Abortion and Child Support

Off Topic
61

[quote]Silyak wrote:

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

Withdrawl of consent is sexual assault. If she says “stop” and you don’t, it’s sexual assault. If she says, “I’ll sleep with you, but only if you wear a condom” and you don’t, then she hasn’t consented to sex. Ergo, you’ve sexually assaulted her.
[/quote]
So if she lies about being on the pill is that sexual assault? What if she has implants or dyed her hair? What if she wears makeup and she’s so hideous without it that I wouldn’t have consented had I known? [/quote]

In the first instance, I don’t know. Perhaps? Using the same logic as the broken condom…

In the subsequent instances, my gut would tell me no as a reasonable person would expect that a woman could very possibly be wearing make-up, have implants, or dyed her hair.

How are you harmed if you prefer brunettes but slept with a blonde? However, the risk of disease or unwanted pregnancy is very real and it would be reasonable to think that a person’s consent might revolve around whether or not they can protect themselves against the risks of unprotected sex.

62

[quote]Silyak wrote:

[quote]polo77j wrote:

Never said causation … and your logic is backwards … it’s a NEGATIVE correlation i.e. an increase in one is observed with a decrease in the other, specifically after Roe v Wade and the introduction to widely available, medically safe(er) abortions there was a stat. sig. decrease in crime rates - the author (Steven Levit I believe) recognizes other factors, but attempts to explain it as young, lower income women now had access to safer options (i.e. abortion clinics) which they then could exercise that option when an unwanted/unplanned pregnancy occurred.

Higher numbers of this group may have exercised this option, giving them more freedom to improve their human capital and financial situation allowing them, when they did decide to start a family, to be a better situation financially and socially to raise the child with more opportunities available than if they had a child younger and with less favorable economic options or conditions. Thus, less struggle, more time to focus on rearing the child, etc… (this is a quick and dirty cliff’s notes and I’m sure I’m leaving out some things - the link is there if you want to read it … the Wiki page has links to other resources and readings if you’re really interested)

This actually reminds me of a study I read regarding access to day care for young mothers. I forget the name of the study, but it yielded similar results IIRC - the study focused on a specific socio-economic group much like the one I described above - low income, single young mothers who opted to not have abortions. There were two or three types of day cares set up in these areas - one a regular day care with little to no educational focus outside of conventional age group education, the other focused on early exposure to education (alphabets, colors, shapes, etc…). IIRC, the latter had extended hours, I think the kids were there for something like 8 to 10 hrs or something like that while the former had normal (for the time, this was in the 70s and 80s I believe) hours, 6 hrs max I believe.

They measured success by high school graduation rates of the two groups, but they also controlled for the economic success of the mothers … I believe the mother’s of the latter group ended up making more money of the time span than the former group (stat. sig.) while the graduation rates among the kids was stat. insig.[/quote]

Negative correlation plus a super duper explanation to explain the correlation still doesn’t equal causation. I can think of dozens of things that have changed since 1973 and if pressed could provide an explanation as to why most of them might cause a decrease in crime. [/quote]

…and that’s the point of the discussion. There ARE multiple variables affecting, or correlated with, crime rate. No one here has said, “hey guys, we solved how to lower the crime rate - MORE ABORTIONS!! Yay!!! no more fuckin’ crime!!!”

It’s an interesting correlation and interesting theory regarding the relationship - I don’t think anyone here is under the assumption that there’s causation here.

In case you glazed over the rest of my post, i also mention a study conducted during the same time period amongst a similar socio-economic group that could also be negatively correlated with decreasing crime rate that doesn’t involve aborted babies. Some of the factors are present though, like young, low-income mothers having time to improve themselves financially and economically (i.e. human capital) to provide a more comfortable life for their children and access to more opportunities.

So, in closing, we get it, you understand that correlation<>causation - so does most people here. Here’s a pat on the head.

Now, if you really want to discuss crime rate, how ‘bout you come up with some of those variables you briefly mentioned which are sittin’ on the top of that head of yours.

63

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]Silyak wrote:
The problem with the argument you are making is that by the same logic any misrepresentation of any sort would make resulting sex sexual assault. And that could feasibly be extended to include any situation where someone believed something that wasn’t true, even if misrepresentation wasn’t intended. Dress nicely and she assumes you’re richer than you are: sexual assault. [/quote]

Admittedly, not the US, but still…

Sabbar Kashur, 30, was sentenced to 18 months in prison on Monday after the court ruled that he was guilty of rape by deception. According to the complaint filed by the woman with the Jerusalem district court, the two met in downtown Jerusalem in September 2008 where Kashur, an Arab from East Jerusalem, introduced himself as a Jewish bachelor seeking a serious relationship. The two then had consensual sex in a nearby building before Kashur left.

