Dobson strikes again

[proud2BlibKansan]

December 30, 2005

Abortion Linked to Abuse
by Josh Montez

A new report finds that women who have had an abortion are more likely to physically abuse their children.

Is there a link between abortion and later abuse? Priscilla Coleman of Bowling Green State University studied over 500 women who had a pattern of neglecting or abusing their children.

“We did find that when a woman had one prior abortion, compared to those who didn’t have any history, were 144% more likely to physically abuse a subsequently born child.”

David Reardon is with the Eliot Institute.

“The claim that abortion was going to rid us of child abuse and child neglect by getting rid of unwanted pregnancies before they are born, this is another nail in that coffin; that claim is simply false.”

more . . .
http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/news/a0039045.cfm

[demnan]

1. But he just proved the opposite of his point

after all, maybe there isn't enough abortion! If these women had abortions everytime they were pregnant then there would be no abused children, right?

Is he saying having abortions causes a woman to mistreat her kids, or maybe people who would mistreat their children are more likely to get abortions? Which is it?

Just shows how silly his line of (lack of) reasoning is.

[proud2BlibKansan]

14. They interviewed women who abuse thier kids

to see if they would abuse their kids.

LOL

[cantstandbush]

37. But most Americans can't think their way out of a paper bag and they

will not understand this finding at all. But it is almost laughable that they conclude that women who never wanted a first child would "want" and another child that would not be abused.

Now how many women who never had an abortion were found to be child abusers? Tell me agian?

[Erika]

2. Dobson is a hate figure

He's headed in the wrong direction.

[MnFats]

3. gee, do you think this 'research' was done objectively?

and of course, even IF the facts were accepted as true for the sake of argument, does that mean a cause/effect relationship?

these idiots practice a lazy pseudoscience. It's the opposite of the scientifc method: INstead of gathering all available information and drawing a conclusion; these clowns pick a conclusion and go looking for information that supports it. All other information is either explained away or ignored all together.

[BrotherBuzz]

7. Hasty generalization, you think?

Hasty generalization. In logic, the hasty generalization is a form of improper induction. In life it is called prejudice. In either case, conclusions are drawn before the facts warrant it by retaining only those results that fit the theory while discarding others that do not.

[proud2BlibKansan]

31. It was done for jeezus

So it didn't have to be objective.

[Crunchy Frog]

4. The fallacy of

confusing correlation with causation. Some of the same socioeconomic factors that lead women to have abortions could also be linked with an increased likelihood of being abusive. That's if the information is even true, which I would need to see a more reliable source to believe.

Even if it's true that women who abort are also more likely to have abusive personalities, if they get an abortion it still means one less abuse victim.

I don't think anyone ever claimed that abortion would "eliminate" child abuse. Another straw man arguement.

[Erika]

5. Bennett did say that if you abort all black babies

that crime would be reduced.

[peacebaby3]

6. Oh for God's sake! I have 3 friends who have had abortions and all 3 have

other children now. Not one of them abuses her child! With it being 144% more likely, I would think at least one of the 3 would be a child abuser. What complete and utter bullshit.

You want to hear something else quite ironic. Out of all 4 of us, I'm the only one who has never had an abortion and I am also the one who is the most liberal about the issue of abortion. They wanted it available for themselves. It is very difficult for me to have a conversation with them about the issue without reminding them of their own choice, but I don't. I just can't bring myself to use that against them in an argument because I was there when those choices were made and they were difficult decisions, but I've never heard one of them say they regretted their decision so I find it all strange.

[Marr]

8. Wait a minute.

They looked at a pool of 500 women who "had a pattern of neglecting or abusing their children", and from that, established that women who've had an abortion are more likely to abuse their children? But- everyone in the study had abused their children. Assuming their methodology is otherwise accurate (which I really doubt), it still means nothing without knowing what overall percentage of women in the given socioeconomic class(es) have had abortions.

But it's pointless speculation anyway, as I assume anything coming from Dobson is self-serving bullshit.

[Erika]

9. Yes, Dobson is a sick sob

He claims to be a psychologist. I had a psychiatrist friend tell me once that those in the psychologist/psychiatrists fields are the hardest to cure when they get sick. They've built up these faulty logic defenses, and it takes twice the time to get them back to reality. Dobson definitely qualifies.

[peacebaby3]

10. Is he really a Dr. (of psychology or anything)? n/t

[Azathoth]

19. Yes, he does have a PhD I believe in child psychology

In fact, I think once upon a time he actually used to teach at a medical school somewhere. Nowadays, however, the only part of his education he actually uses is the title, like other rightwing wackjobs such as Dr. Laura and Dr. Michael "Savage.

[dsc]

38. believe it or not

the man wrote some decent child rearing books a few decades ago. Then he went nuts or something.

[silverweb]

12. Exactly!

I picked up on the same thing and had the same reaction you did. This so-called "study" is bullshit, as is anything coming from Dobson.

