04 Aug 09
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperNever said anything about 'prohibition of abortion' did I? It's a woman's body so it's the woman's choice.
How about your own personal opinion. Would the prohibition of abortion have any affect on crime and/or welfare?
Just that abortion is so against the beliefs of some people they should not have to fund what they see as murder.
04 Aug 09
Originally posted by WajomaThat's great! So I can just be against everything and I won't have to pay any tax in Wajoma world!
Never said anything about 'prohibition of abortion' did I? It's a woman's body so it's the woman's choice.
Just that abortion is so against the beliefs of some people they should not have to fund what they see as murder.
04 Aug 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI'll do it for you.
For a discussion of the theory, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect
The following statement; "Abortions reduce crime and thus save money for society as a whole." that I, KN, made should actually read as follows "There is a discussion of the theory that abortions reduce crime over on wiki, it is just that, a theory."
Mean while the discussion here is not about abortions as a whole but forcing people to fund something they see as murder.
04 Aug 09
Originally posted by WajomaYawn. There are various sources on the Wikipedia page. Gravity is also a theory. Do you or do you not believe that children raised after an unplanned parenthood are brought up equally well?
I'll do it for you.
The following statement; "Abortions reduce crime and thus save money for society as a whole." that I, KN, made should actually read as follows "There is a discussion of the theory that abortions reduce crime over on wiki, it is just that, a theory."
Mean while the discussion here is not about abortions as a whole but forcing people to fund something they see as murder.
Your argument as to people having moral objections has already been flushed down the drain through reductio ad absurdum.
04 Aug 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorrayawn and yawn to infinity,, times a thousand trillion infinite yawns.
Yawn. There are various sources on the Wikipedia page. Gravity is also a theory. Do you or do you not believe that children raised after an unplanned parenthood are brought up equally well?
Your argument as to people having moral objections has already been flushed down the drain through reductio ad absurdum.
Not all children bought up after an unplanned parenthood are bought up equally well.
Not all children bought up after a planned parenthood are bought up equally well.
Now that little diversion is out of the way.
04 Aug 09
Originally posted by WajomaWhere did I claim that "all children bought up after an unplanned parenthood are bought up equally well" or "all children bought up after a planned parenthood are bought up equally well" and how are such bizarre claims relevant in this discussion?
yawn and yawn to infinity,, times a thousand trillion infinite yawns.
Not all children bought up after an unplanned parenthood are bought up equally well.
Not all children bought up after a planned parenthood are bought up equally well.
Now that little diversion is out of the way.
Not everyone who smokes dies of cancer, and not everyone who dies of cancer is a smoker. Does that mean that smoking doesn't cause cancer?
04 Aug 09
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperWhat would you say to a China like policy of mandating that poor families are limited to only one or two children? Would it not help us achieve the statist utopia for the fatherland?
That would be a pretty hard thing to prove, but it does make sense. Most abortions are from the poor and low income demographics that have less of a family oriented invironment. It stands to reason that forcing all of them to have kids would contribute to increased crime down the road with a huge increase in welfare.
That being said, I don't think the issue should be decided on these factors.