Abortion correlated with Criminalism

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

NOW do you support abortion/pro-choice?

  • yes
  • no
  • iffy
0 voters

For the sake of ILP users, I hope this will be the last and final post on Abortion, yet I know it shall continue endlessly. I put this is Essays & Theses cause this actually is a theory. Anyways…to the point…

Analyses have shown that the dramatic crime rate in the '90’s was due to the legalization of Abortion. Abortion was legalized after a Supreme Court decision in 1972. The theory is that Abortion lets mothers who cannot fend for a child after birth virtually abort that chosen ‘life’. Most of these children who could not be fended for grew up to be criminals. When abortion was legalized…the crime rate dramatically fell…some 2,500 crimes in New York reduced to 500 (annual average). Do you agree that Abortion and Crime are connected (I have no doubt whatsoever)? And if so/not, does that change ur opinions on abortion being legalized or not?

2

Yes, abortion should remain legal so as to prevent the possibility that a baby can grow up to become a criminal. Less babies means less future criminals. As well as less pollution and less traffic. In fact, if we extend the idea, maybe we just need to rid the planet of people in general. (Plus, if abortion was outlawed, the crime rate would increase because abortion would then be a crime. If we keep it legal, we can prevent that…)

(This is the kind of sound reasoning ya’ll should expect from me now that I’ve celebrated my 1-year anniversary here!)

3

happy anniversary, jerry!
opens champagne

4

Most criminals that I have ever met were indeed abused children made antisocial by the abuse. The abuse indicates that they weren’t loved and taken revenge upon for existing. So, I believe that the correlation is correct.

5

So you would agree that, extending the idea, it would be prudent to try to identify those children who are most likely to grow up as criminals and eliminate them?

(Thanks, embracetrees!).

6

I didn’t say that it was good, but that it is probably true.

7

The most remarkable thing about the pro-life/pro-choice issue, for me, is that those most adamantly defending the “rights” of the unborn and proclaiming the wonderment of living and the sanctity of life, are the ones, most often, creating fantasies to save themselves from the entirety of what it means to exist, most willing to take another’s life or to support the taking of ones life when it goes against their ideals and the ones most in denial about what it means to exist.

I get the sense that here what is being defended isn’t some grand concept concerning life’s sacredness, but an indirect method of defending ones own life and its supposed sacredness.

It is this insistent mythology which proclaims the desirability of existence and raises all life to the heavens which is, in fact, the main perpetrator of the diminishment of life and its debasement.
If all life “deserves” just by its simple coming to be, respect and reverence, then what exactly is the value of individual life?
If all a life must be is alive to garner rights and esteem, then what purpose does consciousness or individuality serve?

From my experience, it has always been those who are, seemingly, enamored with the ideals of love and compassion and charity that show the least capacity to display it or honor it or appreciate it.
They display the inability to delve into the sources and the motives and prefer to shower their understanding with clouds of romanticism and ignorant idealizations, so as to explain away their egotistical and self-serving motives.

It is those worshipers of facades who can then act in contradiction to their very ideals, with no skepticism or thought, because they don’t completely know what their ideals propose or entail.

8

Yes, a book was recently published regarding this. Any prochoicers been to a home for abused children?? It is heartbreaking.

9

The actions of the women getting and wanting the abortion says it all here. The mothers that do have the kid, but don’t want it, will create living abortions. That is a kid that seeks to kill himself as a follow-up on the secret message sent to him by his family.

10

Dunno, it just seems a bit sad that the potential human being will never live. Is the loss of a potential human being less than the loss of an actual living being?

On the other hand the unborn child and the dead human being probably don’t care.

11

The thing that gets everyone sad is that humans “should” like and enjoy babies, but they don’t always.

Also, sometimes it is the case that you don’t want something until you get it. Many people that have gotten abortions might have really loved the kid once they saw it. However, this is impossible to know unless you have it, and by then it’s too late.

It’s all a terrible situation.

12

TheAdlerian

Or…you think you want soemthing until you get it.

Kolibri

Why is this so “sad” to you, when it is living that causes misery, disillusionment and suffering?

Perhaps a dose of some Emile Cioran can cure you of your delusions.

How typically human to perceive consciousness and its slow decay unto death, a blessing rather than a curse.

I quote from myself:

and

13

There is more to life than negative emotions and experiences. Living is about pain and happiness. I would not give up happiness to get rid of pain (which dying is).

Hence I’d rather live than die, but you are of course welcome to fling yourself of a building.

14

Kolibri

And, are you “happy”?
What does being “happy” mean to you?
Is it even possible beyond the ephemeral experience that alleviates a need or a desire and only last as long as a new one takes its place?

