Total posts: 382
Posted in:
-->
@bibliobibulimaniac
Niether is worse. That is a false notion in value. Both are equal in evil. If that is what ye seek.
Also "clear headed" expresses bias. How is a person clear headed if they desire to kill others? They clearly know they want to kill?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Well arent we the skeptical one.
....
Anyways, I heard this idea before. This seems to stem from a skeptical position that an objective morality could not exist without God because God is the only constant thing to exist in the universe.
I could be wrong. There may be another god attribute or circumstance which feeds into the presence of objective motality. However that is what I heard of it.
The claim looks at how morality may exist without God and comes to the conclusion that everything that would influence morality (i.e. science, evolution, sympathy, etc.) can change and/or does change - making morality subjective because morality never needs to stay the same.
The claim also looks into how we express morality concepts like good vs. bad, coming to a conclusion that any given person demonstrates their ability to like or dislike a thing or event.
Like when a kid says a food item is bad even though its edible. That kid is demonstrating what they like, not an actual objective condition about the food.
What do you think would demonstrate the sentence (morality can not exist without God) as true?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Im just trying to understand your concern.
What is bad, and what does bad define or describe? How do we know something is bad?
Why does the existence of something bad extinguish the possibility that a god is good?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
You're either wilfully lying or too stupid to follow, any prophet who says this is corrupt.
Could you elaborate your position from this sentence?
The phrase "this is corrupt." What exactly is "this" refering to?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Ah oh sheezzzia! There are only a handful of events I payed closer attention to, and in person witnesses always help paint the picture. Thanks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I see your point. Hypocrisy usually hurts agendas.
Hey, out of curiousity. You saw a kid do it, was that in a video? Crazy, regardless to reasons or who, how things just go crazy. Ha ha. Like back in 1992. Those riots just snow balled.
The hurde mentality always fascinated me. I do not desire to partake in it but sometimes ite subconcioUs I think.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yeah but we probably differ on reasons why. I dont think most will consider circumstantial evidence. Ha ha.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
If I condemn the violence then I condemn the action, no?
Othwrwise do I need to denounce something I do not think happened?
(Im just talking in first person. I dont really have an opinion on 6th other than the violence and "invasion" was stupid. I do think it was staged though. )
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
How did he vote against first admendment, may you elaborate?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
How is it untrackable?
What makes it untrackable?
Why should we be concerned about campaign adds by someone other than candidates?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Why is this bad?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I tried to do reasearch into crowder. Got distracted by a video of someone putting toy rocket engine on rc airplane. Oops
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
1. Are those not satire shows more than actual journalist news agencies?
2. I thought crowder did condemn actions on the 6th.
What did fox news sensor. I did not see what happened.
To be honest i stopped watching the newwms 8 ish months after covid.
Created:
I feel like the bigger issue is laws that catter to corporate bemefits like what a company can or can not do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Humans in general have adapted in a way that allows us to go against our own biology and natural instinct. Would you agree?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@b9_ntt
Because you’d have to be watching your back all the time, sleeping only intermittently, trusting no one and having to do everything yourself. Who would want to live in such a society? Only sociopaths.
Careful. Mobs and gangs do that all the time. But maybe they'd double speek on the issued say "trust no one" & "trust the gamg". Lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
What does that mean?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
I been pondering a few things and something came up.
1. Trinity. Ok so 3 parts to 1 thing right? Clover. A clover leaf is one leaf that has 3 parts to it. Each part is distinct in sense it may differ from other parts. Each part is a single leaf.
How is that for an analogy?
2. Time. You bring up an interesting comparison where God is in Hell for three days (give or take) but the people in there are there for eternity.
A ) what is sacrafice to you?
B) have you ever considered God's experience or existence?
He is outside of time right? He would have created time and therefore be outside of it. Therefore he experiences all of time at once all the time. Eternity.
Agree, disagree, do I at least make a comprehensive statement? Tis be late here.
3. Part of a plan? Hm.. what do you think is the plan?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Leftism believes that no public policy should prevent any citizen from the expression of their opinon.
So anyone who says, "a person should not express their opinion because of x," is not leftist or expressing leftism.
So examples of "not leftist" would include the following??
Nazisms
Communists
Antifa (anti-fascists)
Totaltarianism groups
.... I thought there was more to this list but I got a brain fart. Thus far thats the list. Add more or correct the list if you wish.
Also, I hear rightism expresses the same desire, "no public policy should prevent any citizen from the expression of their opinon."
How do we differentiate the two?
- Leftists believe that everybody has an equal right to have an opinion on anything, irrespective of uterus status.
So appropraite response to hearing men should not have a say is to question a person's political aligntment, right? To get the correct demographic on the issue that is .. if o.p. wants to of coarse.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Hm. Your negativity seems to be the problem. Just follow the links provided and search for the answers there.
