19
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 230:
Line 230: + +
no edit summary
:: Andy, for the record, on the "abortion & cancer" stuff, the stats are correlated but causation is not implied, and any credible scientist would find that. I bet people who read this site are more likely than a carefully selected and retooled focus group to get breast cancer, too. Second, you should tell the mothers who died throughout history in childbirth that it's "good" for their health. Third, even if it is better for the health of the mother, it's not your call to force, in a paternalistic manner that most conservatives are opposed to, health decisions down their throat. Fourth, I think your use of "disparate impact" and "intent" rhetoric is insulting to constitutional law and misleading. However, let's jump on it to say that disparate impact never proves intent in modern constitutional law (cf. ''McClesky''), so you should remove any language from the article that insinuates a discriminatory intent. Fifth, I thank God every day that I do not live in an America controlled by people like you. No offense intended, but this country is better for it.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 18:37, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
:: Andy, for the record, on the "abortion & cancer" stuff, the stats are correlated but causation is not implied, and any credible scientist would find that. I bet people who read this site are more likely than a carefully selected and retooled focus group to get breast cancer, too. Second, you should tell the mothers who died throughout history in childbirth that it's "good" for their health. Third, even if it is better for the health of the mother, it's not your call to force, in a paternalistic manner that most conservatives are opposed to, health decisions down their throat. Fourth, I think your use of "disparate impact" and "intent" rhetoric is insulting to constitutional law and misleading. However, let's jump on it to say that disparate impact never proves intent in modern constitutional law (cf. ''McClesky''), so you should remove any language from the article that insinuates a discriminatory intent. Fifth, I thank God every day that I do not live in an America controlled by people like you. No offense intended, but this country is better for it.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 18:37, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
I'd like to see some sort of evidence that PP's "aggressive marketing in minority communities" is largely responsible for disparate abortion rates. Also, the abortion and cancer stuff remains a stretch. While women who've given birth eventually have lower risk of breast cancer, for 5-15 years afterward the risk is higher - Liu et al (2002), ''Cancer Causes & Control'', 13: 299-305; Lambe et al (1994), NEJM, 331:5-9. Also, having an abortion has been linked to decreased risk of other cancers - Parslov et al (2000), ''American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology'', 182:23-29. So, not really that simple after all. [[User:DrLib|DrLib]] 18:51, 2 April 2007 (EDT)