained.  It was the author of the article that > claimed Stassen was a statistician.  You apparently think that I > should have not taken this for granted.    We have to be careful about what we repeat.  We should not believe everything we read.  If I wanted to repeat that, I would have checked it out first to see if that was true.  Otherwise, I would have left that word out.   Jonathan Hughes wrote: > I feel confident from looking at the data Stassen used (quoted above) > that Stassen is handling the statistics in a fair manner.   Not me!  In fact, the actual data shows more problems with what he was doing with the data.  He only sampled 16 states, yet he claims to be justified in applying it to all fifty states?  The differences were shown for only 1 year, 2001-2002.  In this sample, 44% (7/16) of the states showed an actual DECREASE in abortions, the opposite of his overall statistics.  What would they show if data were produced for all states?  He even admits that his samples were skewed toward the mid-west because he was more interested in that because that is where he lived!  He admits to mistakes made with the data for two states in this actual article.  If I had produced a study like this in graduate school, I would have received a scathing rebuke for all kinds of statistical boo-boos, not to mention inadequate documentation of sources.  And what is this "z-test" he is doing to justify applying the sample over all the U.S. with 99.99% confidence?  Hogwash.  That is a joke.  The z-test is greatly affected by small sample sizes, but besides that, it is entirely inappropriate to apply in this case.  Are you going to argue with him that you have 99.99% confidence that the data he has adequately represents the entire U.S.?  Come on.  Please don't tell me that.    Jonathan Hughes wrote: > 2)  Stassen does have a great interest in social issues.  > ... He is not just appealing to his pro-life friends to > consider the facts; he is also appealing to you and me.   My point was that his bias comes from the social issues, and as he relates in this latest article, from his living in the mid-west and being concerned about that area of the United States more than other areas.  Now we see that he has personal reasons, a handicapped child, which also pressures him.  He wishes that he had more social support when he was making a decision about whether or not to abort his unborn child.  Ok.  I get the point, that economics has a bearing upon people making decisions about abortion.  I agree with such a point.  However, does a correlation between increased abortions and decreased average incomes mean that there is a cause and effect relationship?  I don't think so.    One thing he could do is compare state by state.  I understand that Florida's economy is greater than it has ever been, so why did it increase in the number of abortions in his table?   Jonathan Hughes wrote: > 3)  I never stated that the person who wrote the article > was a pro-life conservative.  I am not sure why you comment > on him smoking and drinking wine.  What is your source on > this and of course, please comment on what you are attempting > to really say.  Are words and pieces of journalism from people > who smoke and drink wine immediately considered untrue?  > False?  More likely your temper is getting the better of you here.  > You then go on to call him foul-mouthed.  I have read the recent > 5 articles he has written for gadflyer.  I have not found an instance > of him being foul-mouthed.  Please quote it for me and then tell me > why you feel this invalidates anything he has to say.  Shall I quote > for you times when Bush has been foul-mouthed?  Does it make > a difference?  If you haven't put him down enough you now call > him a lefty activist from a 'liberal' university.  Shall I tell you where > I went to university so you can put me in a nice category as well?  > The tirade is beneath you.   What I was doing was mirroring back the same logic you were giving to us.  You wanted us to accept the article because a Christian pro-lifer did the study.  I'm glad to see that you recognize that such logic does not hold.  Just because it is a "Christian pro-lifer" really says little about the merits of the study, but liberal activists like Holland and perhaps yourself love to use such anecdotes to bolster their arguments.   When I was searching the website on his paper, "Tojan Horse," I found something from the previous editor who was handing over the reigns to Holland.  The article was filled with the vulgar language, including the F-word, and he spoke glowingly about your author Holland and the smoke-filled wine drinking sessions held at Holland's house.  I'm not going to take time to find that article again, but that is why I characterized him that way.  From my perspective, a man who smokes, drinks, and has an unclean mouth is not a man who has embraced the truth.  Men of God don't live like that.  This doesn't mean that he might not have something good to say, even something truthful, but it certainly counters the reasons you offered for why I should give him special attention... because he is talking about a study from a Christian pro-life person.   Jonathan wrote: > Often when we become angry or stressed our awareness of > the whole becomes focused on just one aspect.    Uh... Jonathan, calm down.  I am not angry or stressed.   Jonathan wrote: > The article contains a sustained argument that although Bush > is moderately pro-life and therefore gains a tonne of votes for > this professed stance, the reality of the situation is that under > Bush more babies are killed.   Most of the anti-abortionists that I know hate him and would never vote for him.  They feel very betrayed by Bush.  More temperate people, such as myself, have a different perspective.  I see the abortion issue as a legislative one, and abortion is legal because the people want it to be legal.  As long as the people want abortion, no President can lead the people to make abortion illegal.   Jonathan wrote: > 1)  Why does this article push so many buttons for you?   The article was rather boring and uninsightful for me.  I don't see where it has pushed any buttons for me.  I was responding to you, to your idea that something is wrong with people who cannot read this study and see it the way you see it.  In other words, you pushed my buttons, not the article itself.   Jonathan wrote: > 2)  Are there any valid criticisms of George W Bush? Absolutely.  Bush has done a terrible job of leading Congress to balance the budget.    Jonathan wrote: > 3)  Although Bush is unwilling to publicly state anything he has > done wrong, would you be kind enough to state at least three for him?   You are wrong about Bush not being willing to state anything that he has done wrong.  He admitted to making some bad appointments at the debates.  Before he said it, I was yelling at the television, "aw, come on, tell them about the bad appointments you have made!"  It was almost like he heard me when he admitted to making some bad appointments.  Bush appointed more homosexuals to positions of power than Clinton ever did.  That was a big mistake. Jonathan wrote: > 4)  Now that you have the statistical data Stassen used to come > to his conclusions do you still find his argument 'non-sensical'?   Yes, absolutely.  Did you even read my little lesson about fire trucks and big fires?  A correlation does not establish a cause and effect relationship.  This is statistics 101.   Jonathan wrote: > 5)  If Kerry wins tonight will you support him with > the same loyalty you give W? Bush is going to win the election, so the answer to your question doesn't matter.  :-)    I have a similar question for you.  If Kerry were to win the election, I would agree that God established him as our President.  If Bush wins the election, are you willing to agree with me that God has established Bush as our President?   Peace be with you. David Miller.