Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://www.kpax.com/news/va-lawmaker-di ... -abortion/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(CBS News) Republican Virginia State Delegate Bob Marshall said at a press conference last week that God is taking "vengeance" on parents who have had abortions by making their other children disabled, according to the News Leader in Central Virginia.



What a fucking idiot.

Where' John St. Wrong to defend this guys opinion because: We really don't know that's not true... it's just as likely to be true that God is doing just that as it is unlikely - we just don't know

Go..!!! John Go..!!!
I can't wait

Neither point can be proven - so - there you go... The hand of God works in mysterious way

That story is a couple years old and it was somewhat out of context. While his trying to pin it on the OT is a little tough to swallow, the study done by VCU is something that shouldn't be ignored.

Result: Compared with women with no history of abortion, women who had one, two and three or more previous abortions were 2.8 (95% CI 2.48 to 3.07), 4.6 (95% CI 3.94 to 5.46) and 9.5 (95% CI 7.72 to 11.67) times more likely to have LBW, respectively. The risk for PB was also 1.7 (95% CI 1.52 to 1.83), 2.0 (95% CI 1.73 to 2.37) and 3.0 (95% CI 2.47 to 3.70) times higher for women with a history of one, two and three or more previous abortions, respectively.

Conclusion: Previous abortion is a significant risk factor for LBW and PB, and the risk increases with the increasing number of previous abortions. Practitioners should consider previous abortion as a risk factor for LBW and PB.

http://jech.bmj.com/content/62/1/16.abstract

89Hen wrote: That story is a couple years old and it was somewhat out of context. While his trying to pin it on the OT is a little tough to swallow, the study done by VCU is something that shouldn't be ignored.

Result: Compared with women with no history of abortion, women who had one, two and three or more previous abortions were 2.8 (95% CI 2.48 to 3.07), 4.6 (95% CI 3.94 to 5.46) and 9.5 (95% CI 7.72 to 11.67) times more likely to have LBW, respectively. The risk for PB was also 1.7 (95% CI 1.52 to 1.83), 2.0 (95% CI 1.73 to 2.37) and 3.0 (95% CI 2.47 to 3.70) times higher for women with a history of one, two and three or more previous abortions, respectively.

Conclusion: Previous abortion is a significant risk factor for LBW and PB, and the risk increases with the increasing number of previous abortions. Practitioners should consider previous abortion as a risk factor for LBW and PB.

http://jech.bmj.com/content/62/1/16.abstract

IT's like Magnets
There's no scientific answer to this - it must be Gods work

What is in the water in the GOP?

Damn, why can't they ever get the message? The looney right has been dragging the party down for the past several elections, but with the addition of the tea baggers now these kind of retarded social issues, and diatribes are making the whole party out to be fringe idiots.

Thought it was bad just having to deal with the crazy evangelists, but the nut-suckers are making them look "mainstream"

89Hen wrote: That story is a couple years old and it was somewhat out of context. While his trying to pin it on the OT is a little tough to swallow, the study done by VCU is something that shouldn't be ignored.

Result: Compared with women with no history of abortion, women who had one, two and three or more previous abortions were 2.8 (95% CI 2.48 to 3.07), 4.6 (95% CI 3.94 to 5.46) and 9.5 (95% CI 7.72 to 11.67) times more likely to have LBW, respectively. The risk for PB was also 1.7 (95% CI 1.52 to 1.83), 2.0 (95% CI 1.73 to 2.37) and 3.0 (95% CI 2.47 to 3.70) times higher for women with a history of one, two and three or more previous abortions, respectively.

Conclusion: Previous abortion is a significant risk factor for LBW and PB, and the risk increases with the increasing number of previous abortions. Practitioners should consider previous abortion as a risk factor for LBW and PB.

http://jech.bmj.com/content/62/1/16.abstract

Were other factors controlled for? IE were mothers that had previous abortions likely to be sicker, poorer, etc than those without?

How was the previous abortion data obtained? Self identified? Would some women (especially from higher income groups) be less likely to self report abortions?

I can't see if they compared a women with one abortion to a woman that had previously had a child? Did they control for this?

dbackjon wrote:

89Hen wrote: That story is a couple years old and it was somewhat out of context. While his trying to pin it on the OT is a little tough to swallow, the study done by VCU is something that shouldn't be ignored.



http://jech.bmj.com/content/62/1/16.abstract

Were other factors controlled for? IE were mothers that had previous abortions likely to be sicker, poorer, etc than those without?

How was the previous abortion data obtained? Self identified? Would some women (especially from higher income groups) be less likely to self report abortions?

I can't see if they compared a women with one abortion to a woman that had previously had a child? Did they control for this?

Of course the data is good and 100% accurate
This is Gods work

dbackjon wrote:Were other factors controlled for? IE were mothers that had previous abortions likely to be sicker, poorer, etc than those without?

How was the previous abortion data obtained? Self identified? Would some women (especially from higher income groups) be less likely to self report abortions?

I can't see if they compared a women with one abortion to a woman that had previously had a child? Did they control for this?

I guess you'll have to buy the full text to make sure this professor followed scientific method.

