It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Nor does it change my mind that I, nor society in general, needs to pay for someone's birth control.
originally posted by: DJW001
So you do not believe in lowering social costs efficiently? You'd rather unwanted children be born, get poorly educated, and then wind up in prison where your tax dollars provide free room and board?
originally posted by: Xtrozero
I'm also not against abortions, or even subsidized abortions since it actually pays off in the end. The reduction in crime every year from 1992 and on is mostly due to legalized abortions in 1972, future criminals were never born, and free birth control plays into this too.
I do feel there is a cost to morality in all this too. When a woman uses abortions as a form of birth control or when a state/government/company heavily pushes abortions as first choice to either reduce future cost or to make money, all this affects our morality, and I think over time it cheapens the value of life, but that is my own personal opinion.
The real problem we face and why I support these things is because people can not be responsible for their own actions, I'm sorry to say. The few posting here (beating me about the head) who do not have a lot, seem very responsible and can use this service greatly, while if they didn't have the services would still find away to be responsible, are really a small percentage of the masses that just do not care. Without these services they would be popping babies out with little or no parental guidance and in full support of the Government for the rest of their lives. I would say this cost out ways free birth control and basically free abortions.
originally posted by: SlapMonkey
What a massive load of guess work and correlation-equals-causation fallacies. Nothing in that video proves anything, as there are myriad amounts of variables and catalysts that come along with the ebbs and flows of crime.
I lived in an area near Los Angeles up through 1998, and I can tell you without a doubt that youth crime was high in the 90s...it may have fallen toward the end of that decade, but in the same breath, crime also rose dramatically in the 1970s at a much steeper rate (actually, it started in the mid-60s). So what was the cause of that--did they outlaw abortions 20 years earlier? No, it was the baby boom that happened.
I would argue with much more certainty that it is an amount of population increase that contributes to crime more than unwanted pregnancies, as when there are population booms, jobs are scarce and those without marketable skills might tend to turn to a life of crime instead.
And don't forget about that little thing called HIV and AIDS...when it surfaced in the late-60s/early-70s, it slowly crescendoed until it became big news in about 1981, causing quite the scare and a massive campaign for people to use condoms (or to abstain from unprotected sex with partners whose medical background they didn't know). This is also a big contributor to the lack of the same age of people in the 90s that your video claims is because of legalized abortion.
I disagree. I mean, children are not responsible for their own actions, either--it's tough love and good parenting that teach children to grow up and be responsible people. While I agree that there are many lost-cause family units out there with terrible parenting and minimal resources to teach the appropriate things like respect for human life and self responsibility, I don't think that it's the onus of government to perpetuate that by being enablers. If the collective we just provide for those who are not taught to provide for themselves, and those people have two kids in the system, then their kids have two kids in the system, and so on, we are building up a future nation filled with a victimhood mentality who disregard the value of life and personal responsibility.
I think that if we're really talking about the cost in the long-term, I think that is something that need be considered as well. When welfare is made more easily accessible, if a higher percentage of the population uses those resources, it's just as expensive, if not more, and then we are living with a society that may be filled with apathy. Hell, I would argue that we're a few rungs up that ladder already.
Our current generation of twenty- and even thirty-somethings never would have made it through the Great Depression nearly as well as our grandparents and great-grandparents did. That's what I'm talking about...the character and resolve of our society is being whittled away not very slowly these days by the policies of the baby-boomer generation and is embraced by the current generation of their grandchildren. I think that both generations, in general, have a character problem, and I think that the entitlement mentality of free healthcare (to include contraception) is just a wee part of it.
originally posted by: Kitana
lol. We have people in government adding social security funds to the general fund for goodness sake! There are NO guarantees that no Christian's money in this country never go to planned parenthood. There are no lists of Christians tax money, there are no separate funds for their money verses anyone else, there is no accounting that keeps my money from ever finding its way to planned parenthood.
originally posted by: Xtrozero
The book is much better, but it is easier to post a video about it.
This doesn't make a lot of sense since population continued to grow every year but crime decreased every year starting in 1992. Even during the recent recession with so many fitting your "no job" scenario crime still went down. The one difference is in 1992 we started to see the effects of abortions and have continued to see it year after year. Believe it or not...
In this paper, we exploit variation across states and over time on Vietnam-era inductions to analyze the effects of the wartime mobilization on these family formation patterns. Our results suggest that having a larger share of men aged 19-25 drafted led to a decrease in birth rates for women aged 15-30. These results are statistically significant, robust to a number of different specifications, and demographically meaningful in magnitude.
III. Discussion and Conclusion
In this paper, we present a preliminary look at the effects of Vietnam-era inductions of men into the armed forces on family formation. We find robust evidence that higher rates of inducted men led to significantly lower birth rates. Our results are consistent with theoretical models of sex ratio effects, as well as with the related empirical literature...
That is kind of bull...
Even in 1987 HIV was just getting to the point that people started to understand it. I flew air evacs in the Air Force back then and HIV patients were labeled Hep C. To be honest I do not think HIV has ever changed any behaviors, even with the gays as they are still the highest risk group out there for STDs of all kinds and so it has done little even in the most affected group.
It is not that easy just to teach people to be better, and in many cases impossible. There are uncounted numbers that should never have kids in the first place and if an abortion stops one of those train wrecks from happening then we stopped the 2 having 2 having 2 scenarios. Now if you say 1 million abortions that adds up to a lot of twos never happening.
At some point science will solve this with 100% inability to have children until the reproductive system is turned back on, maybe though obtaining a licence to have children. We are a long way from that and a long way from abortions outweighing the cost of an unwanted child born in a horrendous environment, so right now that is all we have to work with.
This isn't going to change anytime soon, sorry to say.
You must also remember there are many other religions out there too that also would like their doctrine to be included.