Abortion Stops Crime

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 24 Jan 2006 08:06

Slowsis wrote:
------------
This is irrelevant, as abortion is not controlled by anyone but the mother who is choosing to abort. Can the government be blamed that it happens to be blacks who find themselves more often in this situation?
-------------

Access to abortion is controlled by the government, and the abortion industry.
Let's not forget that, abortion is an industry that rakes in billions a year. People get filthy rich off abortions.
So they are no different than an oil company, who will do ANYTHING to insure that their "product" is consumed.

C-fan wrote:
--------------------------------
Just because there is a general correlation between two groups of statistics does not mean there is a causal relationship between the two.
--------------------------------

Thank you for pointing this out. I myself, would have attributed the drop in crime to the economy generally doing well, AND concealed weapon carry permits issued in dozens of states. There COULD be causal relationship there, perhaps, but I'm not a statistician.

Slowsis wrote:
----------------------------
That she does not want to contribute to social decay by introducing children into this world, which will only help in its corruption?

If so, then are women in the situations listed above irresponsible for bringing potentially criminals into the world?
----------------------------

Why not pass a law mandating sterilization of poor groups, in case they are irresponsible, and wont partake in the freedom of abortion?

We go down the slippery slope of Genomics when we start controlling, and influencing subgroups' reproduction.

And although Genomics was just as popular, and universally accepted ,as Global Warming is today..... it led to the needless death and suffering of tens of millions.

People must pro-create, that is the cycle of life, and it should continue, even in the most dire of circumstances.

Those who fail to replace themselves, their genes, and their culture , will be replaced by another (given current demographic and migratory patterns).

Societies that practice infantacide have, and will disappear(abortion is not infantacide, one could argue, but they achieve the same result).

Whatever those societies have built ,and whatever those societies stood for, mean NOTHING, and will be forgotten after the remnants are dominated by the next generation(s).

I'll go into the death cult madness next time, And how foolish the idea of sustainable growth (one or no- child families) is.

n

Slowsis · Post by **Slowsis** » 24 Jan 2006 11:27

Ken: You just said I could find stats to back up ANY argument......then you ask for them.......what do you want, other than to only contribute criticism without actual debating of the issue.

Nathan: Thank you for destroying my statement about mothers being irresponsible for bringing potential criminals into the world. I don't agree with that statement at all, and you vocalized its absurdity perfectly.

Understand that I just threw this out there to see how people re-acted. I PERSONALLY believe that this theory may hold some degree of accuracy, but that for society to take actions on these findings would be morally detestable. It is a theory with no answer, and with no actual use to society.

That doesn't mean its not true.

I hate the internet! I go online to find sources, and every web page, regardless of how official, has a different slant on the issue. There is so much bull-shitting going on out there. What is really true anymore.

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 24 Jan 2006 20:18

Hey, you gotta throw things out there. The Freakanomics guy has some valuable contributions. I'm gonna go roast Canada now.

-n

Slowsis · Post by **Slowsis** » 24 Jan 2006 20:21

Watch out! We might just smack you down with hockey sticks!!!!

HighDemonslayer · Post by **HighDemonslayer** » 27 Jan 2006 10:28

Yeah. OK, well, uh, we found, uh, this mouse in a bottle of YOUR BEER, eh. Like, we was at a party and, uh, a friend of ours - a COP - had some, and HE PUKED. And he said, uh, come here and get free beer or, uh, he'll press charges.

shredzilla · Post by **shredzilla** » 27 Jan 2006 23:04

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 30 Jan 2006 19:55

sen wrote:“For you yourself produced my kidneys; You kept me screened off in the belly of my mother. I shall laud you because in a fear-inspiring way I am wonderfully made. Your works are wonderful, As my soul is very well aware. My bones were not hidden from you When I was made in secret, When I was woven in the lowest parts of the earth. Your eyes saw even the embryo of me, And in your book all its parts were down in writing, As regards the days when they were formed And there was not yet one among them.” (Psalms 139:13-16, New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures)

If our creater thinks of us as living in the embryo stage, then why shouldn't we?

If you don't believe in God then we would need to discuss that first.

I wrote up a big post about this topic a while ago but didn't have time to finish it.

