• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Unique Perspective into Abortion: Crime Reducer, Pregnancy delayer, not stopper

Ryan5

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
2,191
Reaction score
483
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
I'm pro abortion yet conservative. This is why I'm pro abortion.

 

JayDubya

Struggler
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2011
Messages
17,181
Reaction score
4,037
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Are you also pro-culling old people ala Logan's Run? Saves money. Good economic benefit.

Hey, what about slavery? That's got a lot of economic benefits too... Works pretty well as long as you're not the slave, but hey, we just demonstrated two other groups we can selectively mark as undesirable before we exploit or harm them, so why not?


Pro-tip: Utilitarianism kind of sucks in an argument... because you can almost always use it to justify the unconscionable.
 

Ryan5

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
2,191
Reaction score
483
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Are you also pro-culling old people ala Logan's Run? Saves money. Good economic benefit.

Hey, what about slavery? That's got a lot of economic benefits too... Works pretty well as long as you're not the slave, but hey, we just demonstrated two other groups we can selectively mark as undesirable before we exploit or harm them, so why not?


Pro-tip: Utilitarianism kind of sucks in an argument... because you can almost always use it to justify the unconscionable.


I do hope that isn't suppose to count as logic or any sort of even half reasonable rebuttal..



The video clearly shows that the study indicates:


-Abortion does not "Stop people from having babies". It delays people from having babies until they can personally afford them, something any *actual* conservative person should be thrilled about

-Video clearly shows this isn't an ideological issue. You can either acknowledge the facts that being a single mother is bad, period, for society, or you cannot. That isn't the issue's fault. It's your inability to accept an unbiased studies findings.. (which brings into question your methods of logic point blank). Perhaps you're not interested in a solution to stop single motherhood is the real truth. (which is troubling in general that that could be anybody's position..)

-Abortion goes across all races. It is not about race, but about poverty and the creation of more poverty. Being against abortion is like being for poverty. It makes no logical sense unless you're applying illogical premises to the issue.
 

JayDubya

Struggler
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2011
Messages
17,181
Reaction score
4,037
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
The video clearly shows that the study indicates:


-Abortion does not "Stop people from having babies". It delays people from having babies until they can personally afford them, something any *actual* conservative person should be thrilled about\

Yeah, what a great deal!

... For everyone but the dead kid. Or any of the other ones that get killed along the way, since so many abortions are requested by "repeat customers."
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Wait..I thought making abortion illegal didn't stop women from aborting? Is that not the argument I hear constantly? If that is so, it would seem this argument has no basis.
 

Ryan5

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
2,191
Reaction score
483
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Yeah, what a great deal! For everyone but the dead kid. Or any of the other ones that get killed along the way, since so many abortions are requested by "repeat customers."



Oh so you're a Libertarian, yes?


Oh good so you love the idea of a massive state and Federal system taking your money and sending it to a poor single mother, who then says "hey, that wasn't so bad, and I'm probably going to be poor the rest of my life, let's do that again.."?



Now somewhere something isn't adding up, and it isn't on the video's end nor is it on the legal abortion advocacies end..
 

JayDubya

Struggler
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2011
Messages
17,181
Reaction score
4,037
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Oh good so you love the idea of a massive state and Federal system taking your money and sending it to a poor single mother, who then says "hey, that wasn't so bad, and I'm probably going to be poor the rest of my life, let's do that again.."?

No, I don't approve of socialism, at all. Which is pretty irrelevant given that you want to talk about abortion.
 

Ryan5

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
2,191
Reaction score
483
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
No, I don't approve of socialism, at all. Which is pretty irrelevant given that you want to talk about abortion.


Abortion is an issue of socialism..


We have soft socialism in this country because we have legions of religious people going around telling 17 year old single mothers to not abort. Let's go over a simple scenario for you, Mr. Libertarian.


-17 Year old births little boy

-Parents financially cut ties with her @ 18

-Single Mother now applies for food stamps, assisted living, takes ex to court for child support (all using taxpayer dollars to have all this set up) + more benefits

-Socialism BUT apparently GOD is now thrilled.

-Life long Democrat Voter created. Edit: Multiple Life Long Democrat voters created + Socialism fostered.


That is the reality of anti abortion efforts. You are paying for your own political tomb by being anti abortion.
 

JayDubya

Struggler
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2011
Messages
17,181
Reaction score
4,037
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Abortion is an issue of socialism...

Doesn't need to be. Two independent issues.

We have soft socialism in this country

Agreed.

-17 Year old births little boy

-Parents financially cut ties with her @ 18

-Single Mother now applies for food stamps, assisted living, takes ex to court for child support (all using taxpayer dollars to have all this set up) + more benefits

So end all "food stamps", end all "assisted living," end all other "more benefits." Ex is expected to provide for the offspring he creates, if he doesn't, well, that's one of the reasons we have courts, to compel deadbeats to pay what they owe. Hell, make them pay the court costs, too.

