Originally posted by ivanhoeI'm not disputing your point because I don't think any can. Holding everything else constant, if you increase the number of crimes, the crime rate goes up. If we all agreed that it was a crime, then it would be an excellent counter point to Professor Leavitt's study.
Maybe if we would add the number of third term abortions to the crime rate we would of course see a different picture also.
As you know Bbarr has defended many times on this site that performing an abortion on an unborn child of six months and older is murder. I'm sure these abortions were also not counted as crimes in the study we are discussing here.
And I just want to put the disclaimer out there that while no1 is correct about there being a reputation at the U of Chicago dept. for being economically conservative, I would like to make the following statements for the record:
1) many of the professors there do not hold the ideological view that government is always screwing things up
2) being conservative in terms of economic school of thought does not make you socially conservative. Economics professors like most professors are overwhelming Democrat and socially liberal.
If you call terminating a 6+ month old fetus murder, then I'd say that a lot of murder is justified.
Originally posted by scipio7777777why go after the little ones? the G8 summit is coming up ...
since all the crimes against "companies that hurt the enviroment and animals" (people burning SUV dealerships freeing minks from fur coats) are perpetrated by "eco warriors" we could abort all the kids of "eco warriors" and thereby prevent possible crimes
Originally posted by no1marauder
Really? But you said this on this very page:
Ivanhoe: As you know Bbarr has defended many times on this site that performing an abortion on an unborn child of six months and older is murder.
No exceptions there so you did say it. Now don't you feel silly, Ivanhoe?
You really need to stop getting so worked u ...[text shortened]... scared everybody away with your insults and shouting; aren't you ashamed of yourself, Ivanhoe?
That's indeed what I said, stupid. I didn't say what you suggested I said, moron.
If you read my previous post you will find the tactics you usually use "debating" people, diversions, diversions and yet again diversions ..... It is called the "Fallacy of Changing the Subject", genius.
Talk about the issues you raised yourself in your first post, Dumbo.
Originally posted by telerionTelerion: "If you call terminating a 6+ month old fetus murder, then I'd say that a lot of murder is justified."
I'm not disputing your point because I don't think any can. Holding everything else constant, if you increase the number of crimes, the crime rate goes up. If we all agreed that it was a crime, then it would be an excellent counter point to Professor Leavitt's study.
And I just want to put the disclaimer out there that while no1 is correct about the ...[text shortened]... call terminating a 6+ month old fetus murder, then I'd say that a lot of murder is justified.
I was referring to Bbarr and his Neo-Kantian-personhood theories.
Originally posted by telerionTelerion: "Does murdering those who disagree with you raise or lower the crime rate?
[b]People who call this lowering the crime rate should be shot immediately.
Does murdering those who disagree with you raise or lower the crime rate?[/b]
It all depends on which criterions and definitions you use, don't you think so ?
Does murdering children before they are born instead of murdering them afterwards (infanticide) raise or lower the crime rate ?
That is the question raised here by these gentlemen of the study mentioned in the first post.
Originally posted by ivanhoeIt's called the plain meaning of your words; you said that Bbarr considered the abortion of fetus over six months in development murder and you failed to mention any exceptions. As Bbarr believes there are exceptions, you imputed a false belief to him. It's really very simple; you were wrong as usual and all you puerile insults don't change that fact.
That's indeed what I said, stupid. I didn't say what you suggested I said, moron.
If you read my previous post you will find the tactics you usually use "debating" people, diversions, diversions and yet again diversions ..... It is called the "Fallacy of Changing the Subject", genius.
Talk about the issues you raised yourself in your first post, Dumbo.
I've given my opinion on the author's conclusion (interesting)and on what effect it would have on my views on abortion (none). I also answered Kirk's question about mandatory birth control for teenagers (against it) So I have talked about the issues to the extent they've been raised. The only one going off subject is you and the child scipio 7777 so get yer facts straight.
3 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderAt least Levitt is smart enough to take a new tact this time.
I was watching a discussion with economist Stephen Leavitt on C-Span about his new book Freakonomics. In one part of the book and on the show, he postulated that legalizing abortion in the early 1970's was the major factor contributing ...[text shortened]... ortion the greatest crime fighting technique the US ever produced?
http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/990812/abortion.shtml
In 1991 he was gibbeted for this same pronouncement.
Ain't it interesting that a catchy little word like "Freakonomics" can allow a fresh start for an old idea?
Originally posted by ivanhoeThis post of yours suggests that you are a strict pacifist, Ivanhoe. Did you protest the attacks against Afghanistan and Iraq?
Killing is more and more looked upon as a way of solving our (social) problems.
People forget that killing in itself is a crime. They even rationalise, justify and defend killing.
Modern eugenics supported by the liberals is lurking around the corner again.
We must not forget that the Planned Parenthood organisation emerged from the American Eugenics movement.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucjl/20050613/cm_ucjl/giulianislegacyisagreatandsafernewyork;_ylt=AiRyk6eXjKpJc64dlYeeAZX9wxIF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
GIULIANI'S LEGACY IS A GREAT AND SAFER NEW YORK
By John Leo
Sun Jun 12, 8:12 PM ET
...
"In addition, Bratton and Giuliani brilliantly reorganized the city's outstanding police force, and the crime rate plummeted. The current pop best seller "Freakonomics" breezily argues that Roe v. Wade brought crime down by keeping likely criminals from being born. Nonsense. Crime fell because New York drove the national reduction and inspired Giuliani-like tactics elsewhere. Nationally, crime fell just 5 percent between 1993 and 1996, while dropping 35 percent in New York. Philadelphia, a city much like New York, had very little decline in crime, presumably because it had no Giuliani, no Bratton, and no police force like New York's."
Originally posted by zeeblebot
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucjl/20050613/cm_ucjl/giulianislegacyisagreatandsafernewyork;_ylt=AiRyk6eXjKpJc64dlYeeAZX9wxIF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
GIULIANI'S LEGACY IS A GREAT AND SAFER NEW YORK
By John Leo
Sun Jun 12, 8:12 PM ET
...
"In addition, Bratton and Giuliani brilliantly reorganized the city's outstanding police force, and th ...[text shortened]... me, presumably because it had no Giuliani, no Bratton, and no police force like New York's."
Now we're talking.