These are the worst theories ever, ABORTION? Really??? The reason we have a low crime rate is because we have the right to bare arms, and you risk getting killed if you rob someone. Take that away and the rate goes up. It has nothing to do with murdering unborn children.
The rights to bear arms, if anything, became more restricted during the rapid fall off violent crime rates through the 90's and 00's. I'm thinking primarily of the Assault Weapons Ban, but even taking that out, the best you can say is that the rights granted by the 2nd Amendment remain unchanged throughout the decline. Why then, did we have so much crime when everyone could bear arms, but then suddenly the crime rate got lower because we could all bear arms?
I am not a fan of abortion either, however the case for abortion deterring crime is pretty strong. I kinda wonder what effect the proliferation of media has on crime? With video cameras, 24 hr news stations, webternet, does all that make people more aware of the potential of being caught? Also kinda makes sense with the broken window hypothesis. But I think I've read articles to the contrary on that one.
Chameleon, while I agree with you about the stomach churning idea that abortion might be the reason for lower crime rates, it bears repeating that that was the entire reason for the creation of 'planned parenthood' by progressives. It was instituted to decrease the number of "undesirables" and minorities. In America they sterilized the mentally handicapped, and in Germany they took the next step and "Euthanized"(read MURDERED) the infirm. After that they started gassing everybody they didn't like. It's a VERY progressive idea don't you think. "Kill'em before their born so we don't have to worry about them becoming criminals." And the call conservatives racists and bigots. As an aside to DirtDoc, The Assault Weapons Ban was actually the "I think that gun looks scary ban"
(Primarily limited to the United States, the term assault weapon is a political term, separate from the military definition, used to describe a variety of semi-automatic firearms that have certain features associated with military or police firearms. The 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which expired on September 13, 2004, defined the rifle type of assault weapon as a semiautomatic firearm with the ability to accept a detachable magazine, and two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock Conspicuous pistol grip Bayonet mount Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one Grenade launcher Barrel shroud) and really did almost nothing to curb US citizens access to real firepower. During the AWB you could still buy a 30-06 M1 Garand Main Battle Rifle from the Federal Government through the CMP(Civilian Marksmanship Program). Politicians thought if they held up a scary looking gun and said you can't have this that it would do something about crime. Nevermind that noone outside of the rare nutjob(Colorado) has ever used an "Assault Weapon" in a crime in america.
John - that's a fair statement on the AWB. I meant that it likely did little to change gun violence in the U.S. It was a failed experiment in gun control. I doubt it actually did much to limit access to those weapons at all.
I wrote a long rebuttle to the A-grade crazy in your first paragraph, but deleted it because it became cumbersome in this format, so let me summarize it.
1.) Eugenists are not progressives. Just because you want to change the world doesn't mean you're a progressive. To do something like say "well, they want to progress the world to their own ideal" is to semantically re-phrase the word until it has no meaning. If an individual chooses to not reproduce because they don't want to pass on genes they consider bad, they have the choice to do it. But any form of forced population control is not now and can not ever be a part of the progressive or liberal ideal. I can say now with confidence that the vast majority of liberals would reject such things as monstrous.
2.) Eugenics is despicable, but the freedom and responsibility of the choice to carry or terminate a pregnancy lies only with the pregnant woman. Even if the movement was begun by people like Sanger, she had lost control of the movement well before Roe v. Wade. (Sanger actually died 7 years before the decision was handed down). For many even at the birth of the movement it was about freedom of choice. It still is an issue of the autonomy of the individual and their right over their bodies.
3.) Seriously, Godwinning it within 3 sentences? That's just lazy.
4.) We only call conservatives racists when they act racist. We call a lot of liberals racist too, but only when they act racist. Same goes with bigot.
Finally, remember this. A person can choose to offer services for any reason they want, but that doesn't mean that's why the recipient of those services are using them. Even if the clinics were mostly eugenist (they are not, I can't stress that enough), that isn't why women are using them. They don't want to raise another, or any child. Because they can't provide for it, or it will be mentally or physically to disabled, or the child was a product of rape and the woman refuses to carry the rapist's child, or because she just didn't want to have a baby. All of them are valid reasons, and all are the choice alone of the woman carrying the child. Period. It'd be like saying a gun salesman wants his customers to use the weapons in violent, illegal acts (They don't, I can't stress that enough). Does that suddenly mean that the person who chose to go there to buy a target rifle and some varmint rounds for his other rifle is complicit, if not a full participant and supporter, in said gun-store owners nefarious agenda? I say no.
