There was a study on this.   I think it was Romania, or some other country that had a regime  change where they banned abortion.   They measured a significant and sustained crime wave beginning about 15 years later.  Sorry,  don't have the reference,  just remember reading it.

Following your path has led to further socialism, the equal sharing of misery.  In a free market society, there is enough wealth and motivation to help the less fortunate.  While it may come off as psychopathy, it's quite the opposite, doing the right thing for the right reason.  What you propose is doing the wrong thing for the right reason.

“There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him.”

~Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

You're asking the wrong question.  It should be phrased this way:

Are you willing to shoot a complete stranger in the head because he won't pay to feed someone else's baby?



Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

American Taliban, alive and well.
I cant imagine how broke this country would be if liberal whores couldn't get abortions.

No you need to go back and read what I wrote.  Pay the fuck attention before you post.

Again. Read the entire thread before you post.

I am advocating charity. Not wealth redistribution.

I was initially shocked by this fact as a med student, "Is there no one that gets shot or stabbed that didn't deserve it or bring it upon themselves???"


Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

My specific question is whether having abortion rights actually lowers the number of people that would otherwise be born into at risk communities?  Let's say abortion is illegal and the average number of children is 3.  If abortion is legalized, the average number of children may still be 3 but there may be 1 abortion for every 3 live births.  


Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

I did read your response.  You don't believe a single word of your own drivel.  People like you who feel this strongly about "helping" people have no problem forcing others to do so at the end of a gun.    

You simply can't fathom how Locke556 would not want to help the "children/disabled/elderly".  You even use the proper buzzwords, for the "children".  Get off your moral high horse before you fall off.  

No, I suspect what really happened is that you didn't read everything I said, got called on it, and now you're trying to say I have a particular point of view that I don't agree with.

I know this might be impossible for you to understand, but there are people out there that feel strongly about helping others though charity and who DO NOT want wealth redistribution.

Stop and think about it for a minute.  What is it about being charitable that is enjoyable?  All of that goes away if one is compelled to give.  

The "children" element to this conversation had to do with the criteria that some here laid out as far as whether or not a human life was of worth.  In other words, if someone was not self sustaining or able to provide for themselves, their life was worthless.

That's what Lockee556 was saying.  I was countering it be pointing out that the lives of infants and children should be judged differently because they aren't reaping what the sow with regard to bad decisions.

There's a lot of fucked up arguments I'm countering here.  If you don't see that by this time, then I guess you just scanned the thread and aren't paying attention.

Mostly.   What they have found is that mothers tend to know when they are ready and when they are not.  In general,  a child is more likely to be successful  (and yes,  there is criteria for that), to a mother who is 25 or older.   There are numerous reasons for that.   Of course we are taking trends and statistics - a child to a younger mother certainly CAN be a great success, but he is hamstrung by a mother who is less financially secure and mature, stable home,  etc

Anyway, what they found is that young or otherwise less secure mothers who abort, do so because they know they cannot provide.  And would be in a setting where the child would be unwanted, or otherwise have stresses limiting the ability to properly raise the kid.  Later in life, when they are in a place in life that they can, they usually have kids.   This mirrors the observation I have seen of all the good Christian girls I know who had abortions.

As to using abortion as primary form of birth control,  happens but rare. I don't imagine it's a pleasant experience.

And just how many of those have you known?  You wouldn't overstate things to try to prove your point would you?

3

As to overstating - don't we all?   It's why I describe the research results first,  before mentioning my own less credible anecdotal data.   Like most people, I am susceptible to using my powers of observation and logic to justify my preconceived notions.  

So I try to step back and look at more objective studies.  Sometimes I even succed in that goal.

good Christian girls have abortions duh

It works like this. If you don't like abortion or don't believe in it, don't use the service. The Conservative party is picking stupid hills to die on and it's costing us shit that actually matters.

That being said I don't think we should be subsiding it.

Catholic no less.  Amazing how perspective changes once that dot turns blue.  All that righteous rhetoric goes out the window in a hurry.

It's  actually kind of fascinating.  And as a dude not involved in any of the cases,  it was eye opening.

What's the short slang term for abortion? I like "abo" but I once heard that used for aborigines. I've also heard "borsh" but that sounds too close to borscht.

I can read just fine, especially your condescending, arrogant tone.  So children and infants should be judged differently than adults?  So you're ready to force strangers at gunpoint to help children and infants but not adults, right?  Forcing someone to help is morally wrong regardless of the person you are trying to help.  You're losing your fucking mind over the "children" as though that makes a difference.  You went off into the weeds with the "self-sustaining" part.  It's irrelevant if someone isn't "self-sustaining".  The question is who and under what conditions someone will sustain them.  The parents are there to sustain the infant.  It's not anyone else's responsibility to do so.  

