Freakonomics

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Seagoon
Just want to make sure I understand the underlying logic here.

They are better off dead than abandoned?  

Has anyone told the grown-up foundlings?

- SEAGOON

PS: Hey, wait a minute, why limit the benefits when we could eliminate crime entirely simply by killing everyone!

Or go a step further.  WE could geneticly screen everyone at birth just like in that ethen hawk movie.  The ones that don't add up we send to the camps for "clensing"

[Seagoon]

Ah Gunslinger, you've discovered the wonderful secret of Eugenics. GATTACCA here we come.

Anywho, Leveritt's theory isn't new just repackaged.

A conservative critique of Leveritt:

Pre-emptive Executions?

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Seagoon
Just want to make sure I understand the underlying logic here.

They are better off dead than abandoned?  

Has anyone told the grown-up foundlings?

- SEAGOON

PS: Hey, wait a minute, why limit the benefits when we could eliminate crime entirely simply by killing everyone!

Draw your own conclusions... I'm led to believe that unwanted children that actually survive childhood tend to make up a large proportion of the prison population.

Personally, I don't consider crime rates to be a good justification of Roe v. Wade. It's an off tangent argument. I do believe that what a women does with her own womb is her business and that the government should stay out of it. Hell... I think people should have the right to do whatever they like to or with their own bodies.

[bigsky]

this all most like when some people whinned about sterilizing crackheads. how much does a crackbabie cost the healthcare system? i could go on and on about that.

[Hangtime]

The book simply reinforces with statistics the obvious.  

Like most attempts at truth and logic, it tends to piss off those that have surrendered their brains to political or religious groups.

Just another case where the social morality of the moment is in direct conflict with rational facts.

[Torque]

i don't think the conservative dogma on abortion will ever deviate, regardless of the data, give it a few decades tho, when the voting demographic starts to take on the tone of pro-sports.

it will be ushered in,  embraced as fiscal resposibility.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Sandman
I do believe that what a women does with her own womb is her business and that the government should stay out of it.  

Including staying out of any aspect of financing it.


So I guess we agree.

[Skydancer]

Personal attack

[Hangtime]

Originally posted by Skydancer
Personal attack

Not quite as safe as yah thought. The guy is a friend of mine.. and while I may (and often do) disagree with his opinions, I think he's a heluva human being.

Care to take a guess what I think about the cheap attack you just launched on him with this drivel you just posted 'behind his back'?

[midnight Target]

And surprised as you may be.. I agree with Hangtime.

[Gunslinger]

I just had a thaught (yes my head is still attached afterwords)

With all the people out there that can't have children and how long the process is to adopt them I just don't see a need for abortion because of economic instability.  

The makes a good point not defending abortion with his findings but the lack of care and love for said "unwanted" children.  It's all real sad if you ask me.  I may be a little old fasion but I believe a woman doesn't have a right to choose.....that baby BY LAW is only half hers.

[Toad]

Well, Hang and MT, I thank you for your kind words.

But Hang.... did you have to quote him?

The whole point of putting him on ignore is so he no longer clouds threads with more of his incorrect, incoherent, unreasonable and fallacious spew.

It's akin to washing the bird droppings off your windshield; it's so much easier to see the things that count once you eliminate the "stuff".

He perfectly illustrates it in your clip. Anyone that can read and understand KNOWS I don't want the government in control of anything the Founders didn't specifically put in the government's purview. I'm a Jeffersonian. Not that he would know what that means, but you and MT would.

I've repeatedly said I have no problem with a woman's "right" to choose an abortion, yet he repeatedly misstates my position. I have to assume he's just not intelligent enough to comprehend simple statements. He probably foams over because I also say the government shouldn't be in it at all... not in the decision nor in the funding of the decision whichever way it goes.

Anyway, thanks... but please, in the future, just let the ankle-biting little Yorkie yap to himself.

[Hangtime]

Anyway, thanks... but please, in the future, just let the ankle-biting little Yorkie yap to himself.

ROFL!! Only been back a short time.. but damn.. seems like there's a true lack of class acts floatin around on the boards these days. I saw that nastygram and I winced.. even if it was addressed to somebody I didn't like it woulda triggered my sphincter.

Ok.. back ta lurking in the tall weeds.

[Urchin]

I think it is pretty safe to draw a correlation between Row v Wade and the drop in crime 18 years later.

Most crime is commited by who?  Young males.  

50% of the crime commited (in the U.S.) is commited by 5% of the families.  

Those are statistical truths.  They are niether evil nor good.. they are just statistical truths.  

I'll have to look it up, but something like 80% of the prison population grew up in "single parent households" (read, single mother).  Another interesting statistic that I haven't verified, every year spent in childhood without a father raises your chances of going to jail by 5%.  

Who are getting abortions?  For the most part, women who's children would grow up to be criminals.  Thus, the drop in the crime rate.  

Is it good?  No.  Is it evil?  No.  Is there a very strong corellation?  Yes.

[john9001]

all of you people are wrong, the "unwanted" children should be put in govt training camps where they will wear uniforms,learn to obey orders and march, and when they are old enough they will be put into our military.