Did not say spurious! Apocraphal!

Mostly what I had in mind is; "The lack of unwed births (which I won't even argue... as shotgun weddings were prolific as were 'premature' births, as compared to today...) was more due to the consumption of abortives than due to making the 'hard choices'."

Which essentially means neither side can actually produce material of an evidentiary nature.

Quote Originally Posted by Ozme52 View Post
Okay? which part are you saying is spurious?

That social mores change over time? You can't really believe we have the same standards today as in the past... even the near past isn't the same as the far past.

That Bill Clinton didn't claim oral genital contact with Monica Lewinsky wasn't sex? Because I think that's a pretty well documented accounting of what he said.

That children today who openly engage in fellatio and anal intercourse think they're still virgins and chaste... because, though that's more anectdotal, I would argue that it isn't spurious.

And according to Google, there are 25,000 articles, conversations, or websites available on the topic of Herbal Abortives.

So... what part invalidates the entire arguement as apochryphal?