I just wanted to say a few things. Firstly it's really obvious that abortion stops crime. There are so many studies to show that crime is linked to unsustainable populations and also a lot of evidence to suggest that in most places around the world we have unsustainable populations. Connect the dots.

However I'd say that stopping crime is a ridiculous reason to allow abortion. The arguement from those who oppose abortion is a much more serious issue than lowering crime and if they're arguement is correct than I see it as much more significant than crime rates. However as many of you probably know or have worked out - I'm very strongly pro choice and my reasons for that arguement also have nothing to do with crime rates. I also think there are much better solutions to lowering crime rates other than abortions and I'd be opposed to the usage of abortion as a tool against crime - that definitely seems morally wrong. The choice to have an abortion should be left to the mother and not to anybody else.

Regarding the quote I quoted :

I really find it abhorrant and arrogant that people think that religion should play any part in politics and government. Basically what is being said is that "My religion is right and everybody should follow the rules of my religion regardless of what they believe". This kind of view leads to conflict, war and violence. I also think it's contary to what is preached in most religions. In this case surely god gave people free will. If Sen is right and abortion is wrong - people who perform or take part in abortions are committing a sin and will be dealt with by god. Those who choose to follow gods will will go to heaven. There are many things that are outlawed in the bible and I think lots of people commit some of those acts at some stages during their life regardless of their religious beliefs. This is supposodly why Jesus died at the cross. We have a choice to sin or not to sin and we also have the possibility by accepting jesus into our life to repent from our sins and still go to heaven. Sen however is trying to impose on everybody that they follow what God said without having any choice in the matter. Surely if we live on Earth for about 80 years and then spend the rest of eternity in Heaven, Hell or possibly pergutoary - the Earth is a place where God wants to see what choices we make so that we can go to where we decide to go - not where other people decide we should go. It should be our choice to go to heaven or hell not -sens or any other religious figure. Sen can simply tell us where he thinks we will go based on our choices.

Now imagine if Sen is wrong and I am right and there is no god. Then you're forcing a false religious belief onto people which has an enourmas effect on their entire life - and that life is the only time they get anywhere.

Either way I think it's fairly clear - at least in my mind - that religion has no part in the law.

Just call me hagesy · Post by **Just call me hagesy** » 31 Jan 2006 00:33

I am god and i am the law

bow down bitches.

Splint · Post by **Splint** » 31 Jan 2006 02:52

I'm not at all, in the least bit, convinced that abortion is the sole contributing factor to a lower crime rate. As a matter of fact I don't even think it's a major contributing factor. There are far more things to consider than just saying that women had abortions in the 70's so crime went down in the 90's.

Consider this. "The Regan Years" (1980-88 ) were noted for huge economic growth. That growth corresponds to a lull in the rate of "Total Violent Crime". Unemployment went up in the early Reagan Years, but then sank drastically due to his economic programs.

That Spike in "Total Violent Crime" then took place during the Presidency of George H. Bush. When Bush took office he increased taxes, took the country to war in Iraq, and increased the US deficit. In addition the unemployment rate shot back up creating socioeconomic strife which may very well have led to a higher crime rate.

Following the reign of King Bush I came President Clinton. Clinton was fairly lucky to have been president when he was. The dot com boom in the 90's made it possible for anyone with a computer and a little imagination to make millions, or at least to find more and more jobs in IT. People in low socioeconomic situations could get an Associates Degree in web design or database management and BANG they landed jobs. Unemployment fell markedly.
Information also became an extremely valuable commodity and allowed companies to realize record numbers in financial growth. "Day Trading" became huge as well. People could just sit at home or in a small office and trade penny stocks all day via the internet and make thousands of dollars in a matter of hours.
During these years the Violent Crimes fell to record lows.

OH, and don't count out the amount of Crime NY had to offer to those statistics. We're talking the Giuliani Years too. Guiliani did more to lower crime in the late 90's than any other NY mayor.

You know you might say that trends in economic growth and decline correlate to trends in the growth and decline of violent crimes. Seems much more reasonable and provable to me.

Slowsis · Post by **Slowsis** » 31 Jan 2006 09:26

Jeremy wrote:I just wanted to say a few things. Firstly it's really obvious that abortion stops crime. There are so many studies to show that crime is linked to unsustainable populations and also a lot of evidence to suggest that in most places around the world we have unsustainable populations. Connect the dots.

