[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:
Thus, men are given control over their own destiny as to when they have children, but women are not in the case that they’re raped.[/quote]
Men have no control over their destiny, then, when they are raped and develop AIDS and anal warts as a consequence of the rape?[/quote]
That risk is common to both men and women.
Self determination is an inviolate right.
Funny, how so many would inflict their choices on others.
Self determination is an inviolate right.
Funny, how so many would inflict their choices on others.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]USMCpoolee wrote:
I thought this was interesting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect[/quote]
Make sure and do your due diligence:
My own response is chiefly that I find the argument incomplete… For instance, the biggest drop in fertility in the U.S. came with the advent of the Pill in the mid-1960Ã?¢??s. The Pill allowed lots of women who would otherwise have become pregnant not to become pregnant because they were poor, or didnÃ?¢??t want a child, or lived in an environment where it was hard to raise children. But the fertility drop caused by the Pill didnÃ?¢??t lead to a decrease in crime eighteen years later. In fact, that generation saw a massive increase in crime. The advent of abortion in the early 1970Ã?¢??s, meanwhile, caused a far, far smaller drop in U.S. fertility butÃ?¢??Levitt arguesÃ?¢??that drop is consistent with a fall in crime. In other words, the unwanted children whose births were prevented by the Pill would not have gone to become criminals. But unwanted children whose births were prevented by abortion would have gone on become criminals. Why is this? I can think of some hypotheses. But they are just that: hypotheses. I would have been a lot happier with Freakonomics if the crime chapter had been twice as longÃ?¢??and spent more time explaining just what is so peculiar, in terms of crime rates, about births prevented by abortion.
and
…Itâ??s here, though, where I think Levittâ??s argument is a bit unfair. Levitt concludes that there are three factors that matter the most in the crime dropâ??abortion, high rates of imprisonment of young men, and increased number of police officers. The last of these three factors he glosses over pretty quickly. But I think thatâ??s a mistake, because what is increased police presence? Well, having more police on the streets than before means that law enforcement can be more aggressive and pro-active. It means officers can do a lot better job getting guns off the streets. It means that they can be much more vigilant than before. It means that they have the time and resources to start cracking down on the kinds of seemingly minor “lifestyle” crimes than might have gone ignored before. The kinds of things that I argue were so important in responding a civil environment in New York Stateâ??the crackdowns on graffiti and public urination and panhandling and turnstile jumping in the subway systemâ??are all the kinds of things that police departments can do when they have more officers on the streets.
http://gladwell.typepad.com/gladwellcom/2006/03/thoughts_on_fre.html[/quote]
I agree with you about the freakonomics chapter completely. I just did a quick google after reading some of this thread and that came up. It is most definitely a correlation, which doesn’t prove anything. I think they should address the increased police presence as well- for all the reasons you laid out, it’s obviously a big part in the drops in crime.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Deorum made a valid point before. Instead of going for walks and holding up signs, why don’t you all adopt these children that would have been otherwise aborted?[/quote]
We do.
Kind of hard to adopt dead children, though isn’t it?[/quote]
So you have children? Adopted? How many?[/quote]
Glad to hear that your family has given so many kids homes and families…
Now for just a few million more kids need proper homes and families
No, I don’t have a wife (getting an education at the moment) yet so that wouldn’t be fair to the children, but my folks have adopted four, and fostered dozens more back in the day. The rest of my family…I think the minimum adopted (for one wife) is one (she’s pretty young though and is talking about more) and the max is a whopping 10 (zero of their own).[/quote]
[quote]cvb wrote:
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
[quote]cvb wrote:
You’re missing the point that the pregnancies do not have to happen. Women are using abortion as birth control. If murdering babies was illegal there would be far less unwanted pregnancies. There are many people that would love to adopt babies but can’t.
If doing a rosary walk or holding a sign gets one person to think about and change their decision then it is worth it. [/quote]
The fact that so many women use abortion for birth control is a sad fact indeed! That many men take no responsibility for birth-control is tragic as well. It is difficult for resonsible people to imagine an unwanted pregnancy with all the prevention options available. What I want is to see discussion…like this thread, and more. I want discussion with our sons and daughters, with our parents, brothers, and sisters. In our churches and at our social gatherings. I want any change that happens to be the result of persuasion and individual conviction, not by way of written law.