Yeah, I do wave it high. I'm proud to have respect for the individual and their free choices.
Where exactly did I rationalize the insane? I explicitly state that eugenics has no place in our modern liberal movement. Any movement that may have begun with insane or immoral ideas has not only abandoned but openly rejected those ideas.
The last paragraph isn't rationalizing anything at all. I meant to highlight that regardless of whatever completely crazy conspiracy you might attribute to the pro-choice movement, you have to remember that the movement never made people get abortions. They chose to have them. They chose it for their own reasons.
My issue with abortion is the false pretence of choice. It seems hypocritical to say the person has a right to choose what to do with there body even if it means killing another person. Other then rape, why not choose to at the very least have safe sex, use a condom, or, have a little self control and not have sex? Those are choices an 'adult' can make, right? The problem is that choice only fits into the language of the left if it means that they get their way. If they don't get their way then the opposition becomes close minded zealots that only care about their 'God' and not humans at large. All that being said, there is still strong evidence for abortion lowering crime. Here is a link to a video stating this.
As for people carrying weapons. Even though I believe in this freedom, and that there are a some instances of this as a deterrent, the evidence is not there. Then if you consider that most people that carry a weapon don't shoot near the amount of a trained police officer that must regularly pass a shooting qualification exam. combine that with how many times an officer misses their target in a real life shooting scenario, the likely hood of that as a deterrent drops even more.
Paul, I get the trouble with an apparent lack of self-control, (let's be honest, it's not just abortion/unwanted pregnancy. I feel it to when people are 10,000 in CC debt, for example.)
But it's also a false pretense to say that all, or even the majority of abortion is the result of a lack of self-control. There's rape, deformed or unviable pregnancies, there's onset of cancer, conditions where the pregnancy is possibly dangerous to the health or life of the mother, or pregnancies which were purposefully sought out, but then circumstances changed and the mother or parents are no longer capable of providing for the child. I've never been comfortable with the idea of a late-term abortion, even now, but it isn't my choice to make.
We can't and don't know why any woman may seek an abortion. But it's not our place to say yes or no to it.
I'm all for increasing real sex education though. It seems like we could avoid the majority of the question just by increasing knowledge of an access to contraception.
Dirt doc, I see your points, and even have waffled on a point or two regarding when abortion is ok. I realize it's not always about self control, however according to statistics it is more often about control, then a health related issue. Around 15% for rape and health concerns put together. Most abortion recipients say that a baby just doesn't fit into their life style right now. You are 100% right stating that we can't tell these people how to run their lives, but then how do we rectify murder, rape, and criminal behavior? Aren't we telling them that they can't make that choice to hurt another human? I realize that a fetus can't sustain it's life without its mother, but that is the case with all animals. The animal is reared to adulthood and self reliance by a caring parent, if not they would become part of the food chain. My daughter actually has a disease that they have been unable to cure, or even figure out. She is pregnant and was told to abort because of the health risks, not only to the baby but to her. We talked often about abortion, but she kept the baby, hoping for the best. We will find out next month how things work out. As you mentioned, it is her decision, she made it. On the other hand I have 2families that we are friends with that were told to abort for genetic reasons, neither did, and both are happy they didn't. They feel that it has been the hardest thing in their life, but one of the most rewarding also. That the love that they give and receive is unparalleled. As you can tell, I am pro choice, but please don't abort because it is the easy way out, there are option, there are more often then not other options. Not just because 75% of people find it inconvenient to their current life choice. I feel I may have rambled a bit, please feel free to continue with your line of thought, because I enjoy a good eye opening debate.
Pin it! 
10 comments
Login to comment →
CHAM3LEON 12 years, 3 months ago
These are the worst theories ever, ABORTION? Really??? The reason we have a low crime rate is because we have the right to bare arms, and you risk getting killed if you rob someone. Take that away and the rate goes up. It has nothing to do with murdering unborn children.