You will do just fine. They take questions too.
.
2. I already said that the angel did not GIVE anything to Jesus. Thats not what the passage says. Jesus was stregnthened by seeing the Angel which reflects internal action not external. Again. The angel did not give Jesus anything.
Oh and well is swell with me. Peace be with you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Oh ok. Wow thats a lot.
First thing first..I do not speak for anyone or God. As I do not speak for anyone's intent or thought process. I use resources to develop a possible solution or answer.
Regardless to what anyone says. Christianity is a journey. Our understanding is based on our education and in turn is a journey just the same. We wont get it all right from the start and sometimes we dont start at the same time as everyone else.
I'm not sure how else to explain the character's insistence that the only solution possible, or even the BEST solution of all possible solutions, was to pretend to be a human so that he could be tortured and killed. Given that god had literally every other option available to fix this issue, the choice of option necessarily tells us something about the character, right? The "long weekend" i refer to is this weird period between the crucifixion and resurrection where literally nothing at all is at stake for god. He's not going to succumb to death or whatever it is that is supposed to be going on at this time, right? So it seems like it's a three day trip to someplace, with no real agenda and no stakes or risk to himself.
I have had trouble in understanding why the crucifix as well. Your perspective on things makes sense. Why not do x if x would be easier and better, right?
there does seem to be a mix of information here. i dont mean misinformation but a mixture as to what occured, under tradition and the bible.
A. ) God did not pretend to be human. Vast majority of sects use various bible verses and theological aptitudes to show how Jesus is 100% human and 100% God.
How? Fuck I know how. But if God is 3 persons in 1 God, then anything be possible.
As J.I. Packer has said, “Here are two mysteries for the price of one — the plurality of persons within the unity of God, and the union of Godhead and manhood in the person of Jesus. . . . Nothing in fiction is so fantastic as is this truth of the Incarnation.”1
Here are two quick inserts about it:
B. I am not sure if we can say woth not agenda, at least. Because Jesus is said to descend into hell/hades (greek) and preach the Word of God.
This one is tricky but supposedly jewish tradition tells us everyone went to the same place after death because heaven is not open to everyone. Although translation gives us the word hell to describe this place, I have some doubt in its accuracy. But thats ok.
No idea. In spite of so many years of going to church and all that, I have no idea why it signifies anything at all, at least anything like has been taught. Feel free to explain it, but substantiating it or making a compelling case is pretty difficult.
Wow so you are saying that all you know is the events as to what happened (at least some of it) but not the meaning or purpose behind it?
Hm ok..no worries.. I firgure I can just give the catholic part in it since you said that is where you went.
This website in whole provides better descriptions and works cited than any I have seen. There are other sites that can do the same but this just feels more complete. Feel free to look for others, but I think this link sums everything up.
Can people act in ways that are not according to god's plan? I should ask this more often, because every Christian seems to have a different answer and explanation of how it works (see Malcharaz and his problem explaining free will in earlier posts, eventually he just drops it entirely as too vexing). If the answer is no, they cannot act outside of god's plan because that makes god less than all knowing, less than all powerful and imperfect, then it follows necessarily that all of mankind's ills, all the things people do to piss off god so much that all this has to happen in the first place, are because that is exactly how god wanted it to go. If you lack free will this way, then you also lack agency, and that means you lack accountability. You can't get mad at a computer program for doing what you program it to do. Does that help?
Unfortunately, christians split into different ideas on this. Catholics say you have free will. So yes humans can act in ways against gods will. Some call it sin but we can look at definitions if need be.
Doing things in or out of Gods plan sounds confusing because in some ways we can say yes or no. Yes because you can choose to go against what God wants for us. No because we still are in Gods plan. Just depends on what is meant by being in gods plan.
Otherwise that explaination was great. Very helpful.
What's the punishment for eating from the tree, the whole punishment? It doesn't stop at being evicted, right?
Oh yea yea. You are right..I heard it as not so much as punishment but hereditary.
Lets say your ancestors had blue eyese. But you, your parents, your grandparents, your great grandparents, and great great grandparents have brown. Some where along the line your ancestors lost the ability to give you something they had.
Likewise, immortality and the likes disapates over the years until we come to us. We do not have what they had because they lost it. So now we have to regain immortality. But something gets in the way.
We now have the innate ability to recognize there is good and evil. Which means we can choose ither. For christianity good and evil revolve around doing x which involves god or doing x which rejects god. Although we know through humam nature what we should or should not do, we can contradict our own understanding or moral compass. Our own actions just make everything into a circle.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
No I explained it rather well.
See
1. Jesus did not refuse himself, nor did God refuse Jesus because Jesus said "let [God] will be Done.
So no matter how you spin it, God's will was to use Himself as sacrafice for humanaity. Which occured.