89Hen wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Were other factors controlled for? IE were mothers that had previous abortions likely to be sicker, poorer, etc than those without?

How was the previous abortion data obtained? Self identified? Would some women (especially from higher income groups) be less likely to self report abortions?

I can't see if they compared a women with one abortion to a woman that had previously had a child? Did they control for this?

I guess you'll have to buy the full text to make sure this professor followed scientific method.

So it is a money-making scam - gotcha!

grizzaholic wrote:http://www.kpax.com/news/va-lawmaker-di ... -abortion/

(CBS News) Republican Virginia State Delegate Bob Marshall said at a press conference last week that God is taking "vengeance" on parents who have had abortions by making their other children disabled, according to the News Leader in Central Virginia.



What a **** idiot.

Idiot is right.

Idiots and morons on both sides get headlines like these......geez....

Chizzang wrote:Where' John St. Wrong to defend this guys opinion because: We really don't know that's not true... it's just as likely to be true that God is doing just that as it is unlikely - we just don't know

Go..!!! John Go..!!!
I can't wait

Neither point can be proven - so - there you go... The hand of God works in mysterious way

I don't even know if it's true that there is a greater likelihood of having problems with subsequent children when earlier children are terminated through abortion.

But you're right about how I will react in general. Whenever something like this happens...like someone saying a natural disaster is God's judgement, etc...there is always a knee jerk reaction to condem the statement as though it's self evidently not true. And such statements are rarely self-evidently not true.

You're right. I will say we don't know. I don't think so. And if it does turn out that there is some "significant" association between abortion and problems with subsequent offspring I would be interested in looking for some natural explanation. But I don't know.

JohnStOnge wrote:

Chizzang wrote:Where' John St. Wrong to defend this guys opinion because: We really don't know that's not true... it's just as likely to be true that God is doing just that as it is unlikely - we just don't know

Go..!!! John Go..!!!
I can't wait

Neither point can be proven - so - there you go... The hand of God works in mysterious way

I don't even know if it's true that there is a greater likelihood of having problems with subsequent children when earlier children are terminated through abortion.

But you're right about how I will react in general. Whenever something like this happens...like someone saying a natural disaster is God's judgement, etc...there is always a knee jerk reaction to condem the statement as though it's self evidently not true. And such statements are rarely self-evidently not true.

You're right. I will say we don't know. I don't think so. And if it does turn out that there is some "significant" association between abortion and problems with subsequent offspring I would be interested in looking for some natural explanation. But I don't know.

And you're 100% correct to do so my friend...
I am more fond of you than you know
I tease you
but I also agree with you (more than I let on)

dbackjon wrote:

89Hen wrote: I guess you'll have to buy the full text to make sure this professor followed scientific method.

So it is a money-making scam - gotcha!

Much less intricate than the anthropogenic global warming money making scam.

JohnStOnge wrote:

Chizzang wrote:Where' John St. Wrong to defend this guys opinion because: We really don't know that's not true... it's just as likely to be true that God is doing just that as it is unlikely - we just don't know

Go..!!! John Go..!!!
I can't wait

Neither point can be proven - so - there you go... The hand of God works in mysterious way

I don't even know if it's true that there is a greater likelihood of having problems with subsequent children when earlier children are terminated through abortion.

But you're right about how I will react in general. Whenever something like this happens...like someone saying a natural disaster is God's judgement, etc...there is always a knee jerk reaction to condem the statement as though it's self evidently not true. And such statements are rarely self-evidently not true.

You're right. I will say we don't know. I don't think so. And if it does turn out that there is some "significant" association between abortion and problems with subsequent offspring I would be interested in looking for some natural explanation. But I don't know.

You talk like your chronic skepticism is noble, but really it's a cop out. You cowardly use it to justify pedophilia and child rape, destruction of the environment, bigotry, racism, repression of women's rights, dangerous religion, etc.

You're a total piece of human shit and shame on dicks like Clits for deifying psychoconkfucks like you.

D1B wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
I don't even know if it's true that there is a greater likelihood of having problems with subsequent children when earlier children are terminated through abortion.

But you're right about how I will react in general. Whenever something like this happens...like someone saying a natural disaster is God's judgement, etc...there is always a knee jerk reaction to condem the statement as though it's self evidently not true. And such statements are rarely self-evidently not true.

You're right. I will say we don't know. I don't think so. And if it does turn out that there is some "significant" association between abortion and problems with subsequent offspring I would be interested in looking for some natural explanation. But I don't know.

You talk like your chronic skepticism is noble, but really it's a cop out. You cowardly use it to justify pedophilia and child rape, destruction of the environment, bigotry, racism, repression of women's rights, dangerous religion, etc.

You're a total piece of human shit and shame on dicks like Clits for deifying psychoconkfucks like you.

It's really unfortunate that you don't have kids. The next generation of I-AA fans are really going to miss out.

CID1990 wrote:

dbackjon wrote:

So it is a money-making scam - gotcha!

Much less intricate than the anthropogenic global warming money making scam.

