I am a long time reader of Slate, and while I sometimes disagree with the opinions or positions of the writers, I always respect the different voices they bring to the site.

Other readers have already commented on the way his argument is uninformed, one-sided, flawed, and completely out of line. So, as a young woman in the age bracket that the writer feels is incapable of being responsible for her own sexual and reproductive actions, I will simply say that this article is offensive and misogynistic in the worst way.

I will not be returning to Slate as I refuse to support a site that would publish this sort of hateful writing. I will also be encouraging others to do the same.

Okay, what?! Granted, there may be some issue with the analysis (I've expressed some in another post), but, citing real statistics and attempting to apply them is NOT, in any way, mysogynist. If so, how? How did Saletan say that women aren't capable of being responsible?

Perhaps it's Human Nature that you should be boycotting. As you have noted, the response threads to theis column have titles like "Seriously?" "What?" and "You've got to be kidding me." This particular story is something of an anomaly.

I completely agree with you, firstandlasttime. This article is absurd, and I'm sure I can find plenty of other sources of online news and commentary that don't publish speculative drivel. Is it seriously newsworthy to post a list of reproductive-age women and then posit that they could hypothetically have had an abortion?

Anyways, I now have a void in my lunchtime web-browsing, so let me know if you find any good Slate replacements.

Let me help you understand the tortured argument of this essay. Saletan, based on absolutely nothing, suggests that because statistics show young women can get pregnant (news flash) it therefore follows that these particular women -- daughters of politicians in this same age range -- also could have become pregnant. And the fact that they didn't have children during this time doesn't mean they didn't get pregnant and have an abortion. Not that there is a single shred of evidence to support this bizarre scenario. And it's true he's not accusing anyone of being pregnant and having an abortion -- he's merely suggesting that the fact that they didn't announce a pregnancy doesn't mean they didn't have one. No mention is made of sons -- without whom duaghters might have a hard time getting pregnant in the first place. Once upon a time this might have been called slander. Now, evidently, it's called journalism.

Sadly, with the format of Slate, none of the real discussion of the problems with the article appear on the same page as the article. I was so offended I had actually took to coming to the discussion.

In general though, I agree with the poster. I've removed Slate from my RSS feeds. Protest with your eyeballs - it's the only thing that matters when it comes to their online advertising.

1% of the population is in jail for a felony. The average felon committed 10 felonies before being arrested. 100 felonies are committed for each one prosecuted and convicted. Right-wing pundits who spread or invent Republican talking points on the internet are alas part of the population. Therefore it is 10% probable that Mr. Saletan has committed a felony. QED. For extra credit, which felonies is Mr. Saletan most likely to have committed? Felonies include: aggravated assault, arson, burglary, ilegal drug abuse or sales, embezzlemnt, grand theft, treason, espionage racketeering, robbery, murder, rape, kidnapping, fraud, and infanticide. (This is purely a statistical argument, no personal attack on Mr. Saletan's character is intended or implied. After all, he is 90% likely not to have committed a felony, just as any one of the politicians' daughters he so helpfully lists is overwhelmingly likely not to have had a secret abortion.)

Slate has been going downhill for a while now, but this is rock-bottom. Ridiculous.