Why would I do that?
I embrace suffering as an inextricable part of existence.

You create delusions to cope or to forget or to redefine.
It is these illusions that eventually result in disillusionment and suicide, if they are ever destroyed or shown to be just that….illusions.

15

The happiness of pursuing something and gaining it, the happiness of realising something new. Don’ you experience these? They may be short lasting but so is much suffering. I don’t feel daily pain or suffering.

16

what robertson is trying to say is not that the happiness of aborted babies has been increased, but that the happiness of their potential victims has been increased.

if a crack mom has a baby solely because she is not allowed to abort it, chances are, that baby will grow up to be a piece of shit that is a parasite on society. he will learn values in his childhood that just plain suck. he will become a person that is not a valuable contributor to society.

there are two ways you can imagine this crack baby. the religious and the non.

if you are religious, and you believe god made that fetus: what the hell do you think happens to that fetus when it is aborted? do you think god sends it to purgatory for all eternity since it wasnt baptised and is completely powerless to provide a fair alternative? youre an idiot.

if you arent religious, then you have to look at the happiness that that fetus will come upon in its life. will that crack baby grow up to lead a life that contains EQUAL amounts of happiness and pain? when it commits crime, which it will, will it feel pain? of course it will. when it reaps the benefits of that crime, will it feel more happiness that outweighs the pain it caused to itself when comitting it? yes possibly. but, more importantly, will the happiness that it feels when reaping the benefits of that crime outweigh the pain he felt when committing PLUS the pain caused to his victims? i dont think so!

of course, my little theory goes along with the economist who wrote the book, that these babies who should have been aborted will be raised in families that hate them and wont raise them properly and wont have the resources to give them what they need. i mean, sure its possible that aborted babies could have been raised in great families that raised them to be upstanding citizens, but what is the price we are willing to pay to create these people? are willing to pay with the pain caused by all the crack babies that shouldnt have been born? all the people that went into orphanages until they were 18? yeah adoption is a great alternative.

if the crime statistics correlate to the smaller number of crack babies, why do we want abortion to be legal? the sanctity of life? the sanctity of crack babies? lets motherfucking fix the education system before you even begin to try to attempt to being to say that god damnit GOD DAMNIT!!!

the sanctity of life should spend millions lobbying to make abortion illegal and a considerably smaller amount on making inner city schools equal to suburban schools. THEY ARE FUNDED BY PROPERTY TAXES!!! SANCTITY OF LIFE MY MOTHERFUCKING ASS!!! FUCK NIGGER CHILDREN THATS WHAT YOU SAY, REPUBLICANS!!! NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND EXCEPT FUCKING NIGGERS!!! CUT EDUCATION BUDGETS!!! SPEND MILLIONS LOBBYING FOR CRACK FETUSES BECAUSE THATS WHAT CHRISTIANS LIKE TO HEAR!!! FUCKING RETARDS!!!

SIEG HEIL!!!AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!! I HATE THIS COUNTRY!!!

17

the problem with your observation, robertson, is not as much its statistical accuracy(which is, to my knowledge, reasonably accurate) but wether it is legitimate to take action based on it.

Consider we develop a procedure that allows us to tell with great statistical accuracy what are the chances that a subject will kill anyone in the next year. At what thresold is it legitimate to put people in prison for 1 year based on our procedure ? 1% ? 10% ? 50% ? 100% ? twice the global average ? ten times ?

Currently law considers it is not legitimate to put someone in prison based on such procedures, and this is not a matter of lack of the procedure (ie its not because our laws haven;t changed yet to catch up with “progress” as some call it) but a matter of principle. The law dictates for the past.

So, is it legitimate to abort foetuses based on the likelyhood of future events ? That is the issue at hand.

Note that while I personally do not consider unborn babies subjects of law (ie if you kill one the only person with standing against you is the mother/parents, but not the people (ie the da)) and i consider children only partially subjects of law (ie if you spank one nobody has standing against you) and as such i don’t really care about the above issue. However, if you consider babies, especially unborn as subjects of law, you will have to somehow answer it.

18

No, I don’t feel that abortion-on-demand is a good way of dealing with the situation. I certainly don’t feel that women should be allowed to abort the children of men without the consent of those men.

19

One reason why men don’t have a say in the matter is that they will sometimes get a woman pregant as to make a slave of her. So, to ask the man’s opinion would be useless.

20

someone that is a rather offensive stand. law of the land is, if you sow in a field that don’t belong to you, lawfull owner may reap.