Are you ready to put a gun to a stranger's head to force them to help a premature infant born to a crack-head mother, yes or no?

And sometimes you endorse eugenics.  I've got less of an issue the way you originally framed the discussion than the way others have implied that infants or disabled people are worthless and should be left to starve.  Or that there is no moral obligation (note that I said moral, not legal) to help an infant, for example.

Specifically, the statement I take issue with is Locke556's example of the Spartans and his belief that while it is wrong to throw the babies off the cliff, it is not morally wrong to simply let them die there...so long as you didn't personally throw them off the cliff.

It's ironic as hell that someone would claim that I am in favor of involuntary wealth redistribution.  I live in an area that, while in the Southeast, has a high concentration of liberals.  They are the radical sort too.  But I've spent a lot of money, a hell of a lot of time, and a lot of effort to fight that.  I don't have 51k posts on Arfcom because I'm spending my time fighting socialist assholes in my county.  I don't have to look to the national elections, though I work hard on those too.  We have plenty of commie bastards right here in town.

We've also won a few races though.  We elected the first Republican controlled County Board of Commissioners since Reconstruction.  So, that's something.

I'm sure our politics have considerable overlap and wish you luck.   As to Spartans, Hitler etc, I just avoid such absurd rabbit hole discussions.

There you go again, contradicting yourself.  Who pays for the babies?  The money has to come from somewhere.  Who?  You did say children should be treated differently.  You're a liar and a hypocrite.  You have no problem redistributing wealth if it's for children.  That's different than those other types of wealth distributions.  

Delusional.

Protip:  good christians dont have abortions

Except for the fact it's been completely debunked, of course.

Clearly, pirates need colder water in order to ply their trade.

Yes.  Of course we treat infants and children differently than adults.  What the fuck is wrong with you?  They are innocents.  When an adult makes a shitload of bad decisions in their lifetime and they reap the consequences, that's the way it goes.  I'm a hell of a lot more apt to help a child than an adult for that reason.



WHAT.  THE.  FUCK.

NO.  I am NOT going to force a stranger, or you, or the man in the moon to do a FUCKING THING FOR ANYONE.  Charity.  Read that word again.  CHARITY.  How many times have I said it now?  That is not the same thing as redistribution.

Let me say this, AGAIN, as clearly as possible.  Forcing people to support others is wrong.  That's what the fucking liberals want to do.  We can morally compel people to do all kinds of shit.  We can morally compel people to put the toilet paper on the hanger the right way.  We can morally compel people to help a drowning person.  We can morally compel people to Christmas carols, attend funerals, return a lost item, etc.  

But we can not and should not LEGALLY compel people to do those things.  Or to help a starving child.  People can choose to do jack shit.  We can also call them assholes.  But we should never sick the IRS or some government asshole on them because they choose not to support the less fortunate.

I'm in favor of getting rid of ALL entitlements because I think that private organizations can do a better job.

No shit, sherlock.




No, I am frustrated because you did not read what I wrote and jumped to an incorrect conclusion about my position.  I did NOT go into the fucking weeds, you just don't know what the fuck I am referring to when I am talking about "self sustaining".  That was LOCKE556 that came up with that verbiage.  His argument is a complete shit sandwich, by the way, and if you would take a minute to go back and read it you might even agree with me.  

Yes, the parents are there to sustain the infant.  If they can't, or get hit by a car, then other people should step in.  But no one should be legally required to step in.  Does that clear it up for you yet?

Here's another example of morally versus legally wrong.  People thing that same sex marriage is morally wrong, and therefore want it to be legally wrong.  Other people feel that same sex marriage is morally wrong, but they do not believe that the government should have a role in deciding what marriage is.  Nor should government enforce any kind of law associated with the prohibition of same sex marriage.  See how that works?




No.  And I never will.  But that's what the entitlement system in this country is doing to you, and I, and every other productive person.  I would much rather do away with entitlements altogether.  There are a hell of a lot of problems with government running the show when it comes to welfare programs.  The biggest one is that the compel people, by force, to pay taxes for a load of social justice and welfare programs.  I believe that is morally wrong.  It goes against our founding principles, as far as I am concerned.

So we get rid of those inefficient and overbearing organizations.  And there is a hell of a lot of them that need to be gotten rid of.  Organizations formed by private citizens can be more of the resources to the people that need it.  It's even better if that happens locally.

Hopefully this clears things up for you.  I'd appreciate it if you would stop with the strawman.  I'm not your enemy and you'd have realized that if you'd stopped and read what I said.

Keep in mind that there has been a lot of back and forth in this thread.  I know it is hard to keep all that stuff straight but I'm not "in the weeds".  There's a point to what I'm saying, believe it or not.