[/quote]
Yes. You are right. We need to communicate with our sons and daughters. Let them know that anytime you have sex there is a chance of pregnancy. Are they ready to have a child? I was so upset that my daughter’s middle school taught her sex education without my permission. Usually a form is sent home to sign. I had several separate conversations with her about abstinence and waiting for marriage.
I do not want birth control to be illegal. It is destroying our culture and women’s bodies but that needs to be a personal choice. The barrier of birth control is destroying marriages but not everyone looks at marriage as a sacrament. But abortion is murder and should be illegal like any other murder.[/quote]
It has been repeatably, reliably, and statistically significantly shown that fact based sex-ed delays sex, increases safer sex practices, reduces unintended pregnancies and disease rates.
Abstinence only programs have been like wise shown to increase frequency of all those above.
Funny how we humans actually behave. People say they want to reduce teen sex, disease, and pregnancy then stick their head in the sand and deny the most effective ways to do so… Even worse they insist and inflict on others the vary strategy shown to increase them. Perhaps they truly desire teen sex, pregnancy and disease?
[quote]Cortes wrote:
And one more question: At what point, if any, should a child’s right to protection supercede her mother’s right to self-indulgence? If you could clear up this foggy issue for me it would help me to better understand your position. Maybe.[/quote]
Does that include living down wind of coal plants… That’s a choice?
How about using home cleaning chemicals?
Taking folate?
Working any where near toxic chemicals?
Painting the nursery?
Using cellophane? ( sounds silly but high bpa content, may harm fetus brain during certain key developmental stages, especially males)?
No female who might get pregnant use certain medically prescribed drugs as they can cause abortion or birth defects? How about Chemo?
[quote]Cortes wrote:
And one more question: At what point, if any, should a child’s right to protection supercede her mother’s right to self-indulgence? If you could clear up this foggy issue for me it would help me to better understand your position. Maybe.[/quote]
You’ve touched on a key point. “Self-indulgence” as 95% of all abortions are for convenience. It’s become just another form of birth control. And that makes me sick to my stomach. And the people who made this style of murder so easy did so in the name of keeping abortions out of back alley’s. Gee, maybe we should make all murder easier so no one would have to get mugged and killed in a back alley?
What’s the count up to now? Something like 70 million abortions per year?
Nice, something to really be proud of.
[quote]USMCpoolee wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]USMCpoolee wrote:
I thought this was interesting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect[/quote]
Make sure and do your due diligence:
My own response is chiefly that I find the argument incomplete… For instance, the biggest drop in fertility in the U.S. came with the advent of the Pill in the mid-1960Ã??Ã?¢??s. The Pill allowed lots of women who would otherwise have become pregnant not to become pregnant because they were poor, or didnÃ??Ã?¢??t want a child, or lived in an environment where it was hard to raise children. But the fertility drop caused by the Pill didnÃ??Ã?¢??t lead to a decrease in crime eighteen years later. In fact, that generation saw a massive increase in crime. The advent of abortion in the early 1970Ã??Ã?¢??s, meanwhile, caused a far, far smaller drop in U.S. fertility butÃ??Ã?¢??Levitt arguesÃ??Ã?¢??that drop is consistent with a fall in crime. In other words, the unwanted children whose births were prevented by the Pill would not have gone to become criminals. But unwanted children whose births were prevented by abortion would have gone on become criminals. Why is this? I can think of some hypotheses. But they are just that: hypotheses. I would have been a lot happier with Freakonomics if the crime chapter had been twice as longÃ??Ã?¢??and spent more time explaining just what is so peculiar, in terms of crime rates, about births prevented by abortion.