Problem solved. No taxpayer money wasted.
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Abortion is an issue of socialism..


We have soft socialism in this country because we have legions of religious people going around telling 17 year old single mothers to not abort. Let's go over a simple scenario for you, Mr. Libertarian.


-17 Year old births little boy

-Parents financially cut ties with her @ 18

-Single Mother now applies for food stamps, assisted living, takes ex to court for child support (all using taxpayer dollars to have all this set up) + more benefits

-Socialism BUT apparently GOD is now thrilled.

-Life long Democrat Voter created. Edit: Multiple Life Long Democrat voters created + Socialism fostered.


That is the reality of anti abortion efforts. You are paying for your own political tomb by being anti abortion.

As long as food stamps and the rest exists these individuals will use it. The problem of young girls having children is with us regardless of what we do here towards abortion.
 

minnie616

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
23,048
Reaction score
25,753
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
There is a significantly enhanced risk that a child born to a single mom is more than five times as likely to live in poverty as a child born to married parents.
That’s why it’s no coincidence that along with the growing rate of unwed childbearing, the U.S. has also experienced drastic increases in welfare costs over the decades.

Marriage and Poverty in the U.S.
 

Ryan5

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
2,191
Reaction score
483
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Doesn't need to be. Two independent issues.



Agreed.



So end all "food stamps", end all "assisted living," end all other "more benefits." Ex is expected to provide for the offspring he creates, if he doesn't, well, that's one of the reasons we have courts, to compel deadbeats to pay what they owe. Hell, make them pay the court costs, too.

Problem solved. No taxpayer money wasted.


No they're not independent issues.

This is why conservatism is dying on a national level and thriving on a local, ignorance based level. This kind of illogic is being passed off as logic locally but is being seen as the nuttery it is at the national level.



You say "Just end all benefits". Did you watch the video? You can't or crime goes up. What social benefits really are are mechanisms put in place so the fatherless offspring don't rape your daughter, don't rob your house, don't steal your car.


All a pro abortion person is saying to you is, let's stop the madness. Let's accept these studies and accept that cause and effect are real. Let's not blindly scream about principles while Rome burns. There is no reason a 17 year old needs to have a child. No reason. She can have a child when she is older, has a man in her life, has a job, has maturity. Abortion does not prevent children. Repeat. Abortion does not prevent children. It delays children.


Wouldn't you rather have her have children that will one day pay taxes rather than pump out life long Democrat voters and or potential rapists and or thieves? Is that so terrible? Is your argument truly the conservative one, or is mine?
 

SassySmartie

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2013
Messages
528
Reaction score
630
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Doesn't need to be. Two independent issues.



Agreed.



So end all "food stamps", end all "assisted living," end all other "more benefits." Ex is expected to provide for the offspring he creates, if he doesn't, well, that's one of the reasons we have courts, to compel deadbeats to pay what they owe. Hell, make them pay the court costs, too.

Problem solved. No taxpayer money wasted.

Except who do you think pays the family court staff? How will the deadbeat dad be found? Who pays for that? What happens to kids living in poverty because their 18 year old mom can't afford rent? When her kid doesn't have enough food and clothing/shelter? The state takes the kid away. Who pays to take care of kids the state is in custody of? Oh, the taxpayer... Funny how that works.
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
So to prevent people from killing, raping, and stealing property we allow people to kill their unborn children. Ethically speaking this argument is bankrupt.

It's even weirder when you consider that if someone is going to take welfare is at least in part due to their upbringing. Not everyone that is poor wants to take welfare or will and many of them will find their way out of that condition.
 
Last edited:

minnie616

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
23,048
Reaction score
25,753
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
...



All a pro abortion person is saying to you is, let's stop the madness. Let's accept these studies and accept that cause and effect are real. Let's not blindly scream about principles while Rome burns. There is no reason a 17 year old needs to have a child. No reason. She can have a child when she is older, has a man in her life, has a job, has maturity. Abortion does not prevent children. Repeat. Abortion does not prevent children. It delays children. ..

I agree with your above statement.

Marriage is usually delayed in today's world unlike in the not so distant past.
Many young people are going to college or focusing on careers before even thinking about children or marriage.
Since the sex drive is very strong in the teens and twenty's and abstinence is unrealistic , and most birth control is not goof proof unwanted pregnancies might happen which means the girl/ woman has one of two choices; have an abortion or have a baby.
Most single moms stay single moms and many end up on welfare.
Those who have abortions and delay motherhood may very well get married later and start families.

We have to be realistic and know that is what happens.

If we want the future generations to have two parent families we have to understand that sometimes some of those girls/ women just might have an early abortion before they marry and raise a family.
 

