Santorum blames abortion for Social Security woes

[Pete]

That may be easier for doctors, lawyers, and businessmen to say. I worked several years in the oil refineries as a welder's helper and gopher, and can say definitively, that kind of work is not sustainable until 96! My grandfather put 43 years in the coal mines, and was good and ready to retire at 63. At 92, he's the only one of his work buddies still alive. I think letting someone retire at 65 after 40+ years of manual labor is within the bounds of reason. Today 07:23 AM

Me too.,,, but if they are still able to be productive they should allow to be. If they are canned for one reason or another then there is always a greeting type job at walmart or they can do little things to generate money. They are responsible for their own lives.
I guess thats why eskimo's when they became to old and useless ,,would take their long cold journey out in the frozen world all by their lonesome.

I like the idea of family taking care of their loved ones myself. I can't see how their offspring could ever consider neglecting them,,unless the parents were just low lifes to begin with in which case ,,,just send them out on the ice with a six pack of beer and some jerkey. And 1 bullet.

Pete

[dnf777]

Me too.,,, but if they are still able to be productive they should allow to be. If they are canned for one reason or another then there is always a greeting type job at walmart or they can do little things to generate money. They are responsible for their own lives.
I guess thats why eskimo's when they became to old and useless ,,would take their long cold journey out in the frozen world all by their lonesome.

I like the idea of family taking care of their loved ones myself. I can't see how their offspring could ever consider neglecting them,,unless the parents were just low lifes to begin with in which case ,,,just send them out on the ice with a six pack of beer and some jerkey. And 1 bullet.

Pete

LMAO!

If you set my grandfather at the enterance to wal-mart, you'd have a line out to the edge of the parking lot, waiting to hear deer camp and fishing yarns of lore, but not much shopping would ever get done!

[BrianW]

The authors of Freakonomics simply says that the drop in crime rate is correlated with drop (increase) ? in abortions. This is due to the fact that poor people tend to have more abortions since they cannot afford the baby in the first place especially since social programs are being eliminated for having more babies. Poor and desperate people tend to commit more crimes so if you have less poor and desperate people there tends to be less crime.

I don't know about the correlation between government social programs and crime.

Isn't that what you meant? Increase in abortions = less poor people > less crime according to your formula.
So if we kill people, we'll have less crime.

Wait - isn't the left against capital punishment?

OK, We can end the life of humans that haven't done anything to anybody yet and justify it in the name of preventing possible future crime;, but we can't execute them in the event of actual crimes.
I'm really puzzled by the left..

[duckheads]

Isn't that what you meant? Increase in abortions = less poor people > less crime according to your formula.
So if we kill people, we'll have less crime.

Wait - isn't the left against capital punishment?

OK, We can end the life of humans that haven't done anything to anybody yet and justify it in the name of preventing possible future crime;, but we can't execute them in the event of actual crimes.
I'm really puzzled by the left..

Liberalism is a mental disorder!

[LokiMeister]

Isn't that what you meant? Increase in abortions = less poor people > less crime according to your formula.
So if we kill people, we'll have less crime.

Wait - isn't the left against capital punishment?

OK, We can end the life of humans that haven't done anything to anybody yet and justify it in the name of preventing possible future crime;, but we can't execute them in the event of actual crimes.
I'm really puzzled by the left..

Freakonomics isn't casting blame at all nor making a political statement. It is just pointing out the correlation, and trying to explain it, between the advent of legalized abortion and the lower crime rate. You also need to note, correlation DOES NOT imply causality. Meaning just because two things happen, doesn't mean that one caused the other.

[dnf777]

Isn't that what you meant? Increase in abortions = less poor people > less crime according to your formula.
So if we kill people, we'll have less crime.Wait - isn't the left against capital punishment?

OK, We can end the life of humans that haven't done anything to anybody yet and justify it in the name of preventing possible future crime;, but we can't execute them in the event of actual crimes.
I'm really puzzled by the left..

Nobody said that.
The book merely assembled numbers and historical data along timelines.
Take it for what its worth to you.

[BrianW]

I'm just questioning what Loki actually wrote vs what he intended to report from the book. ie less abortions can not equal less people, only more.

Then commented on what you guys put out there as a debatable point,
trying do draw some kind of logical conclusion from the correlating data.
Abortion is the termination of a human life in development. Isn't that killing - : to deprive of life : cause the death of

[dnf777]

I'm just questioning what Loki actually wrote vs what he intended to report from the book. ie less abortions can not equal less people, only more.

Then commented on what you guys put out there as a debatable point,
trying do draw some kind of logical conclusion from the correlating data.
Abortion is the termination of a human life in development. Isn't that killing - : to deprive of life : cause the death of

Actually, what YOU say is debatable as well. Personally, I agree with that, but (and you may call me a liberal for this) but I don't impose my religious beliefs on others.

What the book points out, is that the demographics of those committing crimes, is nearly identical to those of people having abortions. After a 10-30 year lapse, the crime rates decrease. And that happens to the the age bracket for the majority of perpetrators of violent crime. Now I can touch a horseshoe and burn myself, and figure out that horseshoe is hot, rather than sit around debating if its hot or not.

[LokiMeister]

I'm just questioning what Loki actually wrote vs what he intended to report from the book. ie less abortions can not equal less people, only more.

Then commented on what you guys put out there as a debatable point,
trying do draw some kind of logical conclusion from the correlating data.
Abortion is the termination of a human life in development. Isn't that killing - : to deprive of life : cause the death of

Where, when, how did I say that abortions equal more people?

The only logical point that might be made is that abortions might decrease the crime rate. I am not arguing that abortions should be legal or not. That is a different subject, actually the original subject in this thread. If Santorum has correlating data that sames that abortion causes the Social Security problem then it should be looked at separately.

I see why you are confused because you aren't making a lot of sense.

[Cody Covey]

Where, when, how did I say that abortions equal more people?

The only logical point that might be made is that abortions might decrease the crime rate. I am not arguing that abortions should be legal or not. That is a different subject, actually the original subject in this thread. If Santorum has correlating data that sames that abortion causes the Social Security problem then it should be looked at separately.

I see why you are confused because you aren't making a lot of sense.

Look at your post Brian quoted...I'm sure it was a typo but it is there...