Reply
DirtDoc 12 years, 3 months ago
The rights to bear arms, if anything, became more restricted during the rapid fall off violent crime rates through the 90's and 00's. I'm thinking primarily of the Assault Weapons Ban, but even taking that out, the best you can say is that the rights granted by the 2nd Amendment remain unchanged throughout the decline. Why then, did we have so much crime when everyone could bear arms, but then suddenly the crime rate got lower because we could all bear arms?
Reply
Robochess 12 years, 3 months ago
I am not a fan of abortion either, however the case for abortion deterring crime is pretty strong.
I kinda wonder what effect the proliferation of media has on crime? With video cameras, 24 hr news stations, webternet, does all that make people more aware of the potential of being caught?
Also kinda makes sense with the broken window hypothesis. But I think I've read articles to the contrary on that one.
Reply
kilroy182 12 years, 3 months ago
Chameleon, while I agree with you about the stomach churning idea that abortion might be the reason for lower crime rates, it bears repeating that that was the entire reason for the creation of 'planned parenthood' by progressives. It was instituted to decrease the number of "undesirables" and minorities. In America they sterilized the mentally handicapped, and in Germany they took the next step and "Euthanized"(read MURDERED) the infirm. After that they started gassing everybody they didn't like. It's a VERY progressive idea don't you think. "Kill'em before their born so we don't have to worry about them becoming criminals." And the call conservatives racists and bigots. As an aside to DirtDoc, The Assault Weapons Ban was actually the "I think that gun looks scary ban"
(Primarily limited to the United States, the term assault weapon is a political term, separate from the military definition, used to describe a variety of semi-automatic firearms that have certain features associated with military or police firearms. The 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which expired on September 13, 2004, defined the rifle type of assault weapon as a semiautomatic firearm with the ability to accept a detachable magazine, and two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Conspicuous pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher
Barrel shroud)
and really did almost nothing to curb US citizens access to real firepower. During the AWB you could still buy a 30-06 M1 Garand Main Battle Rifle from the Federal Government through the CMP(Civilian Marksmanship Program). Politicians thought if they held up a scary looking gun and said you can't have this that it would do something about crime. Nevermind that noone outside of the rare nutjob(Colorado) has ever used an "Assault Weapon" in a crime in america.
Reply
DirtDoc 12 years, 3 months ago
John - that's a fair statement on the AWB. I meant that it likely did little to change gun violence in the U.S. It was a failed experiment in gun control. I doubt it actually did much to limit access to those weapons at all.
I wrote a long rebuttle to the A-grade crazy in your first paragraph, but deleted it because it became cumbersome in this format, so let me summarize it.
1.) Eugenists are not progressives. Just because you want to change the world doesn't mean you're a progressive. To do something like say "well, they want to progress the world to their own ideal" is to semantically re-phrase the word until it has no meaning. If an individual chooses to not reproduce because they don't want to pass on genes they consider bad, they have the choice to do it. But any form of forced population control is not now and can not ever be a part of the progressive or liberal ideal. I can say now with confidence that the vast majority of liberals would reject such things as monstrous.
2.) Eugenics is despicable, but the freedom and responsibility of the choice to carry or terminate a pregnancy lies only with the pregnant woman. Even if the movement was begun by people like Sanger, she had lost control of the movement well before Roe v. Wade. (Sanger actually died 7 years before the decision was handed down). For many even at the birth of the movement it was about freedom of choice. It still is an issue of the autonomy of the individual and their right over their bodies.
3.) Seriously, Godwinning it within 3 sentences? That's just lazy.
4.) We only call conservatives racists when they act racist. We call a lot of liberals racist too, but only when they act racist. Same goes with bigot.
Finally, remember this. A person can choose to offer services for any reason they want, but that doesn't mean that's why the recipient of those services are using them. Even if the clinics were mostly eugenist (they are not, I can't stress that enough), that isn't why women are using them. They don't want to raise another, or any child. Because they can't provide for it, or it will be mentally or physically to disabled, or the child was a product of rape and the woman refuses to carry the rapist's child, or because she just didn't want to have a baby. All of them are valid reasons, and all are the choice alone of the woman carrying the child. Period. It'd be like saying a gun salesman wants his customers to use the weapons in violent, illegal acts (They don't, I can't stress that enough). Does that suddenly mean that the person who chose to go there to buy a target rifle and some varmint rounds for his other rifle is complicit, if not a full participant and supporter, in said gun-store owners nefarious agenda? I say no.