Ryan5

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
2,191
Reaction score
483
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
As long as food stamps and the rest exists these individuals will use it. The problem of young girls having children is with us regardless of what we do here towards abortion.

Yes, obviously this problem will always exist. But so what you're really saying is, let's not address the problem. My walls are high enough. The rest of you can have your daughters raped, your homes robbed, your cars stolen. I'm not in favor of policy that would acknowledge the fate of the commons.

Society is a collective. The Libertarian concept of denying the collective is illogical. The commons exist. Your walls might not protect your offspring one day and if that day came you'd have nothing to say to the person who wanted to abort your offsprings assailant.


Every poll and stat in existence shows that single mothers and their offspring almost never escape poverty and that the poverty becomes generational. So again, the work ethic argument falls flat here.
 

minnie616

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
23,048
Reaction score
25,753
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Yes, obviously this problem will always exist. But so what you're really saying is, let's not address the problem. My walls are high enough. The rest of you can have your daughters raped, your homes robbed, your cars stolen. I'm not in favor of policy that would acknowledge the fate of the commons.

Society is a collective. The Libertarian concept of denying the collective is illogical. The commons exist. Your walls might not protect your offspring one day and if that day came you'd have nothing to say to the person who wanted to abort your offsprings assailant.

All drama aside poverty does not mean a lack of moral character like you seem to be suggesting, but at best a sense of desperation that leads some to crime. You wouldn't find a situation where anyone would need a wall to protect them from the poor masses or anything of the sort. Like it has always been the majority of the poor would not become criminals, but be law abiding citizens like everyone else.
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Society is a collective. The Libertarian concept of denying the collective is illogical. The commons exist.

Btw, libertarians do not deny the collective, but simply do not cater to it.
 

JayDubya

Struggler
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2011
Messages
17,181
Reaction score
4,037
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
No they're not independent issues.

They are completely independent issues.

You say "Just end all benefits". Did you watch the video? You can't or crime goes up. What social benefits really are are mechanisms put in place so the fatherless offspring don't rape your daughter, don't rob your house, don't steal your car.

I don't mind paying for defense; we should never pay tribute.

You seem to embrace socialism as long as it is a bribe to keep wicked people from doing harm to others. I don't agree with your practice here.

All a pro abortion person is saying to you is, let's stop the madness. Let's accept these studies and accept that cause and effect are real. Let's not blindly scream about principles while Rome burns.
If Rome has no principles, Rome deserves to burn.

There is no reason a 17 year old needs to have a child. No reason. She can have a child when she is older, has a man in her life, has a job, has maturity. Abortion does not prevent children. Repeat. Abortion does not prevent children. It delays children.

If you're unwilling to be a parent should your precautions fail, you can always refrain from sex.

And again, it does prevent the entire rest of the first kid's life... Because he's dead, having been violently killed and all.
 

minnie616

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
23,048
Reaction score
25,753
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
As long as food stamps and the rest exists these individuals will use it. The problem of young girls having children is with us regardless of what we do here towards abortion.

Except when poor girls and women were offered free birth control in a privately funded study many poor girls/women did use it and both pregnancies and abortions were reduced quite significatly.

Unintended pregnancies continue to be an issue in many areas of the U.S., the authors noted. "U.S. taxpayers pay approximately $11 billion annually in costs associated with 1 million unintended births," they wrote, adding that the U.S.'s unintended pregnancy rate is "significantly higher than in other developed countries."

So Peipert and colleagues designed a prospective cohort -- the Contraceptive CHOICE Project -- "to promote the use of the most effective contraceptive methods (intrauterine devices [IUDs] and implants) and provide contraception at no cost to 10,000 female participants" in the St. Louis region who were at risk for unintended pregnancy "in an effort to reduce unintended pregnancies."

The study measured teen birth rates and percentages of repeat abortions in a population of 9,256 females ages 14 to 45 (mean age 25) recruited at two abortion facilities in the St. Louis region and through healthcare provider referral, advertisements, and word of mouth, and compared these data against regional and national statistics from 2008 to 2010.

The study population was 51% black, 35% had a high school or less education, 37% lived on public assistance, 39% had difficulty paying for basic expenses, and 63% had a prior unintended pregnancy, they wrote.

Participants desired a LARC and were not currently using one or were willing to switch to a new LARC, had no desire for pregnancy for at least 12 months, planned to be sexually active with a male partner within 6 months of baseline, and spoke English or Spanish.

