This clearly shows that you reject the argument abortion affects crime because statistics don't show that higher abortion rates ion some states don't have a greater affect on crime.
My point is that this is a completely erroneous assumption. It is like saying that flossing twice a day reduces cavities, so flossing 4 times a day will reduce them even more. It is statistically possible that no matter how much more you floss, the rule of diminishing returns means that affect is negligible. The same may be true of abortion. I really don't know, but your statement is flawed in terms of its logic.
Also, I don't my if you call me irrational and then back it up, but I didn't intend to be beligerent. Sorry if you felt that way. I actually respected your arguments and was enjoying the prospect of an exchange with a thoughtful person with whom I only intend to respectfully disagree.
Not the way I would word it, but essentially yes (I would clarify that I don't believe abortion lowers crime rates. I wouldn't be too surprised to see the reverse, however, even though some data collected by the previously mentioned researchers would place such an opinion in doubt).
My point is that this is a completely erroneous assumption.
Not according to the scientific method it isn't. If someone comes up with a hypothesis that says "x", and I can give examples that show "not x", that means that "x" is an invalid hypothesis. The researchers assert that more abortions reduce crime rates. But the fact remains that there are quite a few places, outside of the scope of the limited data used by the researchers, where that assertion does not hold. A great number of European communities with increasing abortion rates have also had an accompanying increase in crime. The hypothesis is simply invalid.
The same may be true of abortion. I really don't know, but your statement is flawed in terms of its logic.
I disagree. If the idea that abortions reduced crime was true, then more abortions would reduce more crime. The relationship might not be linear, but it would still show up. The fact that it doesn't show up (except in the suspect initial sample data of the researchers who first advocated the idea) shows that it is an invalid hypothesis.
Statistics aren't science, they are just math. But like any math, they can be used in science. The proper form is to create a hypothesis, then gather data, then test (to confirm or reject the hypothesis, creating a theory). The researchers did a great job coming up with their hypothesis, but they didn't test enough. If there were really causation rather than merely correlation, then the hypothesis would hold for other data sets too, and it doesn't. There are more than enough examples to show increases in crime where abortion has increased, and that alone suggests the hypothesis is invalid in spite of the one or two hand-picked data points selected by the researchers who proposed it.