Abortion

Author: TheUnderdog

Posts

Total: 255
#241
hey-yo
hey-yo's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 382
1
2
4
hey-yo's avatar
hey-yo
1
2
4
-->
@TWS1405_2
Ok so you need a little rebranding. Not the worst of it. 

Lets look at a fact. On your site you suggest crime rates decrease with abortion.  I suggest linking to the "research" itself, because you make a concise claim but then link people to an article that restates everything you just said. 

The research paper is :
“Legalized abortion is estimated to have reduced violent crime by 47% and property crime by 33% over this period, and thus can explain most of the observed crime decline,” Donohue and Levitt write.

You should add the rebuttle to your sight and try to address it. 

  1. Crime rates dropped first among older people. Statistician David Murray confirmed that young males between the ages of 17 and 25 commit the majority of crimes. If abortion reduces crime, the crime rates in the United States should have dropped first among young people. Instead, the number of crimes committed by older people dropped first. Nearly 60% of the decline in murder since 1990 involved killers aged 25 and older—who were born before Roe v. Wade.5
(This part is explained a bit more on the provided site. Explaining that main abortion users are 17-25 which means they should have bennefited first)
  1. Other nations with high abortion rates had a large increase in crime about 18 years after legalizing abortion, as Murray found. For example, in Great Britain, which legalized abortion in 1968, violent crime
    rose steeply from about 1985 to 2000―exactly when it should have been declining, according to the Donohue-Levitt thesis. However, in the past 20 years, the incidents of violent crime have begun declining. Additionally, Russia, which has the highest abortion rate on earth—then and now—experienced a tidal wave of every kind of violent crime following the breakup of the Soviet Union. This is a trend that has, since 2000, begun to decline.
(This is easy to debate against. Russia had to deal with decline of govt. However one may still beg the question, if abortion is so impactful why did we not see that impact)
  1. Teen murder rates were higher for teens born after the legalization of abortion. Statistics show that the murder rate in 1993 for 14- to 17-year-olds in the US (born in the years 1975-1979, which had very high abortion rates) was 3.6 times higher than that of kids who were the same age in 1984 (who were born in the pre-legalization years of 1966-1970). According to a Child Trends report, as of 2017, homicides declined in the 1990s, but then began to fluctuate over the next 20 years, though never getting as high as the 80’s rate. As of 2017, it was 8.7 per 100,000.
(Not sure how to address this one. Good luck)
  1. Murder rates skyrocketed among black people. Since black women have abortions at a much higher rate than white women, we should have expected the murder rate among black youth to have declined beginning in about 1991. Instead, it increased more than 500% from 1984 to 1993.6 
(Maybe people switched from violent crime to just killing folks?)
  1. Crime rates rose when abortion rates were constant. If abortion reduces crime, the crime rate should have been relatively stable during the time period 1980 to 1991. Instead, the crime rate rose during the time period 1984 to 1991, after a decline from 1980 to 1984. Further, the crime rate over the past 20 years has continued to decline.
Statistics show correlation not causation. To suggest causation, the conclusion needs to be able to be seen more than once or be applied to the general median. Applied to a bell curve, this is 80% of a population. A conclusion needs to be replicated as well. So we can see it testest or in other examples..

However, considering that african americans are dispraportionately represented in overall crime. I find your expression on how abortion is good for crime reduction surprising.  Sounds like margret sanger. 
Topic's author
#242
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,296
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
 Sorry to not back you up, but I never said that you were liberal in the subverted left-tribe sense or the true sense.
My bad; I thought you thought I was on the left.  I'm an independent.
#243
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,295
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
Virtual rapists{ sic-n-head } need to keep their friggin noses out of pregnant womans bodily business, unless they ask for assistance.

Independent means earned/resevere the right to virtually rape pregnant woman, or not.
#244
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@hey-yo
That’s probably the most intelligent comment/reply you’ve made that I’ve seen since you signed up at DART. 

BUT… those stats/reports always forget two things: single motherhood and culture. The two driving forces that create crime perpetuated by fatherless children. The black community is the shining example of that fact. If black girls/women didn’t get any abortions, the less than 0.5% of black males in this country that commit over 50% of the entire nations violent person crimes (murder, non-negligent manslaughter, etc) would be 10x(+) that. 
#245
hey-yo
hey-yo's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 382
1
2
4
hey-yo's avatar
hey-yo
1
2
4
-->
@TWS1405_2
Hm. Impressive statement. 
And yet I do not see a direct reply about the discrepancy between a claim that abortion decreases crime rate despite crime rates still increasing in various demographics that should have been impacted. 

