My Cynical and Self Serving 180 degree turn on Abortion

[Jadow]

I've been a Pro-Lifer as long as I can remember. Back in 2000, 1996, and less so in 2004, a main deciding factor on how I voted has been based on this one issue. I wasn't pro-life because of any religious reason, I just believe that the baby is not part of the mother's body, but a seperate entity who's life no-one has the right to take.

I still believe this, however, I am throwing my beliefs by the wayside. I'll live with fact that I personally will never request anyone who gets a shot of my seed gets an abortion, and fight hard to prevent.

But for the rest of the world, F it. Just F it. Abort as many babies as possible. I feel that my life and the life of my family and friends will be better with more abortions. Here's my hypothesis.

Most abortions are performed by poor, inner city, single mothers. If they bring that child into the world, the child will just be another burden for the welfare state, there is a high chance that child will become a criminal, even further taxing soceity, and there's a good chance that child will perpetuate the never ending cycle of poorness and just about every aspect of that baby, it's life, it's children's life, it's mother, it's siblings are basically a burden on soceity. A burden that I personally don't feel I should have to pay.

Now I am certain that some of those would be aborted babies, a large number of them probably will break the cycle, rise up by their bootstraps and make the world a better place. But most won't.

There's a great excerpt from the book Freakanomics on Amazon about how the crime rate plummeted by 50% in the 90's right around 20 years after Roe vs Wade. Coincidence?

So, I cast my personal beliefs aside and say, ABORT ABORT ABORT!

Am I a monster for thinking this way? Do a lot of people deep down think this way but are too afraid to admit it?

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: Jadow
I've been a Pro-Lifer as long as I can remember. Back in 2000, 1996, and less so in 2004, a main deciding factor on how I voted has been based on this one issue. I wasn't pro-life because of any religious reason, I just believe that the baby is not part of the mother's body, but a seperate entity who's life no-one has the right to take.

I still believe this, however, I am throwing my beliefs by the wayside. I'll live with fact that I personally will never request anyone who gets a shot of my seed gets an abortion, and fight hard to prevent.

But for the rest of the world, F it. Just F it. Abort as many babies as possible. I feel that my life and the life of my family and friends will be better with more abortions. Here's my hypothesis.

Most abortions are performed by poor, inner city, single mothers. If they bring that child into the world, the child will just be another burden for the welfare state, there is a high chance that child will become a criminal, even further taxing soceity, and there's a good chance that child will perpetuate the never ending cycle of poorness and just about every aspect of that baby, it's life, it's children's life, it's mother, it's siblings are basically a burden on soceity. A burden that I personally don't feel I should have to pay.

Now I am certain that some of those would be aborted babies, a large number of them probably will break the cycle, rise up by their bootstraps and make the world a better place. But most won't.

There's a great excerpt from the book Freakanomics on Amazon about how the crime rate plummeted by 50% in the 90's right around 20 years after Roe vs Wade. Coincidence?

So, I cast my personal beliefs aside and say, ABORT ABORT ABORT!

Am I a monster for thinking this way? Do a lot of people deep down think this way but are too afraid to admit it?

yes

 

[judasmachine]

Cool. Free thinking, we need more of this.

 

[Kibbo86]

Sooo, you're ok with babies being murdered because they come from poor families?

 

[ericlp]

Om my PHREAKING GOD. Haven't we coverd this more then once? You know there was a Document in readers digest of all things. It was a really good read and coverd exactly what you are talking about. It's nothing new....

I take it one step further. I want to make a self abortion tool. Well, you will need a partner. You know DIY backyard abortions. How hard can it be? But I want it be like 99% safe. Obviously it wouldn't be for 6 month old babies but for say up to 3 months old...

I think it's perfectly fine you think this way. As I think anyone should be able to have an abortion that is state and locally funded and only cost 5 bucks....

YES I'm ok with abortions think you very much. And I am OK you thinking it's not right.

 

[jrenz]

I support 30th trimester abortions.

 

[CycloWizard]

While we're at it, let's nuke Africa. Those leeches have been spreading their diseases and consuming our tax dollars at an alarming rate. :roll: Maybe we should replace some basic math classes with ethics classes to force people to at least consider the implications of their ideas.

edit: Point is your 'solution' is not a solution to the real problem. It's merely a treatment for possible symptoms. Worse yet, you would apply this treatment even though you believe it to be wrong. If you want to lower crime, decrease the motivation for people to commit crime. Your 'solution' is equivalent to marching suspected criminals behind the woodshed and putting a bullet in the back of their head, only in your case you have no idea if these people might ever become suspects in a crime.