and
…ItÃ?¢??s here, though, where I think LevittÃ?¢??s argument is a bit unfair. Levitt concludes that there are three factors that matter the most in the crime dropÃ?¢??abortion, high rates of imprisonment of young men, and increased number of police officers. The last of these three factors he glosses over pretty quickly. But I think thatÃ?¢??s a mistake, because what is increased police presence? Well, having more police on the streets than before means that law enforcement can be more aggressive and pro-active. It means officers can do a lot better job getting guns off the streets. It means that they can be much more vigilant than before. It means that they have the time and resources to start cracking down on the kinds of seemingly minor “lifestyle” crimes than might have gone ignored before. The kinds of things that I argue were so important in responding a civil environment in New York StateÃ?¢??the crackdowns on graffiti and public urination and panhandling and turnstile jumping in the subway systemÃ?¢??are all the kinds of things that police departments can do when they have more officers on the streets.
http://gladwell.typepad.com/gladwellcom/2006/03/thoughts_on_fre.html[/quote]
I agree with you about the freakonomics chapter completely. I just did a quick google after reading some of this thread and that came up. It is most definitely a correlation, which doesn’t prove anything. I think they should address the increased police presence as well- for all the reasons you laid out, it’s obviously a big part in the drops in crime.
[/quote]
Those aren’t my reasons! 
They are Gladwell’s. See the link.
[quote]Null wrote:
Self determination is an inviolate right.
Funny, how so many would inflict their choices on others.[/quote]
That is exactly what I’ve been saying this whole time.
Somehow I don’t think you mean what I mean, though…
[quote]Null wrote:
[quote]cvb wrote:
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
[quote]cvb wrote:
You’re missing the point that the pregnancies do not have to happen. Women are using abortion as birth control. If murdering babies was illegal there would be far less unwanted pregnancies. There are many people that would love to adopt babies but can’t.
If doing a rosary walk or holding a sign gets one person to think about and change their decision then it is worth it. [/quote]
The fact that so many women use abortion for birth control is a sad fact indeed! That many men take no responsibility for birth-control is tragic as well. It is difficult for resonsible people to imagine an unwanted pregnancy with all the prevention options available. What I want is to see discussion…like this thread, and more. I want discussion with our sons and daughters, with our parents, brothers, and sisters. In our churches and at our social gatherings. I want any change that happens to be the result of persuasion and individual conviction, not by way of written law.
[/quote]
Yes. You are right. We need to communicate with our sons and daughters. Let them know that anytime you have sex there is a chance of pregnancy. Are they ready to have a child? I was so upset that my daughter’s middle school taught her sex education without my permission. Usually a form is sent home to sign. I had several separate conversations with her about abstinence and waiting for marriage.
I do not want birth control to be illegal. It is destroying our culture and women’s bodies but that needs to be a personal choice. The barrier of birth control is destroying marriages but not everyone looks at marriage as a sacrament. But abortion is murder and should be illegal like any other murder.[/quote]
It has been repeatably, reliably, and statistically significantly shown that fact based sex-ed delays sex, increases safer sex practices, reduces unintended pregnancies and disease rates.
Abstinence only programs have been like wise shown to increase frequency of all those above.
Funny how we humans actually behave. People say they want to reduce teen sex, disease, and pregnancy then stick their head in the sand and deny the most effective ways to do so… Even worse they insist and inflict on others the vary strategy shown to increase them. Perhaps they truly desire teen sex, pregnancy and disease?
[/quote]
Who here is not for sex-education?
I am personally against forced education of questionable morals and motives by a monolithic, homogeneous, ideologically driven leviathan of a school system. They can stick to math, science and language, thank you very much, if my child is to be compelled to attend. I’m sure you wouldn’t like them forcing my religion on your kids at school.
[quote]Null wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
And one more question: At what point, if any, should a child’s right to protection supercede her mother’s right to self-indulgence? If you could clear up this foggy issue for me it would help me to better understand your position. Maybe.[/quote]
Does that include living down wind of coal plants… That’s a choice?
How about using home cleaning chemicals?
Taking folate?
Working any where near toxic chemicals?
Painting the nursery?
Using cellophane? ( sounds silly but high bpa content, may harm fetus brain during certain key developmental stages, especially males)?
