More Abortions Are Good For Society

[Lursa]

If you don't have a sexual attraction to the opposite ses, you will not want ot have sexual intercourse with anyone. That is why gays and lesbians want to adopt children, not naturally procreate.

Why is this so difficult to understand?

You missed the point of his post completely...read the part after the ellipses again.

 

[Lursa]

Since the Democrats pushed abortion through shouldn't each democrat (female) show their appreciation by having at least one?

Where did Democrats 'push abortion through?' Please provide the law or court decision.

 

[Bodi]

Since the Democrats pushed abortion through shouldn't each democrat (female) show their appreciation by having at least one?

That would contradict the whole point of "pro-choice"...

 

[Bodi]

Where did Democrats 'push abortion through?' Please provide the law or court decision.

They didn't... but what he doesn't get is that even if they did push through abortion... it is so that women can have a choice and that supports women's ability and right to have a choice to either abort or to have a kid.

 

[Lursa]

They didn't... but what he doesn't get is that even if they did push through abortion... it is so that women can have a choice and that supports women's ability and right to have a choice to either abort or to have a kid.

Yes but if the first part of his post fails, then so does the 2nd part. His question becomes irrelevant.

 

[Robertinfremont]

Are Abortions Good For Society? - The Atlantic

It is clear that more abortions is a good thing... not forced abortions... but voluntary. Don't confuse the two. It is an important distinction to factor into the equation so it warrants mentioning. One thing that often gets over-looked in the rhetoric is that abortion is a complicated matter that should not be thought about as merely an issue that can be looked at from one perspective. As long as that is understood then everybody involved will be better prepared... and that is a good thing. More abortions sounds crazy but less abortions does not mean a better society. Just listen and have compassion.

Well since you want the good to be discussed, in the book Freakonomics, the discussion is that black crime rate fell a lot due to abortions. So there is that to consider.

Abortion and crime: who should you believe? - Freakonomics Freakonomics

two very vocal critics, Steve Sailer and John Lott, have been exerting a lot of energy lately trying to convince the world that the abortion reduces crime hypothesis is not correct. A number of readers have asked me to respond to these criticisms. First, let’s start by reviewing the basic facts that support the Donohue-Levitt hypothesis that legalized abortion in the 1970s explains a substantial part of the crime decline in the 1990s:

1) Five states legalized abortion three years before Roe v. Wade. Crime started falling three years earlier in these states, with property crime (done by younger people) falling before violent crime.

2) After abortion was legalized, the availability of abortions differed dramatically across states. In some states like North Dakota and in parts of the deep South, it was virtually impossible to get an abortion even after Roe v. Wade. If one compares states that had high abortion rates in the mid 1970s to states that had low abortion rates in the mid 1970s, you see the following patterns with crime. For the period from 1973-1988, the two sets of states (high abortion states and low abortion states) have nearly identical crime patterns. Note, that this is a period before the generations exposed to legalized abortion are old enough to do much crime. So this is exactly what the Donohue-Levitt theory predicts. But from the period 1985-1997, when the post Roe cohort is reaching peak crime ages, the high abortion states see a decline in crime of 30% relative to the low abortion states. Our original data ended in 1997. If one updated the study, the results would be similar.)

Link has all of the argument

 

[Bodi]

Yes but if the first part of his post fails, then so does the 2nd part. His question becomes irrelevant.

That is the point... I just don't think that he gets the circular nature of his failure.

 

[Bodi]

Well since you want the good to be discussed, in the book Freakonomics, the discussion is that black crime rate fell a lot due to abortions. So there is that to consider.

Abortion and crime: who should you believe? - Freakonomics Freakonomics



Link has all of the argument

All crime would be reduced if more poor criminals had more abortions...

 

[Robertinfremont]

Obviously because they would never have sex with each other.

Prior to his death, and later death of my sister, she married a homosexual and they had 5 kids. All girls. After their divorce, years past their marriage, he lived as a full blown homosexual. Died as one.

 

[Robertinfremont]

All crime would be reduced if more poor criminals had more abortions...