However I'd say that stopping crime is a ridiculous reason to allow abortion. The arguement from those who oppose abortion is a much more serious issue than lowering crime and if they're arguement is correct than I see it as much more significant than crime rates. However as many of you probably know or have worked out - I'm very strongly pro choice and my reasons for that arguement also have nothing to do with crime rates. I also think there are much better solutions to lowering crime rates other than abortions and I'd be opposed to the usage of abortion as a tool against crime - that definitely seems morally wrong. The choice to have an abortion should be left to the mother and not to anybody else.

Exactly what my stance on the issue was. There is obviously a link between the two, but for a government to ACT on this knowledge would be despicable.

Brad wrote:I'm not at all, in the least bit, convinced that abortion is the sole contributing factor to a lower crime rate. As a matter of fact I don't even think it's a major contributing factor. There are far more things to consider than just saying that women had abortions in the 70's so crime went down in the 90's.

Consider this. "The Regan Years" (1980-88 ) were noted for huge economic growth. That growth corresponds to a lull in the rate of "Total Violent Crime". Unemployment went up in the early Reagan Years, but then sank drastically due to his economic programs.

That Spike in "Total Violent Crime" then took place during the Presidency of George H. Bush. When Bush took office he increased taxes, took the country to war in Iraq, and increased the US deficit. In addition the unemployment rate shot back up creating socioeconomic strife which may very well have led to a higher crime rate.

Following the reign of King Bush I came President Clinton. Clinton was fairly lucky to have been president when he was. The dot com boom in the 90's made it possible for anyone with a computer and a little imagination to make millions, or at least to find more and more jobs in IT. People in low socioeconomic situations could get an Associates Degree in web design or database management and BANG they landed jobs. Unemployment fell markedly.
Information also became an extremely valuable commodity and allowed companies to realize record numbers in financial growth. "Day Trading" became huge as well. People could just sit at home or in a small office and trade penny stocks all day via the internet and make thousands of dollars in a matter of hours.
During these years the Violent Crimes fell to record lows.

OH, and don't count out the amount of Crime NY had to offer to those statistics. We're talking the Giuliani Years too. Guiliani did more to lower crime in the late 90's than any other NY mayor.

You know you might say that trends in economic growth and decline correlate to trends in the growth and decline of violent crimes. Seems much more reasonable and provable to me.

It is obviously not the SOLE cause of the crime decrease. The argumant is that it is the MAJOR cause of the crime lull of the mid-nineties.

On your employment point:
Do you see it likely that people from a ghetto are ever going to have the resources to "day-trade" or start up IT companies? Those kind of investments require start-up capital, something that people on welfare DON'T have.

I generally agree with you that there are other factors involved, I just don't see them having such a signifigant impact.

Splint · Post by **Splint** » 31 Jan 2006 10:55

Slowsis wrote:On your employment point:
Do you see it likely that people from a ghetto are ever going to have the resources to "day-trade" or start up IT companies? Those kind of investments require start-up capital, something that people on welfare DON'T have.

I generally agree with you that there are other factors involved, I just don't see them having such a signifigant impact.

Maybe or maybe not. One of the greatest parts of the late 90's was how easy it became to use and access new technologies. I do see it likely that people from a ghetto were able to take advantage in the ease with which new technology could be used to realize their dreams of becoming recording artists under their own independent labels. The late 90's also saw a dramatic increase in the # of Rap artists who came direct from the streets.

All of this is really part of a greater socioeconomic mechanism. Basically, whether or not someone from the ghetto is prime for day trading or not, their overall condition tends to improve the more the greater economy improves. The more peoples living conditions improve, the more goods and services they require. People are needed to provided these the production for the goods and services. So even if someone from the ghetto or trailer park doesn't have the capital or education for a startup business, there are still more jobs created that they may be qualified for, due to the overall improved socioeconomic quality of the greater population.

Your argument that Abortion is a major contributing factor to a decrease in crime, so far, has no real basis. As it stands, there is only speculation. There is no real evidence linking the two. Just some guy who says, "hey look, abortion is legal and crime went down so they are related...look at this graph of crime rates."
That's like saying that more people swtiched to bagels instead of toast with their breakfast and then looking at a graph showing an increase in the outbreak of genital warts during the same time period. Well, the two must be related right?