No female who might get pregnant use certain medically prescribed drugs as they can cause abortion or birth defects? How about Chemo? [/quote]
Nope, doesn’t include those.
I assume you are talking about various environmental factors that could lead to premature termination of pregnancy or harm to the child?
If so, then so long as the mother is not huffing asbestos in order to purposely induce abortion, then it is not an issue of will (or will-ful neglect or otherwise) so it does not fall under the umbrella to of the discussion we’ve been having here.If she is using a chemical or product or putting herself in a position that could potentially harm her child and she has both knowledge of and control over those factors, then yeah, she’s a terrible person. We actually covered this but it was way back in the thread so I wouldn’t expect you to have seen it.
Anyway, to the point you quoted from me, I used the word “self-indulgence.”
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Those aren’t my reasons! They are Gladwell’s. See the link.[/quote]
Wow, thats a great blog, thanks for the link!
“immediate contextual influences on human behavior” That, or anything related to it had never even crossed my mind.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
In case it actually needs to be said, banning abortion will not make it go away. You will simply force it underground, and even if it is out of sight, it is still there - now much more unsafe.[/quote]
This can be said for any number of crimes. It’s not really a good solution if abortion is morally wrong.[/quote]
To send it underground and pretend it’s not happening because you can’t see it is not a solution. At all.
Now how about respecting life in all forms and throughout all stages. Then teaching others to do the same?
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
In case it actually needs to be said, banning abortion will not make it go away. You will simply force it underground, and even if it is out of sight, it is still there - now much more unsafe.[/quote]
This can be said for any number of crimes. It’s not really a good solution if abortion is morally wrong.[/quote]
To send it underground and pretend it’s not happening because you can’t see it is not a solution. At all.[/quote]
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Now how about respecting life in all forms and throughout all stages. Then teaching others to do the same?
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
In case it actually needs to be said, banning abortion will not make it go away. You will simply force it underground, and even if it is out of sight, it is still there - now much more unsafe.[/quote]
This can be said for any number of crimes. It’s not really a good solution if abortion is morally wrong.[/quote]
To send it underground and pretend it’s not happening because you can’t see it is not a solution. At all.[/quote]
[/quote]
You are offering empty rhetoric with no real solution. You are not fifteen. I know you’re not an idealist. You know exactly what humanity as a collective whole is like at its best and worst.
Teach others to do the same? People will continue to have sex.
How about I teach others to use contraception, and offer forms of contraception that they can’t screw up? Hey presto, less unwanted pregnancies, less abortions!
Remind me how your example of birth control can not be screwed up when it involves the very same practices available today?
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Now how about respecting life in all forms and throughout all stages. Then teaching others to do the same?
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
In case it actually needs to be said, banning abortion will not make it go away. You will simply force it underground, and even if it is out of sight, it is still there - now much more unsafe.[/quote]
This can be said for any number of crimes. It’s not really a good solution if abortion is morally wrong.[/quote]
To send it underground and pretend it’s not happening because you can’t see it is not a solution. At all.[/quote]
[/quote]
You are offering empty rhetoric with no real solution. You are not fifteen. I know you’re not an idealist. You know exactly what humanity as a collective whole is like at its best and worst.
Teach others to do the same? People will continue to have sex.
How about I teach others to use contraception, and offer forms of contraception that they can’t screw up? Hey presto, less unwanted pregnancies, less abortions![/quote]
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Remind me how your example of birth control can not be screwed up when it involves the very same practices available today?[/quote]
I find it hard to imagine people screwing up implants or Depo Provera when those are administered by medical professionals.
Yes, I’m well aware of the side effects. That would be what I call the consequences of sexual freedom.
So you still see no fault with instantaneous gratification?
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Remind me how your example of birth control can not be screwed up when it involves the very same practices available today?[/quote]
I find it hard to imagine people screwing up implants or Depo Provera when those are administered by medical professionals.
Yes, I’m well aware of the side effects. That would be what I call the consequences of sexual freedom.[/quote]
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
So you still see no fault with instantaneous gratification?
[/quote]
Of course I do. You still don’t see that humans will continue to engage in casual sex?