D1B wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
I don't even know if it's true that there is a greater likelihood of having problems with subsequent children when earlier children are terminated through abortion.

But you're right about how I will react in general. Whenever something like this happens...like someone saying a natural disaster is God's judgement, etc...there is always a knee jerk reaction to condem the statement as though it's self evidently not true. And such statements are rarely self-evidently not true.

You're right. I will say we don't know. I don't think so. And if it does turn out that there is some "significant" association between abortion and problems with subsequent offspring I would be interested in looking for some natural explanation. But I don't know.

You talk like your chronic skepticism is noble, but really it's a cop out. You cowardly use it to justify pedophilia and child rape, destruction of the environment, bigotry, racism, repression of women's rights, dangerous religion, etc.

You're a total piece of human shit and shame on dicks like Clits for deifying psychoconkfucks like you.

Gosh that's well said D1B...
And Chronic Skepticism is perhaps not honorable but certainly commendable in my book
You do realize that 95% of what is bandied about on this Political forum is "opinion"
It's not Math and it sure as hell ain't science - even though those things are touched on, the argument always arise from the fringes of these things - where the ground gets more slippery

Do I agree with Johns opinion - probably 33% of the time - but I find his opinion interesting (always)
Do I agree with you D1B (Minus the ridiculous attacks) probably 50%

Ultimately that's about all there is to it... it's really not any more complicated than that
No reason to get so emotional

I took a leak in a stream in Va, but that was some time ago.

2.8%? What? If the almighty has a hand in this there must be complex other variables at play.

Virginia certainly is a hot bed for crazy fucks... especially Virginia Beach.

Pat Robertson, Regent University, Liberty University, PETA, Aleister Crowley, etc.

Skjellyfetti wrote:Virginia certainly is a hot bed for crazy fucks... especially Virginia Beach.

Pat Robertson, Regent University, Liberty University, PETA, Aleister Crowley, etc.

I hate people from Virginia.

Were other factors controlled for? IE were mothers that had previous abortions likely to be sicker, poorer, etc than those without?

How was the previous abortion data obtained? Self identified? Would some women (especially from higher income groups) be less likely to self report abortions?

I can't see if they compared a women with one abortion to a woman that had previously had a child? Did they control for this?

I hadn't noticed the post with that study in it before I posted but those are all good questions. And even if they tried to "control" for what they thought to try to control for there's no way they could ever infer cause and effect. It's an observational study.

But it looks like they did find an associations so at least there's reason to wonder why the associations were observed. Unfortunately there's no way to ever definitively answer the cause and effect question because that would require an experiment in which some women would be randomly assigned to have the abortion "treatment" while other women are randomly assigned to be controls.

I suspect you're on the right track with some of your questions though. Like one thing that immediately comes ot mind is that it's reasonable to think that poor women are both more likely to have abortions and more likely to have low birth weight babies because they are poor. I've got to believe they would've tried to mathematically control for that in some way but trying to mathematically control for things in observational data is no substitute for conducting an experiment (which, again, is ethically out of the question).

Chizzang wrote:

D1B wrote:
You talk like your chronic skepticism is noble, but really it's a cop out. You cowardly use it to justify pedophilia and child rape, destruction of the environment, bigotry, racism, repression of women's rights, dangerous religion, etc.

You're a total piece of human shit and shame on dicks like Clits for deifying psychoconkfucks like you.

Gosh that's well said D1B...
And Chronic Skepticism is perhaps not honorable but certainly commendable in my book
You do realize that 95% of what is bandied about on this Political forum is "opinion"
It's not Math and it sure as hell ain't science - even though those things are touched on, the argument always arise from the fringes of these things - where the ground gets more slippery

Do I agree with Johns opinion - probably 33% of the time - but I find his opinion interesting (always)
Do I agree with you D1B (Minus the ridiculous attacks) probably 50%

Ultimately that's about all there is to it... it's really not any more complicated than that
No reason to get so emotional

Chronic cynicism is honorable.

JohnStOnge wrote:

Were other factors controlled for? IE were mothers that had previous abortions likely to be sicker, poorer, etc than those without?

How was the previous abortion data obtained? Self identified? Would some women (especially from higher income groups) be less likely to self report abortions?

I can't see if they compared a women with one abortion to a woman that had previously had a child? Did they control for this?

I hadn't noticed the post with that study in it before I posted but those are all good questions. And even if they tried to "control" for what they thought to try to control for there's no way they could ever infer cause and effect. It's an observational study.

But it looks like they did find an associations so at least there's reason to wonder why the associations were observed. Unfortunately there's no way to ever definitively answer the cause and effect question because that would require an experiment in which some women would be randomly assigned to have the abortion "treatment" while other women are randomly assigned to be controls.

I suspect you're on the right track with some of your questions though. Like one thing that immediately comes ot mind is that it's reasonable to think that poor women are both more likely to have abortions and more likely to have low birth weight babies because they are poor. I've got to believe they would've tried to mathematically control for that in some way but trying to mathematically control for things in observational data is no substitute for conducting an experiment (which, again, is ethically out of the question).

Good points on the fact this is solely on observational data