When she later found out that he was not Jewish but an Arab, she filed a criminal complaint for rape and indecent assault.

Although Kashur was initially charged with rape and indecent assault, this was changed to a charge of rape by deception as part of a plea bargain arrangement.

Handing down the verdict, Tzvi Segal, one of three judges on the case, acknowledged that sex had been consensual but said that although not “a classical rape by force,” the woman would not have consented if she had not believed Kashur was Jewish.

The sex therefore was obtained under false pretences, the judges said. “If she hadn’t thought the accused was a Jewish bachelor interested in a serious romantic relationship, she would not have cooperated,” they added.[/quote]

Obtaining sex by deceit is actionable in the USA, also.

The classic case was twin brothers. One twin decided to get drunk and have sex with his twin brother’s girlfriend. He crawled into her bed and pretended to be his brother.

Results are different in different states. In MA, they changed the law because the statute didn’t address this.

64

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]Silyak wrote:
The problem with the argument you are making is that by the same logic any misrepresentation of any sort would make resulting sex sexual assault. And that could feasibly be extended to include any situation where someone believed something that wasn’t true, even if misrepresentation wasn’t intended. Dress nicely and she assumes you’re richer than you are: sexual assault. [/quote]

Admittedly, not the US, but still…

Sabbar Kashur, 30, was sentenced to 18 months in prison on Monday after the court ruled that he was guilty of rape by deception. According to the complaint filed by the woman with the Jerusalem district court, the two met in downtown Jerusalem in September 2008 where Kashur, an Arab from East Jerusalem, introduced himself as a Jewish bachelor seeking a serious relationship. The two then had consensual sex in a nearby building before Kashur left.

When she later found out that he was not Jewish but an Arab, she filed a criminal complaint for rape and indecent assault.

Although Kashur was initially charged with rape and indecent assault, this was changed to a charge of rape by deception as part of a plea bargain arrangement.

Handing down the verdict, Tzvi Segal, one of three judges on the case, acknowledged that sex had been consensual but said that although not “a classical rape by force,” the woman would not have consented if she had not believed Kashur was Jewish.

The sex therefore was obtained under false pretences, the judges said. “If she hadn’t thought the accused was a Jewish bachelor interested in a serious romantic relationship, she would not have cooperated,” they added.[/quote]

Obtaining sex by deceit is actionable in the USA, also.

The classic case was twin brothers. One twin decided to get drunk and have sex with his twin brother’s girlfriend. He crawled into her bed and pretended to be his brother.

Results are different in different states. In MA, they changed the law because the statute didn’t address this.
[/quote]
Are there any cases other than those involving pretending to be someone else. Because that’s a very specific lie that is specifically referenced in certain state laws. New Jersey has a bill for “rape by fraud” that goes much further, but there are obvious problems as described. You have to clearly differentiate levels of deception and I have not seen any evidence that lying about condom use rises to the level of a crime in any jurisdiction. "Rape by fraud" bill in New Jersey: Bad for legitimate sexual assault legislation.

It also seems that the case involving Kashur was a plea bargain down from what was actually a straight up rape by force.

65

[quote]polo77j wrote:

[quote]Silyak wrote:

[quote]polo77j wrote:

Never said causation … and your logic is backwards … it’s a NEGATIVE correlation i.e. an increase in one is observed with a decrease in the other, specifically after Roe v Wade and the introduction to widely available, medically safe(er) abortions there was a stat. sig. decrease in crime rates - the author (Steven Levit I believe) recognizes other factors, but attempts to explain it as young, lower income women now had access to safer options (i.e. abortion clinics) which they then could exercise that option when an unwanted/unplanned pregnancy occurred.

Higher numbers of this group may have exercised this option, giving them more freedom to improve their human capital and financial situation allowing them, when they did decide to start a family, to be a better situation financially and socially to raise the child with more opportunities available than if they had a child younger and with less favorable economic options or conditions. Thus, less struggle, more time to focus on rearing the child, etc… (this is a quick and dirty cliff’s notes and I’m sure I’m leaving out some things - the link is there if you want to read it … the Wiki page has links to other resources and readings if you’re really interested)

This actually reminds me of a study I read regarding access to day care for young mothers. I forget the name of the study, but it yielded similar results IIRC - the study focused on a specific socio-economic group much like the one I described above - low income, single young mothers who opted to not have abortions. There were two or three types of day cares set up in these areas - one a regular day care with little to no educational focus outside of conventional age group education, the other focused on early exposure to education (alphabets, colors, shapes, etc…). IIRC, the latter had extended hours, I think the kids were there for something like 8 to 10 hrs or something like that while the former had normal (for the time, this was in the 70s and 80s I believe) hours, 6 hrs max I believe.

