–Cobra

The issue is not the choice: it is what the “whatever it is” is. Sort of like Clinton’s “it depends on what the meaning of is is.”

Does science define the embryo, fetus and baby differently depending on whether the mother is of religious faith or a “free spirit”?

When one “ends the living future” of an organism, it is final for the organism. Science has no confusion about when the life of an organism commences. To halt the life of an organism, it is necessary to kill the organism. I did not say murder.

What are the rules for killing the human organism? So far, we have ignored the basic question and fooled around with the attributes of “human” instead.

This is not “omnisicient” so much as it is basic to understanding the debate.

Sailer gets so much flack for saying politically incorrect things that he should not be saddled with that one.

Eek! That was nasty, wasn’t it? Sorry Sailer! – Admin

While Heliotrope is omnisicient enough to sum up of the views of all both of religious faith and without in two neat sentences, let’s use his divide as a basis for discussion. While simplistic and inaccurate, why not allow those of religious faith to exercise their faith by eschewing abortions, and those without to similarlly act out thier conscience (or lack thereof?)

It is not the government’s role to replace churches as the primary moral agents of society. Our Founding Fathers were well aware of this and made this abundantly clear. These attacks on traditional American values by those who hate America, its ideals, its founding principles, and its freedoms must be turned back. It is the personal responsibility of every American to stand up for freedom and liberty and protect the hard won rights of the American revolution.

If you read Sailer’s work he’s inherently racist and tends to try to use statistical methods to back up his arguments. Unfortunately he lacks and real and understanding of stats, economics, genetics, etc. to really prove a legitimate argument.

Our country as a whole got on the “abortion is legal train” with Roe V. Wade. Whether the prevalence of abortion has lowered crime or not is great conversation, but beyond that, it is geek food for statisticians. No matter what the answer may be, it will not have a bit of impact on the culture.

Those of religious faith know that the mother is the vessel that carries life. Those who eschew religious faith see the abortion clinic as a co-equal of that part of the SPCA which “eliminates strays.”

When we treat pregnancy as an outcome that can be erased easily rather than as an obligation to nurture an important new life, we are looking at pregnancy from a strictly science and mathematics viewpoint.

Certainly, how a society treats its children greatly affects the society in return. When we freely pass out condoms, put young girls on birth control, and accept the abortion clinic as one of the “rites of passage” we have surrendered nurture to science and the state.

We have developed terrific science for saving life in the womb and sustaining babies that arrive critically prematurely. But when it comes to abortion, if someone developed an automatic abortion chamber I am afraid there would be one in every drug store.

Meanwhile, the arguments about the statistics surrounding the culture of abortion only serve to detract from the core of the debate.

It is not a choice. It is a human life. God given.

2) Saying “I know it when I see it” doesn’t really work for economics. If it did, these questions (along with questions about the NAIRU, or how to prevent capital flights, or recessions) wouldn’t exist. We’d know the answers and always have great economies worldwide.

3)
I don’t think Levitt ought to be too worried about coding errors even if they blow the whole theory apart because most people couldn’t care less about statistics and economics, although they should.
I agree that this won’t hurt Leavitt’s popular reputation becaue not many people will care (or understand). But it is quite a professional gaffe.

4) Sailer’s theory is also plausible if we don’t consider any data. That’s why we do econometrics. If he’s right, 70’s abortion rates should be correlated positively with early 90’s drug violence. That’s a testable hypothesis for someone with data and a computer.

And is he really upholding shotgun weddings as a goal?

It is good that the men are having such a discussion about abortion, and having it intelligently at that. More men need to stand up and do the same.

I love Mr. Sailer’s writing, very concise, detailed, and with a nice touch of wit. Good stuff.