[proud2BlibKansan]

16. BINGO

We have a winner, ladies and gentlemen!

[EstimatedProphet]

20. The statistical model they used is called a Crack Plot

Named because so many crackplots use it

[proud2BlibKansan]

32. I have had a problem with Dobson ever since

Ted Bundy took him for a ride back in the 80s. Bundy, who was on death row and had refused interviews, agreed to talk to Dobson. In the interview, Bundy claimed he had killed because he was a porn addict. And Dobson believed him.

[mongo]

39. Bundy was coached to bring up porn

In two previous confessions, Bundy did not say a peep about porn.

Dobson set the whole thing up.

[proud2BlibKansan]

40. That pissed me off because

we may have learned a thing or two about sociopathy and we could have used what we learned to treat sociopaths. But still today, people reference Dobson's interview with Bundy and blame porn for his murderous rampage.

[Richard Steele]

42. And, oddly enough, Bundy didn't actually HAVE any porn.

After he was caught, PORN was one of the things
that DIDN'T turn up amongst his possesions.

His car was filled with brochures for Cheerleader Camps...but no porn.

[proud2BlibKansan]

45. Yes that is correct

[PatrioticLeftie]

11. 144%? That's gross, Dobson.

Sorry, sorry. Bad, bad, horrible joke.

[EstimatedProphet]

13. Wow! I wonder how many subjects they turned down to find that many!

The must have selected from at least 1500 people to find the right number of abusive mothers who have had abortions!

[proud2BlibKansan]

17. And another winner !!

[w13rd0]

15. That study doesn't make any sense at all...

...wouldn't a more accurate way of achieving a true statistical analysis be to take a large random sampling of women with children who've had abortions, and an equal number of women with children who have not, then find out the percentage of each group with a "pattern of neglect or abuse", and use those figures for comparison/contrast? Or are they saying that when evaluating 500 women who have had a pattern of neglect or abuse (by their definition, which is interesting, because isn't Dobson the one that says you should beat your kid with a switch and take a shower with them to show them your dangly bits? what in the hell is "abuse" according to him?), that ... no, the methodology of how they went from 500 negligent/abusive mothers to 144% more likely to abuse doesn't make a damn bit of sense. That's like magically converting apples to oranges, or maybe water to wine. Dobson apparently gets his "research data" via miracles of "logic".

[proud2BlibKansan]

18. Of course it doesn't make sense

it is Dobson's study!

LOL

[EstimatedProphet]

21. Confound your statistics Dobson!

I love stats jokes. Dobson is definately a stats joke.

[proud2BlibKansan]

30. You don't even need a detailed understanding of statistics

to blow this 'study' out of the water! LOL

[EST]

22. Obvious to casual observer-

Value = zero
This is a sales job, not a scientific, statistical treatment.

[WCGreen]

23. Notice Priscilla Coleman has no title.....

For all we know, she could be a freshman who did this study for a stat 101 class....

[proud2BlibKansan]

33. At a Christian school no less.

[xchrom]

24. lol -- studying abusers to see if they abuse.

that's like me hitting dobson really, really hard to see if he will say ouch.

:spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank:

[proud2BlibKansan]

34. It is funny, isn't it?

[zbdent]

25. Wonder if they ever asked if the women themselves were abused

as kids.

That tends to be the pattern, right? That abused kids tend to think that it's normal to abuse their own kids . . .

[proud2BlibKansan]

35. That would have been too complicated

for this researcher. LOL

[rpannier]

26. In the words of the Great Social and Political Philosopher Homer...

Simpson. Homer Simpson.

"Anyone can make statistics mean anything 64% of all Americans know that."

[insane_cratic_gal]

27. 144%!! LOL

How does the link behind childhood abuse and an adult abused as a child, how does that figure into these totals?

[TheGunslinger]

28. Eliot Institute? >>>>>

http://www.eliotinstitute.org/

Unitarian Universalists in league with radical pseudo-Christians?

[TheGunslinger]

29. There's a TYPO in the article. It's the ELLIOT Institute. More on Reardon

DAVID REARDON: A GODSPY INTERVIEW
http://www.godspy.com/issues/Interview-with-Dr-David-Reardon.cfm

Interview with David Reardon of the Elliot Institute
http://www.priestsforlife.org/media/interviewreardon.htm

[proud2BlibKansan]

36. What? A mistake?

Does jeezus know?

[TheGunslinger]

44. Was curious why a UU church would be in cahoots with those asshats.

Now we know why...they weren't.

That Reardon fella sure seems like a Dobson toadie-wannabe.

[Straight Shooter]

41. Many more men than women abuse their children.

How does Dobson rationalize that to suit his agenda?

[LizW]

43. Would that be the Dobson who advocates beating children

and animals if they don't submit to the will of the adult?

[proud2BlibKansan]

46. One and the same