 

[BoomerD]

Just an FYI, most of those poor welfarwe mothers won't have abortions, they'll have more babies, so they can get bigger checks...VERY FEW states have limits on how many kids a mother can have while on welfare...they keep paying...It's middle class kids and moms who are having most of the abortions, with quite a few upper-class women who accidentally get knocked-up and don't want to ruin their bodies or their reputations...only they don't go to the abortion clinics you see in the news, they have it done in private, by their own doctors...

 

[imported_hscorpio]

This guy Steve Sailor has a big rebuttal to this idea here.. Here's a short quote;

Legal abortion is a major cause of what it was supposed to cure -- unwanted pregnancies. Levitt himself notes that following Roe, "Conceptions rose by nearly 30 percent, but births actually fell by 6 percent ?" So for every six fetuses aborted in the 1970s, five would never have been conceived except for Roe! This ratio makes a sick joke out of Levitt?s assumption that legalization made a significant difference in how "wanted" children were. Indeed, perhaps the increase in the number of women who got pregnant figuring they would get an abortion, but then were too drunk or drugged or distracted to get to the clinic has meant that the average quality of the upbringing of surviving babies has declined.

I think the biggest flaw in this freakonomics idea is the effect that abortion has on marriage, especially in the 'poor inner city' (can we just say black people... we all know thats who your referring to). Anyways, the option of abortion means men no longer feel so obligated to marry a girl they get knocked up. Plus more women might risk not using the pill or condom since there is always the back-up of getting an abortion, meaning more women will get pregnant. And now they wont have a husband to raise the child with.

Poor single mothers raising children is a good way to produce some criminals if you ask me, which renders the freakonomics concept worthless.

 

[Future Shock]

Originally posted by: hscorpio
This guy Steve Sailor has a big rebuttal to this idea here.. Here's a short quote;

Legal abortion is a major cause of what it was supposed to cure -- unwanted pregnancies. Levitt himself notes that following Roe, "Conceptions rose by nearly 30 percent, but births actually fell by 6 percent ?" So for every six fetuses aborted in the 1970s, five would never have been conceived except for Roe! This ratio makes a sick joke out of Levitt?s assumption that legalization made a significant difference in how "wanted" children were. Indeed, perhaps the increase in the number of women who got pregnant figuring they would get an abortion, but then were too drunk or drugged or distracted to get to the clinic has meant that the average quality of the upbringing of surviving babies has declined.

I think the biggest flaw in this freakonomics idea is the effect that abortion has on marriage, especially in the 'poor inner city' (can we just say black people... we all know thats who your referring to). Anyways, the option of abortion means men no longer feel so obligated to marry a girl they get knocked up. Plus more women might risk not using the pill or condom since there is always the back-up of getting an abortion, meaning more women will get pregnant. And now they wont have a husband to raise the child with.

Poor single mothers raising children is a good way to produce some criminals if you ask me, which renders the freakonomics concept worthless.

Wow - what a horrible misapplication of statistics!!! It ASSUMES that the level of conceptions is due solely to Roe v Wade as a precondition - something that is unlikely to be totally true. In that same time period, many other things influenced the level of conception, such as The Pill (and the difficulty of using the early versions effectively!), free love and the hippy movement, changes to the Welfare laws, changing conditions of inner city life, an influx of immigrants from Puerto Rico and Mexico, etc. Terrible, terrible statistical lying...

Future Shock

 

[imported_hscorpio]

Originally posted by: Future Shock

Originally posted by: hscorpio
This guy Steve Sailor has a big rebuttal to this idea here.. Here's a short quote;

Legal abortion is a major cause of what it was supposed to cure -- unwanted pregnancies. Levitt himself notes that following Roe, "Conceptions rose by nearly 30 percent, but births actually fell by 6 percent ?" So for every six fetuses aborted in the 1970s, five would never have been conceived except for Roe! This ratio makes a sick joke out of Levitt?s assumption that legalization made a significant difference in how "wanted" children were. Indeed, perhaps the increase in the number of women who got pregnant figuring they would get an abortion, but then were too drunk or drugged or distracted to get to the clinic has meant that the average quality of the upbringing of surviving babies has declined.

I think the biggest flaw in this freakonomics idea is the effect that abortion has on marriage, especially in the 'poor inner city' (can we just say black people... we all know thats who your referring to). Anyways, the option of abortion means men no longer feel so obligated to marry a girl they get knocked up. Plus more women might risk not using the pill or condom since there is always the back-up of getting an abortion, meaning more women will get pregnant. And now they wont have a husband to raise the child with.

Poor single mothers raising children is a good way to produce some criminals if you ask me, which renders the freakonomics concept worthless.