2. If you want to ignore that Jesus is not recieving anything from the angel, that's on you. If you never felt happy or empowered just from seeing someone, then I dont know what exactly to tell you. How am I to explain something that is felt when you have never felt it ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
I am a bit confused. You are saying things I have not heard before.
Torture porn usually refers to someone that enjoys or seeks pleasure in torture. I do not see that present.
What is "long weekend combo" s
What do you think the whole thing (death, descent, resurrection) is supposed to signify?
Why or how are things done to "exactly what he planned" for them to do?"
What do you refer to as punish generations?
How was things fucked up?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Who is to say it is pure theater? I was saying that there could have been other means to supply the same result.
However, in context, Jesus is nailed to the Cross. Death and all sin is nailed to the Cross as well. Mercy bleeds out as a God who is the ultimate Martyr for the people, turns victimization into glorification and achievement. What is highlighted at the time as a loss becomes a gain.
There is a message in the cruxifixation itself that is not demonstrated in other relgions that often tell us we should not be weak, meek, giving, loving to our enemy, etc.
What do you mean by no stakes in the main character? Who is refered to as main character?
Created:
Posted in:
Here again you are not reading your bible. God didn't say anything after the test, it was the angel.
Sin seperates us from God. Hearing God's voice seems to deminish for Abraham later in his life as well. Angels visit more later on.
Anyway. I think I have done this conversation to death. My point was Abraham didn't challenge god on this occasion, and that the test was a test of his fear of god, the ANGEL makes that clear enough. And a pointless test at that considering you have told us all that "god knows what is in our hearts".
Where is Abraham's heart explained in bible?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Wow thanks. I never knew how to direct someone to an exact post before. Here
Post number 59 I gave a response.
Jesus or God did not refuse Jesus. Jesus said let your WILL be done. Jesus/God/both pertained thr WILL to be cruxified. They didnt even need to. Technically. Salvation can look like anything but by choice, God choose to humble Himself to the lowest point a human could experience. To demonstrate His love.
Well Im sure you may complain about it but thats ok.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
- Yes, the internet is an anonymous unregulatable wild west and no place for children. Most experts recommend no YouTube or reallyany social meda for children. You are probably fucking yourself up right now just by reading this. I could drop a pronoun at any moment.
Sounds crazy but very true; experts are saying social media and many genralized online activities generate ill effects on developing minds.
Just for the bullying alone, makes sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I dont know an exact way to do that if its based on personal experience.
What is non anonymous? I am anonymous because you dont know my name. Most people online use aliases.
I will look or examples online.
Easier to find more responses to the claim that men have no say then it is to find exact language on why men should not have a say.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Potential conflating but it does happen. Many pro abortion individuals deny anothers ability to have an opinion on abortion in general. Even if that person is a woman.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
Curious, why mention muskets? What is the comparison?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
What do you want to have explained?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Yeah those are some tuff passages to understand. I do not know how to articulate a response. I will need more study to look at important aspects that are still missing from your conclusions. Like context, culture, tradition, and translation to name primary concerns.
I am not a scholar. most are not. So to be asked about complex aspects in the bible will not produce an easy quick fix answer.
I always viewed the puzzle as something similar to a puzzle where various parts need to be looked at and combined before making an assesment.
From what I have been able to gather thus far, there are a small mix in potential responses. I will provide what I can along with my understanding.
Psalms 137:9
The opening two verses of Psalm 137 reveal that this song is sung by Jewish captives in the city of Babylon. As I read it, the Psalm appears to be a refection on human desire not an implementation of God's will.
1 samuel 15
https://bibleask.org/why-did-god-command-israel-in-1-samuel-15-3-to-kill-women-children-and-infants/
This will require more time to read.
Isaiah 13 16
Prophecy is tricky. I've always understood prophecy to be a declaration as to what will happen not a moral guide as to what should happen.
You missed this too:
Luke 22: 42-44
43 "And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven and strengthened him".
No I addressed it.
People can be stregnthened or get a morale boost when we see people. There is nothing in the passage that demonstrates a supernatual act where an angel is giving Jesus power.
Also, this does not express that Jesus needed a morale boost but that Jesus responded to seeing an angel.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
-->
@philochristos
I heard you can have the fridge off for x hours until the food goes bad. Gotta look into how long that is, and you can stretch that generator use out a little if power is out for more than 24.
Could you have the generator juicing an appliance like fridge and collect enwrgy from solar panels at same time?
Created:
-->
@philochristos
I assume it runs on gas. ....
Seriously though. How do you like its operating capabilities? Do you like it, used it?
Seriously though. How do you like its operating capabilities? Do you like it, used it?