The community you speak of is not the same community seen in outer countries that still show an increase in crime rates despite an increase in abortion use. 

Same for the black community in america. Now I wanted to get more details about the "wed-lock" issue over all. Surprised to find 3 specific things. 


This article brings up shot gun weddings. I was not expecting to find this. 
I do not recall the site but statistics on abortion are collected from new york city seperate from new york state. 


Here is an article that looks at african american community as a whol. 


Here an advocate who leared about her own history and involvement. 
#246
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@hey-yo
My reply was a direct reply. It contradicts the findings you cited because neither of you took those real world factors into consideration. 🤦‍♂️ 
#247
hey-yo
hey-yo's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 382
1
2
4
hey-yo's avatar
hey-yo
1
2
4
-->
@TWS1405_2
What are you talking about? 
Bellow is quoted from the article I linked. Out-of-wedlock is mentioned as associated with increased crime rates. 

.  
Law professors John R. Lott, Jr. of Yale Law School and John E. Whitley of the University of Adelaide found that legalizing abortion increased murder rates by up to 7%. They concluded that legalizing abortion is a contributing factor to the great increase in out-of-wedlock births and single parent families, which in turn contribute to increased crime rates. Since 1970, the percentage of single-parent households in the United States has nearly tripled, from 11% to 32%, and the percentage of out-of-wedlock births has more than tripled, from 11% to 39.6%. Children born out of wedlock and raised by only one parent have a significantly higher incidence of crime...

Just looking at one factor does not explain why there would be a rise in crime rates, especially considering that the black community is still second largest consumer for induced abortions. Nor does the out-of-wedlock statistics contradict that the crime reduction is seen in older generations, where abortion use decreases. 


You are also responding to a post where the first given link explains how abortion rates increase out-of-wedlock births along with the sexual revolution. 
#248
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@hey-yo
“It has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with culture.” ~ https://youtu.be/qSmiZCQP58o


“"It's a very simple theory. Unwanted children are a tremendous risk for growing up and having criminal lives," said Levitt. "With the legalization of abortion, many fewer unwanted children were born, therefore, the children who were most at risk for being criminals -- they were never born." ~ https://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=1843646&page=1

“Legalized abortion appears to account for as much as 50 percent of the recent drop in crime.“ ~ https://bfi.uchicago.edu/wp-content/uploads/BFI_WP_201975.pdf



“…children who lack these relationships, like those without fathers, are at a higher risk for criminality.” ~ https://www.lansingattorney.com/blog/2015/06/are-fatherless-children-at-a-higher-risk-to-commit-crimes/

Abortion HAS reduced crime. And it isn’t just that fact that goes into the entirety of the problem of criminality.
But the fact remains that for every abortion where the child would have been either abandoned or without a father in the home, that is one less highly potential juvenile delinquent turned career adult criminal that society has to deal with. 

#249
hey-yo
hey-yo's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 382
1
2
4
hey-yo's avatar
hey-yo
1
2
4
-->
@TWS1405_2
0. Who said anything about race? You specified that african americans have higher rate for single parents.  

1. Why are you adding new links to the same study that you posted on your website? I literally quoted your citing. I provided a link that counters their peer review, criticising the review looks at crimes that decreased overall but the actual age range that would have been affected by abortion increased. 

2. We should also consider how the population over all has still grown. 30 % of the population today is not the same as 30% of the population in 1990. 30% of population is a lower quantity in 1970's than 1980, 1990, 2000. So even if you see 5, 10, or 15% decrease, the increase in population can mean there is still the same quantity of individuals commiting the crime. 

3. Somehow you forgot about having multiple factors, which you just preached about. Thanks. 

4. No abortion has not reduced crime. 
No evidence for it. 
And lets consider this. There are millions of abortions since roe vs wade. Possible 50 million. Out of that entire population, (Ill be generous) about 30% is associated with potentially commiting a crime if they were born. 

That leaves 70% that would not have done shit. 

But this is to deliver a point. We have to take out the portion caused by rape, medical reasons, etc. where cercimstances would not have changed. Even with that in consideration there is a larger portion of a given population advocated for aborting for the sake of a drastic smaller portion that might become criminals. 
#250
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@hey-yo
0. Who said anything about race? You specified that african americans have higher rate for single parents.  
Reading comprehension problems? I did. You did. We both did. 🤦🏼‍♂️

1. Why are you adding new links to the same study that you posted on your website? I literally quoted your citing. I provided a link that counters their peer review, criticising the review looks at crimes that decreased overall but the actual age range that would have been affected by abortion increased. 
I am not adding new links “to the same study that (I) posted”! I am responding to a post YOU MADE with further evidence discrediting your illegitimate interpretation of that which you read and commented on with cherry-picked quotes.

2. We should also consider how the population over all has still grown. 30 % of the population today is not the same as 30% of the population in 1990. 30% of population is a lower quantity in 1970's than 1980, 1990, 2000. So even if you see 5, 10, or 15% decrease, the increase in population can mean there is still the same quantity of individuals commiting the crime. 
Argument of irrelevance and appeal to ignorance. Not to mention a non-sequitur. 

3. Somehow you forgot about having multiple factors, which you just preached about. Thanks. 
I forgot nothing. You’re ASSuming. Again. 

4. No abortion has not reduced crime. 
No evidence for it. 
And lets consider this. There are millions of abortions since roe vs wade. Possible 50 million. Out of that entire population, (Ill be generous) about 30% is associated with potentially commiting a crime if they were born. 

That leaves 70% that would not have done shit. 
Yes, abortion does reduce crime and it has been concretely established with evidence you are ignoring. You’re just being a denialist. 
Providing your evidence to substantiate the 30% reference. Until then, you’re just full of desperate 💩!

But this is to deliver a point. We have to take out the portion caused by rape, medical reasons, etc. where cercimstances would not have changed. Even with that in consideration there is a larger portion of a given population advocated for aborting for the sake of a drastic smaller portion that might become criminals. 
Prove it. 


#251
hey-yo
hey-yo's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 382
1
2
4
hey-yo's avatar
hey-yo
1
2
4
-->
@TWS1405_2
0. Again. You specified that african americans have higher rate for single parents.  I responded to your comment in identifying a community within America that has different experiences and statistics.  

So when you put "it has nothing to do with race. It has everything to do with culture " - are you reinforcing your previous comment in highlighting culture as a factor in this discussion? 

1. Not adding new links to same peer review? 
The economist
In a paper published in 2001, the economists John Donahue and Steven Levitt credited the legalisation of abortion across America with much of the subsequent reduction in crime 

Abc news
“"It's a very simple theory. Unwanted children are a tremendous risk for growing up and having criminal lives," said Levitt. "With the legalization of abortion, many fewer unwanted children were born, therefore, the children who were most at risk for being criminals -- they were never born."

Uchicago edu
THE IMPACT OF LEGALIZED ABORTION ON CRIME OVER THE LAST TWO DECADES
John J. Donohue
Steven D. Levitt 

Prb
Stanford Law School professor John J. Donohue III and University of Chicago economist Steven D. Levitt ignited a debate last August when they released a study on the relationship between abortion and crime. 

I should not need continue quoting your links. You have sucessfully quoted different agencies refering to the same professors who talk about the same study. 

I already reference their input earlier. There are inconsistencies to their reviews. 

2. Arguement of irrelevance? Ha! If you are trying to say crime decreased and there is evidence to suggest that the stats are being read incorrectly because population growth, that is not irrelevant. Also, appeal of ignorance relies on me saying "there is no evidence". I have referenced that. I said the evidence shows the claim is false. 

3. You are no Benny Hill. 
If you forgot nothing then why act as you did? 

4. Despirite huh? Says the one who quoted several sources about the same thing. 
Otherwise new evidence is welcomed. 

5. Prove it. What is it? There are many statements asserted at once to deliver a conclusion. Which part am I supposed to prove?
#252
hey-yo
hey-yo's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 382
1
2
4
hey-yo's avatar
hey-yo
1
2
4
-->
@Double_R
We're talking about actual qualities of value and whether those qualities exist in different stages of life. This isn't as black and white conversation, you have to be able to deal with nuance if you wish to have it.
1. What are these qualities? If you have a post where you already mention them, you can direct me to those qualities.