Wow - what a horrible misapplication of statistics!!! It ASSUMES that the level of conceptions is due solely to Roe v Wade as a precondition - something that is unlikely to be totally true. In that same time period, many other things influenced the level of conception, such as The Pill (and the difficulty of using the early versions effectively!), free love and the hippy movement, changes to the Welfare laws, changing conditions of inner city life, an influx of immigrants from Puerto Rico and Mexico, etc. Terrible, terrible statistical lying...

Future Shock

The same thing goes for the frakonomics statistics. Is it not assuming that the drop in crime is due to abortions when there are lots of other factors involved in the decrease in crime?

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: judasmachine
Cool. Free thinking, we need more of this.

What an idiotic statement! First, I'd argue that all thinking is inherently free (I took too much Satre in college, and the flashbacks still haunt me), but more importantly, saying one's thinking is 'free' doesn't mean it's 'good'. I suppose you're proud that while most civilized people considered genocide to be awful back in the 1930's, that 'free thinker' Hitler was brave enough to go against the tide and attempt to exterminate the Jews?!? :roll:

I don't support 'free' thinking, just smart thinking.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Godwin in 12, that didn't take long.

I don't think I agree with a damned thing the OP said. Don't give in to hate, it leads to the darkside Perhaps I'll formulate a Star Wars quoting of the Force law....

 

[astrosfan90]

For those interested, there's an intriguing article in the latest Atlantic Monthly on what would happen to US politics should Roe v. Wade be overturned in the next two years. Basically, it argues that Republicans pay lip service to the pro-life side, but they're scared of a court case overturning Roe, because they would likely lose their suburban centrist vote, and could end up losing power to the Democrats in both houses and the White House. Very interesting assessment, whether you agree or not, and it does a pretty good job of staying objective on the actual issue of abortion, something that few ever manage to do.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Kibbo86
Sooo, you're ok with babies being murdered because they come from poor families?

They aren't babies when they're the size of your finger, they're fetuses. Btw, how can you murder something without a working brain? Thats like murdering a plant.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: astrosfan90
For those interested, there's an intriguing article in the latest Atlantic Monthly on what would happen to US politics should Roe v. Wade be overturned in the next two years. Basically, it argues that Republicans pay lip service to the pro-life side, but they're scared of a court case overturning Roe, because they would likely lose their suburban centrist vote, and could end up losing power to the Democrats in both houses and the White House. Very interesting assessment, whether you agree or not, and it does a pretty good job of staying objective on the actual issue of abortion, something that few ever manage to do.

You're assuming that the legality of abortion has an impact on birthrate. That is a FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG assumption. If you look at the birthrate around the time of the Roe v. Wade decision, I don't believe that there was a statistically-significant change... and if it was significant, then it was barely so. I would predict that a +/-5% is the most one could EVER expect to see out of an abortion decision THEN... and no more than +/-2% now, given that people will simply get their abortions in Canada.

 

[Lemon law]

Let us recognise that abortion is a very complex subject--one one hand you can argue that once the sperm hits the egg is a human life---but even then how pure are you---is their an exception for rape--how about the mothers health---shall we have both mother and fetus die for this idiological purity--how about aborting those we know will be born with a severe genetic defect?--something new in technology but it will be the future.

Dispite my claims to be smarter than the average bear, even my monsterous ego does not extend to claiming god like powers.
Until I get acclaimed a concesus god---or elevated by another god---I have decided that when the subject of abortion comes up;
ITS A GIANT MISTAKE TO IMPOSE MY VIEWS ON ANYONE.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Let us recognise that abortion is a very complex subject--one one hand you can argue that once the sperm hits the egg is a human life---but even then how pure are you---is their an exception for rape--how about the mothers health---shall we have both mother and fetus die for this idiological purity--how about aborting those we know will be born with a severe genetic defect?--something new in technology but it will be the future.

Dispite my claims to be smarter than the average bear, even my monsterous ego does not extend to claiming god like powers.
Until I get acclaimed a concesus god---or elevated by another god---I have decided that when the subject of abortion comes up;
ITS A GIANT MISTAKE TO IMPOSE MY VIEWS ON ANYONE.

So you admit that you cannot clearly state whether or not the fetus is a person. However, you're willing to allow others to make this very claim in allowing them to treat it as a non-person through abortion.

I agree that I cannot definitively state that a fetus is or is not a person. However, until we can be sure one way or the other, we should (even must) do what logic dictates: treat it as if it were a person. To allow abortions when the fetus might be a person is to allow abortions if the fetus is a person.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Let us recognise that abortion is a very complex subject--one one hand you can argue that once the sperm hits the egg is a human life---but even then how pure are you---is their an exception for rape--how about the mothers health---shall we have both mother and fetus die for this idiological purity--how about aborting those we know will be born with a severe genetic defect?--something new in technology but it will be the future.