Reply
s5traut 12 years, 3 months ago
Waving that liberal banner high, eh DirtyDoc?
Nothing says pseudo-intellectualism like attempting to rationalize the insane.
Reply
DirtDoc 12 years, 3 months ago
Yeah, I do wave it high. I'm proud to have respect for the individual and their free choices.
Where exactly did I rationalize the insane? I explicitly state that eugenics has no place in our modern liberal movement. Any movement that may have begun with insane or immoral ideas has not only abandoned but openly rejected those ideas.
The last paragraph isn't rationalizing anything at all. I meant to highlight that regardless of whatever completely crazy conspiracy you might attribute to the pro-choice movement, you have to remember that the movement never made people get abortions. They chose to have them. They chose it for their own reasons.
Reply
Robochess 12 years, 3 months ago
My issue with abortion is the false pretence of choice. It seems hypocritical to say the person has a right to choose what to do with there body even if it means killing another person. Other then rape, why not choose to at the very least have safe sex, use a condom, or, have a little self control and not have sex? Those are choices an 'adult' can make, right? The problem is that choice only fits into the language of the left if it means that they get their way. If they don't get their way then the opposition becomes close minded zealots that only care about their 'God' and not humans at large.
All that being said, there is still strong evidence for abortion lowering crime. Here is a link to a video stating this.
As for people carrying weapons. Even though I believe in this freedom, and that there are a some instances of this as a deterrent, the evidence is not there. Then if you consider that most people that carry a weapon don't shoot near the amount of a trained police officer that must regularly pass a shooting qualification exam. combine that with how many times an officer misses their target in a real life shooting scenario, the likely hood of that as a deterrent drops even more.
Reply
DirtDoc 12 years, 3 months ago
Paul, I get the trouble with an apparent lack of self-control, (let's be honest, it's not just abortion/unwanted pregnancy. I feel it to when people are 10,000 in CC debt, for example.)
But it's also a false pretense to say that all, or even the majority of abortion is the result of a lack of self-control. There's rape, deformed or unviable pregnancies, there's onset of cancer, conditions where the pregnancy is possibly dangerous to the health or life of the mother, or pregnancies which were purposefully sought out, but then circumstances changed and the mother or parents are no longer capable of providing for the child. I've never been comfortable with the idea of a late-term abortion, even now, but it isn't my choice to make.
We can't and don't know why any woman may seek an abortion. But it's not our place to say yes or no to it.
I'm all for increasing real sex education though. It seems like we could avoid the majority of the question just by increasing knowledge of an access to contraception.
Reply
Robochess 12 years, 3 months ago
Dirt doc, I see your points, and even have waffled on a point or two regarding when abortion is ok. I realize it's not always about self control, however according to statistics it is more often about control, then a health related issue. Around 15% for rape and health concerns put together. Most abortion recipients say that a baby just doesn't fit into their life style right now. You are 100% right stating that we can't tell these people how to run their lives, but then how do we rectify murder, rape, and criminal behavior? Aren't we telling them that they can't make that choice to hurt another human? I realize that a fetus can't sustain it's life without its mother, but that is the case with all animals. The animal is reared to adulthood and self reliance by a caring parent, if not they would become part of the food chain.
My daughter actually has a disease that they have been unable to cure, or even figure out. She is pregnant and was told to abort because of the health risks, not only to the baby but to her. We talked often about abortion, but she kept the baby, hoping for the best. We will find out next month how things work out. As you mentioned, it is her decision, she made it. On the other hand I have 2families that we are friends with that were told to abort for genetic reasons, neither did, and both are happy they didn't. They feel that it has been the hardest thing in their life, but one of the most rewarding also. That the love that they give and receive is unparalleled.
As you can tell, I am pro choice, but please don't abort because it is the easy way out, there are option, there are more often then not other options. Not just because 75% of people find it inconvenient to their current life choice.
I feel I may have rambled a bit, please feel free to continue with your line of thought, because I enjoy a good eye opening debate.
Reply