How do you identify if a quality is present? 
 
We're not talking about rights in a vacuum. It's not as simple as "life" vs "bodily autonomy".

2. I am talking about how rights should look or interact because some "rights" cease to exist once x right is compromised. The most prevelant would be the right to life. You loose every part of bodily autonomy if you have no life therefore your life should take priority over another human's bodily autonomy. 

No you cannot kill me, because I am not dependant on your body in order to survive.
3. A better defense than before. Dependancy influences a person's rights?

Allow me to introduce virtually to Abby and Brittany for context. 

How many humans for this conjoined twin scenario?

Hypothetical. If in a conjoined twin scenario where A survive but B will die if sepererated, how does bodily autonomy factor in? 

Here is a follow up. What is your opinon of  a pregnant woman who takes a pill to intentially disform a fetus within her womb?  Is that a right of hers or is there some moral obligation/expectation for women to maintain a healthy fetus? 
4. What do you mean by necessary result, why is that in italics? 

5. Should we base law on what is subjective or objective, and why?

6. I did not accuse you of word games. I use "word play" to mean something different. 

Just as I did not say a fetus is the "same" as an adult in the sense you speak of. I said both are human and therefore should maintain the same rights based on being human. You know, as compared to being a dog or monkey. Remember when you said we learned to care about each other in ancient times (i paraphrase)? That's because humans identified each other first as humans. What seperates us? To cause war, greed, slavery, etc.? Taking away a person's or persons' identity as human. 

You have yet to provide a single word explaining *why* anyone should value a fetus the same as a fully developed person, all you do is call it a human and then pretend the point is made.
I never said anything about value. What I speak on is not a value system because value is subjective and allows corruption like slavery. Value can be given and taken, allowing even genocide. 

Being human is a bloodright, identified objectively. Even if people wish to deny who is human or treat each other like shit, you and I remain human. The fetus remains human, and it can not be taken away. Only masked behind deciet and smoke. 

Human is a biological term which is irrelevant to this conversation.
Then why use it? 

What matters is what makes someone a person. This includes self awareness, the ability to think and feel, the ability to make decisions, the ability to retain memories, the ability to plan and act in accordance with ones plans/desires, etc...
Person is defined as individual human. 

For some of the characteristics you list, quality varies between persons. But maybe I can just ask...

What is the ability to make decisions, what does that look like? 

Ability to retain memories, how does dimentia play in that? 

Can non humans be persons? 
#253
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,274
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@hey-yo
You loose every part of bodily autonomy if you have no life therefore your life should take priority over another human's bodily autonomy. 
This has nothing to do with the conversation. We're not talking about which rights are more important or valuable than others, we're talking about how we determine where one person's rights begin and where that person's rights supercede that of another.

If this conversation were as simple as you are describing, a starving person would have the right to enter into another person's home and steal their food because that person's life is on the line, and life supercedes the right to privacy, personal space, and possessions.

Hypothetical. If in a conjoined twin scenario where A survive but B will die if sepererated, how does bodily autonomy factor in?
This is not analogous. Conjoined twins share the same body, so neither has any legitimate claim to it over the other.

What do you mean by necessary result, why is that in italics?
If X will automatically result in Y, than Y is the necessary result of X.

I placed it in italics for emphasis because your arguments seem to skip over this concept. You continue to portray granting the right to abortion as granting the right to mother's to kill their babies. That's the same thing as claiming that granting me the right to lock my door to keep a starving person out is granting me the right to kill them

The fact that the person might starve to death is irrelevant because that's the necessary result of me having the right to my own property. Thus, necessary results do not get factored the same way.

Should we base law on what is subjective or objective, and why?
We base it in both. The goal is always to be objective, bit every law that has ever been written is subjective at it's core. Why is it illegal to steal? Because people like having their own things. Why is it illegal to assault others? Because people do not want to be assaulted.

Every law reflects and upholds a core value of some kind, it's not possible to have a law that's not based in any value.

I said both are human and therefore should maintain the same rights based on being human.
You're talking about DNA. I'm talking about actual traits we value.

A person in a coma who will never again wake up is a human. No reasonable person would ever argue that their continued existence is just as valuable as that of an able bodied person.

What is the ability to make decisions, what does that look like? 

Ability to retain memories, how does dimentia play in that? 
Why are you asking me what it looks like for a person to make decisions? Do you not know what making decisions is?

Dementia is part of the equation. I am not aware of any law that values someone with dementia less and would argue there shouldn't be one, but in any moral dilemma one could concoct if you add in that one of the individuals had dimentia that would change the calculus slightly.

Like I've point out, this is complicated. We look at all of these qualities and weigh them appropriately. No one thing makes the whole case.
#254
hey-yo
hey-yo's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 382
1
2
4
hey-yo's avatar
hey-yo
1
2
4
-->
@Double_R
1. I introduced the concept that some rights outweigh each other several posts ago. If we talk about a number of "rights" then how each one interact with each other should be included. Especially if you are trying to indicate when a  person's rights supercedes another's. 

In regards to your starving person stealing food comment. Some states like california have laws that prohibit restaurants and food stops (anywhere that sells food) from denying  water. Rather historically, there have been incidence(s) where someone died after being refused water. 

Someone stealing food due to hunger has mixed resposes from the law and judicial system. 


The law still needs to be written to prevent people from falsely claiming hunger or life threatening incidences to justify criminal actions. Which makes sense because the law is to prevent loss and harm from an actor (someone doing an act). 

Either way, we still see bodily automy superceded by a person's life in the sense that you can not kill or do bodily harm to them. Sometimes laws prevent a person from doing self harm. 


2. No not analogous. Hypothetical. Im trying to understand your perspective. Not every conjoined twin condition is as severe as Abby and Brittany. However there are situations where seperating conjoined twins results in the survival of one and the death of another. This is because the later has a physical dependency. Similar to a fetus having a physical dependency to sustain living. 

Although two conditions are different, the moral aspect is the same. If  A has bodily autonomy but shares their body with dependent B, can A then detach from B by claim for bodily autonomy? 
For pregnancy its happens through abortion. For conjoined twins, there is a surgical procedure. 

3. If X will automatically result in Y, than Y is the necessary result of X.
Ahhh.....
What? So you are saying all pregnancy automatically results in abortion or some pregnancy automatically result in abortion? 

Also. You dont know the guy breaking into your house is starving. If you present your right to self defense and to own a gun (which is based on your right to life superceding another's ), that starving person would concede and announce their hunger, maybe??? Thats a guess work. On the contrary we know how a fetus is dependent. You highlight this fact. 

4. I disagree because I do not see slavery as a thing to have value. However I do understand that another person may like or want slavery to exist. I agree that there is a mixture of laws being subjective and objective. However, consider the ones you highlight..why are those two basic laws pretty much in every society? They hold some objective truth to them. Things suck when you are the one being shit on. Am I right? 

Seems like value is based on what a person wants, is that how you see it? 

5. How do you define reasonable person? Because people wake up from commas. 

So how bout this. Someone in a comma who will wake up in 9 months. This sucks the money from you so you are getting desperate for cash. You can pull the plug or not. What do you do? 

I feel like intense music can be played at this point. 

Also what traits do we value? 

6. I know what it is to make a decision and the process in making a decision. I also know there are people who are not fully capable in performing both or are hindered in the process to make a decision. 

How a dicision is made differs for all of us. Like a person in a comma. Or a person with severe liver failure may also be dampered from making a decision. 

I am still curious what these qualities are because as you said, not everyone makes the full case. Or what ever. There is always some human who falls short. Maybe there is another animal that becomes a person and now deserves rights. A confusing delima. 
#255
hey-yo
hey-yo's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 382
1
2
4
hey-yo's avatar
hey-yo
1
2
4
-->
@TheUnderdog
I fgot about this for a little bit. Found an article here: https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2019/09/56416/ 

Some have objected to the position that the embryo is a human being on the basis of the apparent totipotency of the cells within it. In the first few days the embryo’s cells seem to be totipotent—that is, the embryo’s cells seem capable of forming a completely new embryo if separated from the rest. So (the objection is) if the potentiality to develop to a human adult shows that an entity is a human being, it will follow that the early embryo is a multitude rather than an individual
Sounds to me like there is an objection based on the potential that an embryo may split in two. Have you come across anything like this? 

2. Here is an article that looks into science and history of what it means to be "human being  " may you read it and share your opinion on the subject? If not thats ok. just curious.  The article was updated in 2017.