Boil away the pirates

Who found this?  What study?  Cite.  You're making some absolutely absurd claims that no one believes.

And then you go on to describe nothing but using abortion for birth control, while claiming that it's rare people use it that way.

Almost all abortions that have ever been carried out have been carried out for birth control.  I've posted the stats from guttmacher, planned parenthood's own statistics, right here hundreds of times on this site.

That sums up my views of some of the membership here very well since this shooting hit the news. Thanks for sharing.

Sorry but no.  It has not been debunked at all.  Handwaving by someone who didn't like the conclusion, and called it debunking.  Sort of like Dinosaurs are only 5000 years old had to be proven, because someone's genealogy study of the bible said the Earth was only 5000 years old.  So we better "prove" they're only 5000 years old.  Not only no, but Hell no.  And Lott's credibility as a researcher unfortunately goes in the toilet for this.  A damned shame, since a lot of us like to rely on him for gun control research conclusion, and he wrecked his credibility with an amateur assessment conducted to cater to his base, that is easily shot out of the water.  

http://freakonomics.com/2005/05/15/abortion-and-crime-who-should-you-believe/

Just read the two posts above.  That should clear it up for you.

You need to retract calling me a liar.  I've not lied.  I'm okay with redistributing MY OWN wealth voluntarily in a way that DOES NOT involved the government.

If you, VOLUNTARILY, want to help, that's great.  If you do NOT want to help, it is not my place to require you to do so.  Certainly not legally.  There's always peer pressure, a la Sally Strothers, right?  But that's not forced redistribution by anybody's definition.

You continually attempt to corral me into the category of people who support late term abortions and then accuse me of mincing words.

Your argument revolves around engaging an opponent who has no moral objection to abortion.

I morally object to abortion, hence why I chose not to abort my offspring. I am pro-individual freedom.

I support individual freedoms and god given rights. I love America.

It's simple really.  Just answer the question.  If you are okay with late term abortions, what difference does a few hours make?

Do you morally object to a woman that would strangle her newborn child but still support her right to do so?

Saying you love American and freedom and eagles and shit doesn't address the question.

lol

No, it's actually been debunked.  As in the guy who wrote it actually didn't account for all the data.

You can quote that guy saying his study is still valid all day long.  No one gives a fuck.  



http://www.gekon.net.pl/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/abortion_crime_error_foote_goetz.pdf

None of this has to do with Lott, btw, who wrote a book based on Foote and Goetz' research.  

Levitt's the one who lost his credibility.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/07/07/myth-about-abortion-and-crime.html

Careful. You wouldn't want to break character now would you?

That's no way to talk to a US Senator.

I've seen that about 15 times now but this time I bookmarked it.  Thanks Josh.

Kudos to you for trying to get people to understand this for....however many damn years this has been going on.  I guess since 2007.

Yeah, it was far too polite wasn't it?  

07's when they published the research.  Freakanomics seemed reasonable when it was first published, until people started digging into the numbers and found it really made little sense at all.

Well, the sumo wrestler thing might still be true, right?  Next you'll be telling us Santa isn't real.

Go back and read our entire exchange.

I continually explain to you that I'm morally opposed to abortion, and you continually accuse me of supporting late term abortion.

Then go into some drunken rambling about strangling babies as a moral equivalent.

I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.

You're just being a coward by not answering the question.  The only things you are continually doing is being obtuse and avoiding providing an answer.

If you're having this much trouble coping with your position, maybe it is time to rethink it.

I'll give you a hint, the very first sentence says, "I don't support abortions of any kind."

You can't comprehend that an individual could be anti-abortion but not force their stance on abortion on others.

Sure I can.  But I'm asking you a question here.

1. The baby is unborn but is still viable.  A partial birth abortion occurs and the baby is killed.  In this instance you support the mother's choice to end the life of the baby.

2. The baby is a newborn.  It is 24 hours old.  The mother decides to end its life and strangles it to death.  In this instance, do you or do you not support the mother's choice to end the life of the baby?

I don't support their choice. I morally object to it.

I support the concept of freedom that enables such a choice to exist.

You keep couching things in terms of freedom, but your point of view fails to account for the freedom of the other entity involved to continue to live.  

In the case of abortion, a life is lost, which is the ultimate and complete denial of freedom for the baby.  If the abortion is not allowed, then the mother's rights are violated.  Not matter which choice is made, someone's freedom is infringed upon or completely denied.

We're faced with choosing between two evils.  You and I disagree which one is the lesser evil.

Now, can you answer the damn question or not?  What's the difference between the unborn and newborn?

At this point your obsession with this scenario involving killing a partially birthed baby and a woman strangling a newborn have me cringing.

The frequent and repetitious rate that you introduce this scenario leads me to suspect that you've got some serious issues.