Legal Abortion Has Reduced Crime Rates?

[apparent]

The same argument can be said that legal abortion has reduced the number of Saint’s & Angels. What this freak (onomics) fails to recognize is goodness and potential of a new born human being.

[Didacus]

From an economic point of view - I would simply say that human life is not a question of dollars and cents, and I refuse to reduce it to that level. Each life is precious beyond measure including mine, yours and theirs and everyone's.

This is a terrible argument even from a logicical point of view;

Are you going to condone the elimination an entire class of people based on the likeliness that they may commit crimes? (does that situation sound familiar to anyone?)

Write down the reasons why the reply to that question is 'no', and you have the amo to destroy a big part of the argument.


Just my 2 cents, (which right now is essentially at par with the US 2 cents - HA! Gotta say it while it lasts...).
*smirk*

Edited January 28, 2008 by Didacus

[Dreamweaver]

Using that same logic, if you kill everyone at the age of 2, you'll see drastic decreases in cancer and heart disease.... Abortion and infanticide must cure all sorts of diseases, no?

Edited January 28, 2008 by Dreamweaver

[Didacus]

[quote name='Dreamweaver' post='1452065' date='Jan 28 2008, 06:01 PM']Using that same logic, if you kill everyone at the age of 2, you'll see drastic decreases in cancer and heart disease.... Abortion and infanticide must cure all sorts of diseases, no? [/quote]

Agreed.

Vlad the Impaller decided one day to 'relieve' the poor of their sufferings. He invited all beggars and poor people to one of his castles, served them a banquet, and while they feasted he burned the castle down.

[XIX]

[quote]This type of reasoning destroys any typ[quote][/quote]e of 'free will'; it purely looks at people as means to ends (the end is a 'better' crime rate). I mean if the argument is correct, then shouldn't we just go ahead and kill all minorities since they have higher crime rates?

Sickening thought...[/quote]
Umm...guys?

[quote name='LouisianaCatholic' post='1451811' date='Jan 28 2008, 01:00 AM']It is a terribly sad thing when we assume that it is better to abort a child then give him or her the chance to rise above poverty, drug abusing parents, etc. It is so sad that I really can't say anything else about it.[/quote]
Guys?

[quote]The same argument can be said that legal abortion has reduced the number of Saint’s & Angels. What this freak (onomics) fails to recognize is goodness and potential of a new born human being.[/quote]
Guys.

[quote]From an economic point of view - I would simply say that human life is not a question of dollars and cents, and I refuse to reduce it to that level. Each life is precious beyond measure including mine, yours and theirs and everyone's.

This is a terrible argument even from a logicical point of view;

Are you going to condone the elimination an entire class of people based on the likeliness that they may commit crimes? (does that situation sound familiar to anyone?)

Write down the reasons why the reply to that question is 'no', and you have the amo to destroy a big part of the argument.[/quote]
GUYS.
[quote]Using that same logic, if you kill everyone at the age of 2, you'll see drastic decreases in cancer and heart disease.... Abortion and infanticide must cure all sorts of diseases, no? wacko.gif[/quote]

[quote]Agreed.

Vlad the Impaller decided one day to 'relieve' the poor of their sufferings. He invited all beggars and poor people to one of his castles, served them a banquet, and while they feasted he burned the castle down.[/quote]
[b]GUYS!!![/b]

Before we get any further, I tthink we all need to take a close look at the post by rkwright. I'm pretty sure this Freakonomics conclusion isn't meant to be an argument in favor of abortion rights. Read the article--his point is not to condone abortion; al contraire, he actually gives the pro-life side a very fair shake. Personally, I would imagine that he's somewhat ambivalent towards abortion, doesn't really care about it one way or another (which is pretty annoying in and of itself). And I'm definitely not sold that his statistical analysis is accurate, seeing as how I haven't even looked at it. But it might be the case. It's irrelevant because, as the author freely admits, it's really a shoddy defense of abortion as a whole.

Either way, I don't think we need to be attacking Mr. Freakonomics over a conclusion that he never drew.

[Didacus]

[quote name='XIX' post='1452632' date='Jan 29 2008, 07:14 PM'][snip]
Either way, I don't think we need to be attacking Mr. Freakonomics over a conclusion that he never drew. [/quote]

I made no reference to the author; I made statements purely towards the logic used and the reasoning behind the faulty arguments.

[XIX]

If you weren't countering the author's faulty arguments, then whose arguments were you countering?

Oy...by the way...congratulations on the skyrocketing value of your Canadian 2 cents. Or maybe I should just be sad about our own economy? Either way.

[Didacus]

We're looking at making T-shirt relief packages in case the US economy dwindles too much, so don't worry, we'll help out if need be.
Thanks for the 2cents, actually though, the can$ is pretty constant, but the US$ is dropping in reference to other world currencies.

What I meant was that I AM countering the author's argument but not the author himself. My statements are not AdHominen, and I don't understand how it can be concluded as such.

God bless, and hope the economy remains stable south of the border.