Dispite my claims to be smarter than the average bear, even my monsterous ego does not extend to claiming god like powers.
Until I get acclaimed a concesus god---or elevated by another god---I have decided that when the subject of abortion comes up;
ITS A GIANT MISTAKE TO IMPOSE MY VIEWS ON ANYONE.

Liberals have no problems imposing their views on me on many many things. Universal health care, Social Security, to name a few.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Let us recognise that abortion is a very complex subject--one one hand you can argue that once the sperm hits the egg is a human life---but even then how pure are you---is their an exception for rape--how about the mothers health---shall we have both mother and fetus die for this idiological purity--how about aborting those we know will be born with a severe genetic defect?--something new in technology but it will be the future.

Dispite my claims to be smarter than the average bear, even my monsterous ego does not extend to claiming god like powers.
Until I get acclaimed a concesus god---or elevated by another god---I have decided that when the subject of abortion comes up;
ITS A GIANT MISTAKE TO IMPOSE MY VIEWS ON ANYONE.

Liberals have no problems imposing their views on me on many many things. Universal health care, Social Security, to name a few.

And the neo-cons are so compassionate and embrace all ideologies and such. :disgust:
You're pathetic. What in the blue fvck is wrong with having universal health care other than it will take a few bucks out of your wonder woman wallet?

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Let us recognise that abortion is a very complex subject--one one hand you can argue that once the sperm hits the egg is a human life---but even then how pure are you---is their an exception for rape--how about the mothers health---shall we have both mother and fetus die for this idiological purity--how about aborting those we know will be born with a severe genetic defect?--something new in technology but it will be the future.

Dispite my claims to be smarter than the average bear, even my monsterous ego does not extend to claiming god like powers.
Until I get acclaimed a concesus god---or elevated by another god---I have decided that when the subject of abortion comes up;
ITS A GIANT MISTAKE TO IMPOSE MY VIEWS ON ANYONE.

Liberals have no problems imposing their views on me on many many things. Universal health care, Social Security, to name a few.

And the neo-cons are so compassionate and embrace all ideologies and such. :disgust:
You're pathetic. What in the blue fvck is wrong with having universal health care other than it will take a few bucks out of your wonder woman wallet?

My few bucks in my wonder woman wallet are of great concern.

Compassionate liberals should be able to pick up the slack.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Let us recognise that abortion is a very complex subject--one one hand you can argue that once the sperm hits the egg is a human life---but even then how pure are you---is their an exception for rape--how about the mothers health---shall we have both mother and fetus die for this idiological purity--how about aborting those we know will be born with a severe genetic defect?--something new in technology but it will be the future.

Dispite my claims to be smarter than the average bear, even my monsterous ego does not extend to claiming god like powers.
Until I get acclaimed a concesus god---or elevated by another god---I have decided that when the subject of abortion comes up;
ITS A GIANT MISTAKE TO IMPOSE MY VIEWS ON ANYONE.

Liberals have no problems imposing their views on me on many many things. Universal health care, Social Security, to name a few.

And the neo-cons are so compassionate and embrace all ideologies and such. :disgust:
You're pathetic. What in the blue fvck is wrong with having universal health care other than it will take a few bucks out of your wonder woman wallet?

My few bucks in my wonder woman wallet are of great concern.

Compassionate liberals should be able to pick up the slack.

Suck it up bucky. We are a nation of one. Not one of a nation. It's an all skate. Grow up and deal with it.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
And the neo-cons are so compassionate and embrace all ideologies and such. :disgust:
You're pathetic. What in the blue fvck is wrong with having universal health care other than it will take a few bucks out of your wonder woman wallet?

If that were true, then there wouldn't be any debate over 'universal healthcare'. However, in the case of healthcare, 'more' is not always better. I doubt many (if any) people would argue that everyone should have access to healthcare. The question is how to achieve this access without decreasing quality of care and skyrocketing the costs. Of course, it's easier just to swear at someone and treat them like an idiot, followed by your own gross oversimplification of the problem. Unfortunately, your generalization clearly demonstrates that you're hardly qualified to call him an idiot for not understanding the issue.

 

[BrokenVisage]

Originally posted by: judasmachine
Cool. Free thinking, we need more of this.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
And the neo-cons are so compassionate and embrace all ideologies and such. :disgust:
You're pathetic. What in the blue fvck is wrong with having universal health care other than it will take a few bucks out of your wonder woman wallet?

My few bucks in my wonder woman wallet are of great concern.

Compassionate liberals should be able to pick up the slack.

Suck it up bucky. We are a nation of one. Not one of a nation. It's an all skate. Grow up and deal with it.

Maybe liberals should do the above instead of crying about the President and his policy.