It has long been my view that our school system does not teach the habits of how to get rich so the graduates are likely to have poor goal setting habits along with how one reaches the goal.

Consider the kid running Track. He has the goal. Run the Mile fast. And to reach his goal, his coach is on his ass. And when reaching it, he gets a small reward. Such as a trophy.

So though sports teaches this, not true with the rest of the teachers.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

All crime would be reduced if more poor criminals had more abortions.

Not all crimes, but every kind of crime children and poor people commit.

Of course, as long as abortions are legal, we don't have to worry about a higher number of girls and women being criminals.

 

[Lursa]

It has long been my view that our school system does not teach the habits of how to get rich so the graduates are likely to have poor goal setting habits along with how one reaches the goal.

Consider the kid running Track. He has the goal. Run the Mile fast. And to reach his goal, his coach is on his ass. And when reaching it, he gets a small reward. Such as a trophy.

So though sports teaches this, not true with the rest of the teachers.

How does an English teacher teach 'how to get rich?'

Same for the History or Math teacher?

OTOH, what makes you think that kids dont get this information in Economics classes?

(Er, probably because not everyone prioritizes 'getting rich' as the most important thing in life or even to learn in school.)

Is there some reason that parents cant create this emphasis and info for their kids? Much like they would reinforce their beliefs on religion? Who says it's the responsibility of or should be the focus of public schools to focus on 'getting rich?'

 

[Robertinfremont]

How does an English teacher teach 'how to get rich?'

Same for the History or Math teacher?

OTOH, what makes you think that kids dont get this information in Economics classes?

(Er, probably because not everyone prioritizes 'getting rich' as the most important thing in life or even to learn in school.)

Is there some reason that parents cant create this emphasis and info for their kids? Much like they would reinforce their beliefs on religion? Who says it's the responsibility of or should be the focus of public schools to focus on 'getting rich?'

They do not intend to get rich. This is the mantra of the Democrats. Evil exists and it is the rich people. So Democrats despise the rich and will do all they legally can to strip them of their wealth. Sanders is a classic example but he is not by far the only Democrat doing it.

Each course presents opportunity to show children how to set goals. Teachers I had all during my schooling did not do it. i tend to doubt it changed or we would all know of it. We do not hear that any teacher teaches goal setting. Goal setting is a developed skill. And how to reach the goal is another set of skills.

Democrats typically rail at me I am wrong. I proved this is true in management in various Real Estate firms.

Normally all I needed was roughly 3-4 months and the goal setting skills I taught were proven to work very well.

 

[Robertinfremont]

Not all crimes, but every kind of crime children and poor people commit.

Of course, as long as abortions are legal, we don't have to worry about a higher number of girls and women being criminals.

The best case the pro abortionist crowd could make and tell the truth is that their abortions cut down crime and of course wipe out some of the poor as well.

 

[Robertinfremont]

How does an English teacher teach 'how to get rich?'

Same for the History or Math teacher?

OTOH, what makes you think that kids dont get this information in Economics classes?

(Er, probably because not everyone prioritizes 'getting rich' as the most important thing in life or even to learn in school.)

Is there some reason that parents cant create this emphasis and info for their kids? Much like they would reinforce their beliefs on religion? Who says it's the responsibility of or should be the focus of public schools to focus on 'getting rich?'

I did not ignore the above. It was actually not relevant to my speaking up.

I did not suggest I can show how your points are addressed. Those are your points.

I believe that in the case of various teachers, they also must be taught goal setting and only then can they pass it to their students.

My economics courses were in college so I am not clear how economics teaches goal setting. It sure should though.

If we have an economics teacher, they may have a word to say on this as well.

 

[Bodi]

It has long been my view that our school system does not teach the habits of how to get rich so the graduates are likely to have poor goal setting habits along with how one reaches the goal.

Consider the kid running Track. He has the goal. Run the Mile fast. And to reach his goal, his coach is on his ass. And when reaching it, he gets a small reward. Such as a trophy.

So though sports teaches this, not true with the rest of the teachers.