They measured success by high school graduation rates of the two groups, but they also controlled for the economic success of the mothers … I believe the mother’s of the latter group ended up making more money of the time span than the former group (stat. sig.) while the graduation rates among the kids was stat. insig.[/quote]

Negative correlation plus a super duper explanation to explain the correlation still doesn’t equal causation. I can think of dozens of things that have changed since 1973 and if pressed could provide an explanation as to why most of them might cause a decrease in crime. [/quote]

…and that’s the point of the discussion. There ARE multiple variables affecting, or correlated with, crime rate. No one here has said, “hey guys, we solved how to lower the crime rate - MORE ABORTIONS!! Yay!!! no more fuckin’ crime!!!”

It’s an interesting correlation and interesting theory regarding the relationship - I don’t think anyone here is under the assumption that there’s causation here.

In case you glazed over the rest of my post, i also mention a study conducted during the same time period amongst a similar socio-economic group that could also be negatively correlated with decreasing crime rate that doesn’t involve aborted babies. Some of the factors are present though, like young, low-income mothers having time to improve themselves financially and economically (i.e. human capital) to provide a more comfortable life for their children and access to more opportunities.

So, in closing, we get it, you understand that correlation<>causation - so does most people here. Here’s a pat on the head.

Now, if you really want to discuss crime rate, how ‘bout you come up with some of those variables you briefly mentioned which are sittin’ on the top of that head of yours.[/quote]
No, I don’t want to discuss crime statistics (but I find it hard to believe you can’t think of anything that’s changed since 1973 other than abortion). You brought up a random spurious correlation and I don’t think it rises to the level of deserving discussion.

66

[quote]MartyMonster wrote:

[quote]Silyak wrote:
So if she lies about being on the pill is that sexual assault?
[/quote]

Doubtful.

[quote]Silyak wrote:
What if she has implants or dyed her hair?
[/quote]

Don’t be silly.

[quote]Silyak wrote:
What if she wears makeup and she’s so hideous without it that I wouldn’t have consented had I known? [/quote]

That’s just puerile.

[/quote]
Certainly the levels of deception are different (maybe not the pill, but definitely the others). But the levels of deception are in the end somewhat arbitrary and subjective. In order for a certain type of deception to be illegal and others to be unimportant, there needs to be an objective, explicit standard and it doesn’t appear that anyone can provide one.

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]Silyak wrote:

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

Withdrawl of consent is sexual assault. If she says “stop” and you don’t, it’s sexual assault. If she says, “I’ll sleep with you, but only if you wear a condom” and you don’t, then she hasn’t consented to sex. Ergo, you’ve sexually assaulted her.
[/quote]
So if she lies about being on the pill is that sexual assault? What if she has implants or dyed her hair? What if she wears makeup and she’s so hideous without it that I wouldn’t have consented had I known? [/quote]

In the first instance, I don’t know. Perhaps? Using the same logic as the broken condom…

In the subsequent instances, my gut would tell me no as a reasonable person would expect that a woman could very possibly be wearing make-up, have implants, or dyed her hair.

How are you harmed if you prefer brunettes but slept with a blonde? However, the risk of disease or unwanted pregnancy is very real and it would be reasonable to think that a person’s consent might revolve around whether or not they can protect themselves against the risks of unprotected sex.
[/quote]
That’s the point. Rational people understand that a man’s risk from sex is very little (STDs change this somewhat, but they get ignored a lot anyways). Sexual equality makes no sense. The push for gender neutral laws harms men because it explicitly pretends men and women are equal while still implicitly giving natural advantages to women.

67

[quote]Silyak wrote:

[quote]polo77j wrote:

[quote]Silyak wrote:

[quote]polo77j wrote:

Never said causation … and your logic is backwards … it’s a NEGATIVE correlation i.e. an increase in one is observed with a decrease in the other, specifically after Roe v Wade and the introduction to widely available, medically safe(er) abortions there was a stat. sig. decrease in crime rates - the author (Steven Levit I believe) recognizes other factors, but attempts to explain it as young, lower income women now had access to safer options (i.e. abortion clinics) which they then could exercise that option when an unwanted/unplanned pregnancy occurred.

