Re: Abortion

"David V." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I see all you have is ad hominem. Do try better. Chris
> claims that two stats are connected yet cannot back that up
> in any rational way. Maybe when you guys grow up, you'll
> understand. We're dealing with simple, first year,
> philosophy. Simply, your conclusion that the two stats are
> related is called; Cum hoc ergo propter hoc

Actually, I never claimed they were connected, which would make you a liar.
I only put into question your motives for precluding them to be unrelated.
I never made any such claim to them being related.

> This fallacy is similar to post hoc ergo propter hoc. The
> fallacy is to assert that because two events occur together,
> they must be causally related. It's a fallacy because it
> ignores other factors that may be the cause(s) of the events.

Does quoting Latin make you appear more intellectual elsewhere?