The women and teens received the reversible contraceptive method of their choice at no cost for 3 years in the first 5,090 participants, and 2 years for the remaining patients. Patients could continue their LARC method after the study conclusion, but would no longer be given free treatment or be offered a free alternative contraceptive.
<SNIP>

Compared with regional and national data,
St. Louis adolescents and women given free long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) methods had nearly four times fewer abortions --
a proxy measure of unintended pregnancies --
than the regional rate (4.4 versus 17.0 per 1,000 women),
and and nearly five times fewer abortions than the national rate
(4.4 versus 19.6 per 1,000 women) in 2008 (P<0.001 for both), according to Jeffrey Peipert, PhD, and colleagues.

Study: Free Contraceptives Slash Abortion Rates
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Except when poor girls and women were offered free birth control in a privately funded study many poor girls/women did use it and both pregnancies and abortions were reduced quite significatly.

I'm not sure what that is meant to suggest? That people will take and use whatever they get for free? Isn't that a bit obvious? Why did they need a study to prove that?
 

minnie616

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
23,048
Reaction score
25,753
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
I'm not sure what that is meant to suggest? That people will take and use whatever they get for free? Isn't that a bit obvious? Why did they need a study to prove that?

No these women were at abortion clinics because they did not want to be pregnant.
THey did not want any /or more kids.
They did not want more food stamps.

They wanted to be pegnant free.
 

Removable Mind

Irremovable Intelligence
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 25, 2011
Messages
25,803
Reaction score
20,577
Location
Austin, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
No these women were at abortion clinics because they did not want to be pregnant.
THey did not want any /or more kids.
They did not want more food stamps.

They wanted to be pegnant free.

Minnie...some folks love to dance in circles. In fact they think in circles...and they talk in circles. I'm working hard at staying out of those folks circles. The world makes me dizzy enough as it is.

There is zero reasonable arguments, truthful evidence, or plain old common sense that you could impart to some these "circular people".

Not even at gunpoint could you encourage them to step of their circular world.

They just go round and round and round and round...
 
Last edited:

FutureIncoming

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2005
Messages
5,623
Reaction score
605
Location
Land of the Freedom-Stealers, because also Home of
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
There is a second factor involved, that has reduced the crime rate. However, Abortion Opponents should not leap to claim that that second factor is actually the only factor, because one thing the abortion/crime-link study found, was the early period by the 5 states that legalized abortion before Roe vs Wade. Not to mention that that second factor only focuses on violent crimes, and not stuff like, say, shoplifting, that someone might do to feed excess mouths.

I see JayDubya wasted no time spouting the usual Stupid Lie, equating unborn human animals with human persons, in denial of the Scientific Facts.

And Henrin somehow fails to realize that laws against abortion tend to reduce the abortion rate, without actually stopping all abortions from being done. And so, after Roe vs Wade, far more abortions were done than before it.

Next, JayDubya reveals Great Hypocrisy, by stupidly opposing death before birth, and promoting death after birth. Because wanting to ban food stamps and other assistance has the net effect of an increased death rate among actual human persons. How is that in any way "promoting a human right to life", the primary argument JayDubya uses to oppose abortion? Meanwhile, of course, abortion only kills human animals, not human persons, despite all of JayDubya's lying claims to the contrary.

Next, Henrin makes a mistake in saying, "The problem of young girls having children is with us regardless of what we do here towards abortion." That's because the actual problem is "girls having unwanted pregnancies", and this problem is very relevant to Decisions made regarding abortion. Obviously, if unwanted unborn human animals are aborted, they cannot become children (who qualify as persons).

I will agree, however, with the first part of what Henrin wrote: "As long as food stamps and the rest exists these individuals will use it." Such policies essentially create an "ecological niche", the definition of which is, basically, "any environment in which organisms can survive and successfully reproduce". The actual solution to the social problem is to somehow assist needy persons in their survival, while preventing them from succeeding at reproduction, so long as they are being socially assisted. (Good luck with the details of that, however!)

It should be noted that sometimes there is no such thing as a "deadbeat dad", simply because, sometimes, the dad dies before a pregnancy leads to birth. A "one size fits all" policy is always stupid.

Henrin reiterates the Heinous Lie of calling unborn humans "children", instead of "children under construction, with Murphy's Law a relevant factor in the outcome". It is well-known that a lie can consist of a partial truth. This particular partial-truth lie is Heinous because it encourages extra suffering when Perfectly Natural Miscarriages happen. Shame on you!

The next mistake Henrin makes is in this: "Like it has always been the majority of the poor would not become criminals, but be law abiding citizens like everyone else." While it is certainly true that the majority of the poor are law-abiding, it also is true that the majority of criminals come from impoverished backgrounds. Therefore, logically, reducing the number of people growing up in poverty will reduce the crime rate, just as the study in the Original Post shows.

Next, JayDubya repeats Great Hypocrisy, by claiming (paraphrased) "there are situations in which Rome deserves to burn". Again this shows that JayDubya doesn't actually care so much about the lives of human persons, despite frequent claims to the contrary.
 
Top Bottom