Teaching people how to be rich is not the job of a teacher, nor should it be.

 

[Bodi]

Not all crimes, but every kind of crime children and poor people commit.

Poor people commit pretty much every type of crime... except perhaps price fixing, or other corporate crimes.

 

[Robertinfremont]

Teaching people how to be rich is not the job of a teacher, nor should it be.

That is our difference as to this issue. I believe A TEACHER in A course, could include the topic of books such as Think and Grow Rich and our entire society would benefit due to kids being taught.

 

[Robertinfremont]

Poor people commit pretty much every type of crime... except perhaps price fixing, or other corporate crimes.

You can't simply tell the poor, say my man, you need to not commit crime. You must first train them. And start very early. Teaching habits takes much more time as we age.

 

[Lursa]

I did not ignore the above. It was actually not relevant to my speaking up.

I did not suggest I can show how your points are addressed. Those are your points.

I believe that in the case of various teachers, they also must be taught goal setting and only then can they pass it to their students.

My economics courses were in college so I am not clear how economics teaches goal setting. It sure should though.

If we have an economics teacher, they may have a word to say on this as well.

I never said you ignored anything.

THank you for addressing my questions. You have however, moved the goal posts by changing it from the goal of 'getting rich' to goal setting 'in general.'

I disagree still on the point that this goal-setting is a responsibility of the public school system in general. Why do you believe that teachers have not been taught goal-setting? Every teacher sets goals for their students per the requirements of the class. As for a greater, future goal...do you want teachers in charge of that for your kids? (well, in the past for yours) What if you didnt agree with it, such as my views of 'getting rich' as a goal? I would not want that taught as a goal to my kids.

So considering it again...do you still believe that that kind of goal-setting should be the responsibility of the public school system?

 

[Lursa]

The best case the pro abortionist crowd could make and tell the truth is that their abortions cut down crime and of course wipe out some of the poor as well.

And do you view those as negatives? Even you seem to believe that in this way, abortion benefits society as a whole.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Poor people commit pretty much every type of crime... except perhaps price fixing, or other corporate crimes.

Not crimes that require a lot of money, of course.

 

[Bodi]

That is our difference as to this issue. I believe A TEACHER in A course, could include the topic of books such as Think and Grow Rich and our entire society would benefit due to kids being taught.

View attachment 67276146

It sounds like you have a problem with the curriculum. That is not set by the teacher so you are misplacing your criticism.

 

[Robertinfremont]

I never said you ignored anything.

THank you for addressing my questions. You have however, moved the goal posts by changing it from the goal of 'getting rich' to goal setting 'in general.'

I disagree still on the point that this goal-setting is a responsibility of the public school system in general. Why do you believe that teachers have not been taught goal-setting? Every teacher sets goals for their students per the requirements of the class. As for a greater, future goal...do you want teachers in charge of that for your kids? (well, in the past for yours) What if you didnt agree with it, such as my views of 'getting rich' as a goal? I would not want that taught as a goal to my kids.

So considering it again...do you still believe that that kind of goal-setting should be the responsibility of the public school system?

Snappy comeback. I did not accuse you of ignoring a thing. I only said it to inform the readers.

Let's cut to the gist.

Goal Setting. What shocks me is to read a diatribe against goal setting from a person who no doubt wants sex ed to be taught. It would be similar were I to ask, what teacher should teach sex ed? NAme a teacher on staff in other words.

I could say, have each teacher include goal setting in their courses. It would ensure it spread the message a lot faster.

I do not claim all teachers get taught setting goals. I want the kid to learn the skill so why not have the teachers do it so it helps prevent crime?

There is nothing wrong with being taught to get rich. Many of the rich now teach their children how to get rich. So spread the joy of having money. Why not?

 

[Robertinfremont]

It sounds like you have a problem with the curriculum. That is not set by the teacher so you are misplacing your criticism.

I do have that problem. I did not blame anybody for the problem. I suggest a good way to improve the lot of all Americans is to teach them goal setting skills with the aim of them getting more earnings and wealth.