Created:
Everyone talks about stocking up and having things when these conversations come up. Rare to speak on actions like going for hikes or camping. Learning how to hunt, fish, sail, etc.
Lets not forget about what clothes to wear and how to deter the elements.
If somethinf were to happen, what is one thing you must have? Question open to all
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WeaverofFate
I am unable to do tourney. But thanks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
1. Hm. Nice quote for a prayer. We see how Jesus says that may God's will be done. This coincides with my earlier point. Prayer not to wish upon a star but to seek God and God's will.
You never felt empowered or encouraged or strengthen by the sight of someone? Ok. Well the passage does not speak about magical powers being infused into Jesus. There is no need to imply it.
B.) I was not at the prayers and the people do not speak about their personal experience. I would not know that information.
C.) Circular reasoning. God did not refuse Himself or Jesus. You are just saying that is what happened without evidence for that. There is no input as to what Jesus prayed. The bible passage you provided only shows that Jesus said ",let [God] will be done."
Otherwise the theology explaining trinity expresses that all 3 persons (in one God) are in commune with each other and share experiences.
2. If you continue to read the passage you speak about, you will see surrounding people respond to Jesus's phrase. This is because they recognize the phrase from a Psalm which starts the same way but finishes in praising God.
Here are links that share the same thing.
3. Did Jesus go to hell?
Here are bible verses and a link on explaining theology involved.
", “hell”—Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek"
4 do children go to hell? No.
Going to heaven and hell is our own individual choice based on/influenced by our lifestyle. If we are unable to reason our actions then there is grace and forgiveness for such innocence.
Yes one's innocence can be do in part of their ability to understand guilt or immoral action. Children encompass this innocence.
Otherwise you can argue and try to prove that the children you reference and have died are guilty of mortal sin
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Wow. Yes. Helping those women and children is great and they need more help. Unfortunately their issues are swept under the abortion rug. Cant pay the bills? Get an abortion. Having stress? Get an abortion. Unfortunate that even the phsycological impact that develops from abortion is not even recognized by most clinics and pro abortion advocates.
So what would I do?
That is a good question. If we consider the question as vaccuum hypothetical, there is much that would be done.
1. Tax breaks for providers that offer services at discount prices to pregnant women.
2. Increased tax breaks amd tax credit for those who give pregnant women free services.
3. Tax credit for companies that provide disability/pregnancy compensation and time off based on each month given the a given employee.
So if a woman takes 13 months off for her pregnacy, birth, and bonding time - the woman will keep her job, get paid at 2/3 rd her rate, and the company will recieve tax credit for each given month to help compensate for their costs.
4. A nationalized day care system that works similar to nursing. Allowing for regional servers to house background checks, basic employee information, etc.
5. Using the national day care system to offer free daycare for children ages 4 and under. Ages 5 and up will be given a low participation rate. Resources will be allocated from federal, state, local taxes and donations.
If we look at current conditions there are many non profits that provide something to mothers in need. We need to include more counseling but current numbers are growing.
Unforunately medical providers still do not have adequate team for pregnancies. We can see medical groups claim to give you a team of professionals (kaiser does this in their commercials).
When my wife gave birth to our 1st child, there were 10 people in the delivery room. Women need at least 3 professionals dedicated to her pregnancy and over all health. Including primary, obgyn, and psycologist. It takes a village to raise a kid and we have forgone that privilege.
There are many non profits out there that help familes and women a like. Some are pro life like letthemlive.org that offers financial assistance.
Our main take away should be thet not every abortion is because a woman is pregnant with an unwanted child but a child she feels is unable to be supported. All efforts should be to help her maintain that child. If not, then adoption is next best thing.
In regards to foster care and adoption. There is a waiting list for both the kid who is waiting to be adopted and parents who want to be adopted. With good intent there is red tape between adoptions.
In some cases a family member is using civil courts to adopt or obtain custody. Some children are waiting to go back home to parents who need to change their act. This chance should be given. Otherwise medical needs for a child can not be met at home.
What ever the reason, there are means to look at the situation respectfuly and find a solution. Although I do not like the current foster care system, we have to work with it to imrove it.
I can not spend too much time on this post so I will leave it as is for now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
I say yes, partially because the negative impact abortion has on women as well as the congotation that having an abortion does not matter or should not matter.
Here is example:
Places like this exist because induced abortion and abortions in general have negative affects. Not dealing with those affects can be worst. We should be able to recognize the emotional and mental impact.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Although this seems like an easy question, there are some who argue a tanswoman (male to female) can get an abortion. Or at least it should be offered to them.
Some indicate induced abortion is necessary for still births. Personally I think one does not have an abortion at this point because the unborn/preborn has passed. Therefore the procedure is different. However I can see how a c section is still a c section in the same situation. Depending on developmen stage I guess I just look at it as induced birthing.
Created: