Do you realize that even with appropriate precautions, it’s still possible to become pregnant or transmit disease?
Do you support abortion in cases where birth control was used, but failed? If not, why not?
Hmm… now there’s a thought.
[devil’s advocate] Since a woman knows that there’s always a chance she might be raped – just like there’s always a chance that any sex will lead to pregnancy – isn’t it her responsibility to be on birth control, just in case? Isn’t it just as wrong for rape victims to have abortions?
Yeesh. Well,I suppose my point of view is irrevalent because no one else has it. A baby isint the same as a broken leg so it’s irrevalent to use that as an example,but that is how I am seeing it. Ah,but this thread is to personal for me anyhow and I just sarted posting here. So instead of feeing or causing ill will…
*Gives everyone who disagrees with him a big kiss on the forehead and goes back to being blaquneese and grateful that he is here."
Crime is most directly related to poverty. So, yes, it stands to reason that killing poor people in significant quantities will reduce crime. That doesn’t mean it’s a good policy.
Obviously not everyone believes that abortion = the loss of human life. But, Sua, since you asked, I can tell you that from my perspective this information is not relevant to the central issue of the abortion debate. It’s interesting, but I really can’t see how it would affect most people’s opinions: if you’re pro-choice, there doesn’t need to be a reason to have an abortion (i.e., something other than a personal reason); if you’re pro-life, less crime probably does not offset the loss of millions of unborn lives.
There seems to be a general consensus that this does not have much impact on the abortion debate one way or the other. But I think there is a larger issue which noone has picked up on so far. Can this sort of information help us determine what sorts of conditions are more likely to lead to criminal behaviour? If we know what sorts of conditions lead to criminal behaviour, are there social policies which can be affective in comabting those conditions? Such as?
And what about (supposedly non-violent) white collar crime?
That’s not why it’s irrelevant. It’s irrelevant because it doesn’t matter. If responsibility were truly what matters, a broken leg would be the same as a baby. Since you believe that there is a difference, your argument must be based on something beyond responsibility. I don’t see why you have such a problem admitting something as obvious as that. It’s like saying “What matters is the color. But of course a cherry is completely different from rust, because rust isn’t alive”.
What I found most interesting about this study was that it was completely rejected by conservatives who are usually the first to blame single motherhood for crime increases. Well, if single motherhood causes crime (and I am not of the opinion that it does), it follows logically that preventing single motherhood should - to some degree - prevent crime. I mean it’s not rocket science.
Oh, and Sagasumono, I never said that your point of view was irrelevant. I said that responsibility, with respect to your point of view, is irrelevant. The fact that you are trying to distinguish between a baby and a broken leg when, responsibility wise, they are the same supports my claim that responsibility is not the controlling factor.