Higher numbers of this group may have exercised this option, giving them more freedom to improve their human capital and financial situation allowing them, when they did decide to start a family, to be a better situation financially and socially to raise the child with more opportunities available than if they had a child younger and with less favorable economic options or conditions. Thus, less struggle, more time to focus on rearing the child, etc… (this is a quick and dirty cliff’s notes and I’m sure I’m leaving out some things - the link is there if you want to read it … the Wiki page has links to other resources and readings if you’re really interested)

This actually reminds me of a study I read regarding access to day care for young mothers. I forget the name of the study, but it yielded similar results IIRC - the study focused on a specific socio-economic group much like the one I described above - low income, single young mothers who opted to not have abortions. There were two or three types of day cares set up in these areas - one a regular day care with little to no educational focus outside of conventional age group education, the other focused on early exposure to education (alphabets, colors, shapes, etc…). IIRC, the latter had extended hours, I think the kids were there for something like 8 to 10 hrs or something like that while the former had normal (for the time, this was in the 70s and 80s I believe) hours, 6 hrs max I believe.

They measured success by high school graduation rates of the two groups, but they also controlled for the economic success of the mothers … I believe the mother’s of the latter group ended up making more money of the time span than the former group (stat. sig.) while the graduation rates among the kids was stat. insig.[/quote]

Negative correlation plus a super duper explanation to explain the correlation still doesn’t equal causation. I can think of dozens of things that have changed since 1973 and if pressed could provide an explanation as to why most of them might cause a decrease in crime. [/quote]

…and that’s the point of the discussion. There ARE multiple variables affecting, or correlated with, crime rate. No one here has said, “hey guys, we solved how to lower the crime rate - MORE ABORTIONS!! Yay!!! no more fuckin’ crime!!!”

It’s an interesting correlation and interesting theory regarding the relationship - I don’t think anyone here is under the assumption that there’s causation here.

In case you glazed over the rest of my post, i also mention a study conducted during the same time period amongst a similar socio-economic group that could also be negatively correlated with decreasing crime rate that doesn’t involve aborted babies. Some of the factors are present though, like young, low-income mothers having time to improve themselves financially and economically (i.e. human capital) to provide a more comfortable life for their children and access to more opportunities.

So, in closing, we get it, you understand that correlation<>causation - so does most people here. Here’s a pat on the head.

Now, if you really want to discuss crime rate, how ‘bout you come up with some of those variables you briefly mentioned which are sittin’ on the top of that head of yours.[/quote]
No, I don’t want to discuss crime statistics (but I find it hard to believe you can’t think of anything that’s changed since 1973 other than abortion). You brought up a random spurious correlation and I don’t think it rises to the level of deserving discussion. [/quote]

It has been a while since I read Freakonomics, but I recall that abortion was legalized earlier in some states than others, and it follows that crime was significantly reduced 16 to 17 years after legalization in each location. Makes sense considering that 2 babies are aborted for every 10 live births, and those two babies would have most likely been born to single poor women.

68

What about slipping a morning after pill (whatever it is called) in the orange juice of the women then never seeing her again?

69

I just the article about the women who kept the semen from oral sex and it makes me remember that in some shit countries I went the man made sure that he keeps the women from keeping his sperm to prevent her from going to a sorcerer who wouldmake a spell to love her. It would make sense to ‘‘cum outside’’ and snatch the sperm away after intercourse.

70

Lol, Jesus fucking Christ…

71

[quote]jasmincar wrote:
I just the article about the women who kept the semen from oral sex and it makes me remember that in some shit countries I went the man made sure that he keeps the women from keeping his sperm to prevent her from going to a sorcerer who wouldmake a spell to love her. It would make sense to ‘‘cum outside’’ and snatch the sperm away after intercourse.[/quote]

It is a lie, he takes it homes and eats it with a spoon.

72

[quote]jasmincar wrote:
it makes me remember that in some shit countries I went [/quote]

That’s mean, I take it back. It had some good things.

73

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I’ve never planned a one night stand.
Anyway, I’m just saying condoms suck. It’s like wearing a damn raincoat on your dick.
[/quote]

Rubbish…total rubbish. By your own admission you can’t remain interested in another person for more than a couple of months. You begin with your exit strategy and work back from there; one night, 8 weeks, what’s the difference. You can’t possibly believe you’ve even scratched the surface of another person in two months. Your SOP is shallow, adversarial and dripping with passive aggression. It is one thing for a person that is coming out of a divorce/bad breakup to behave this way while licking their wounds; another all together to adopt the approach as a lifestyle. How this gets by someone that has demonstrated such range and depth on other matters is beyond me. Your issue with condoms is an extension of your inability to reach a point of arousal beyond the physical.
[/quote]

I can understand why you think that. It’s my fault from what I said. But it’s really not true. I’m not really interested in purely sexual relationships. And the reasons I’ve had a lot of short relationships are surely my own flaws and also my inability to find a woman who can meet my mental requirements. I’m not trying to be a misogynist but women don’t have the same kind of minds as men and I’ve never met a woman with the kind of sharp, incisive mind that can challenge me and keep my interest. And then there’s also the fact that a lot of women are crazy / neurotic and sometimes you have to back slowly away.

74

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I’ve never planned a one night stand.
Anyway, I’m just saying condoms suck. It’s like wearing a damn raincoat on your dick.
[/quote]

Rubbish…total rubbish. By your own admission you can’t remain interested in another person for more than a couple of months. You begin with your exit strategy and work back from there; one night, 8 weeks, what’s the difference. You can’t possibly believe you’ve even scratched the surface of another person in two months. Your SOP is shallow, adversarial and dripping with passive aggression. It is one thing for a person that is coming out of a divorce/bad breakup to behave this way while licking their wounds; another all together to adopt the approach as a lifestyle. How this gets by someone that has demonstrated such range and depth on other matters is beyond me. Your issue with condoms is an extension of your inability to reach a point of arousal beyond the physical.
[/quote]

I can understand why you think that. It’s my fault from what I said. But it’s really not true. I’m not really interested in purely sexual relationships. And the reasons I’ve had a lot of short relationships are surely my own flaws and also my inability to find a woman who can meet my mental requirements. I’m not trying to be a misogynist but women don’t have the same kind of minds as men and I’ve never met a woman with the kind of sharp, incisive mind that can challenge me and keep my interest. And then there’s also the fact that a lot of women are crazy / neurotic and sometimes you have to back slowly away.[/quote]

The idiocy that comes out of your mouth.
And the audacity you possess to call yourself SexMachine.

lol

75

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I’ve never planned a one night stand.
Anyway, I’m just saying condoms suck. It’s like wearing a damn raincoat on your dick.
[/quote]

Rubbish…total rubbish. By your own admission you can’t remain interested in another person for more than a couple of months. You begin with your exit strategy and work back from there; one night, 8 weeks, what’s the difference. You can’t possibly believe you’ve even scratched the surface of another person in two months. Your SOP is shallow, adversarial and dripping with passive aggression. It is one thing for a person that is coming out of a divorce/bad breakup to behave this way while licking their wounds; another all together to adopt the approach as a lifestyle. How this gets by someone that has demonstrated such range and depth on other matters is beyond me. Your issue with condoms is an extension of your inability to reach a point of arousal beyond the physical.
[/quote]

I can understand why you think that. It’s my fault from what I said. But it’s really not true. I’m not really interested in purely sexual relationships. And the reasons I’ve had a lot of short relationships are surely my own flaws and also my inability to find a woman who can meet my mental requirements. I’m not trying to be a misogynist but women don’t have the same kind of minds as men and I’ve never met a woman with the kind of sharp, incisive mind that can challenge me and keep my interest. And then there’s also the fact that a lot of women are crazy / neurotic and sometimes you have to back slowly away.[/quote]

76

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I’m not trying to be a misogynist but women don’t have the same kind of minds as men and I’ve never met a woman with the kind of sharp, incisive mind that can challenge me and keep my interest.[/quote]
Says the guy who’s picking up McDonalds workers!

I’m voting yes to the celebacy/chastity idea. It was a good one on your part.

77

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

And then there’s also the fact that a lot of women are crazy / neurotic and sometimes you have to back slowly away.[/quote]

Said the self-identified high-functioning psychopath.

78

[quote]jasmincar wrote:
What about slipping a morning after pill (whatever it is called) in the orange juice of the women then never seeing her again? [/quote]

Depending on the state, that’s either assault or murder.

79

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]jasmincar wrote:
What about slipping a morning after pill (whatever it is called) in the orange juice of the women then never seeing her again? [/quote]

Depending on the state, that’s either assault or murder.[/quote]

Kansas and Texas are the two states that spring to mind. Capital murder charge for some schlub in Kansas who fixed his girlfriend some miscarriage-inducing pancakes.

80

[quote]kpsnap wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I’m not trying to be a misogynist but women don’t have the same kind of minds as men and I’ve never met a woman with the kind of sharp, incisive mind that can challenge me and keep my interest.[/quote]
Says the guy who’s picking up McDonalds workers!

I’m voting yes to the celebacy/chastity idea. It was a good one on your part.[/quote]