Santorum blames abortion for Social Security woes

[LokiMeister]

The authors of Freakonomics simply says that the drop in crime rate is correlated with drop 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.

Damn it. Sorry but the original statement should have read "the drop in crime rate is correlated with an increase in abortions."

I understand why you would be confused as I would also. Sorry for the confusion. I normally proofread before hitting "Submit Reply."

I am editing the original.

[BrianW]

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.

What's the debatable part?
That abortion is the termination of human life in development? Or that it is "killing"?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abortion
Definition of ABORTION
1: the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: as
a : spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation — compare miscarriage
b : induced expulsion of a human fetus

Note: I did not use the word "murder".

As far as the "lack of religious imposition". No, actually I'd call you more a "libertarian" for that.

So the "Freak" correlation IS that for an increased rate in the terminating of life, particularly a poor state of life, there tends to be a corresponding decreased rate in the incidence of crime. Right?

[dnf777]

What's the debatable part?
That abortion is the termination of human life in development? Or that it is "killing"?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abortion
Definition of ABORTION
1: the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: as
a : spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation — compare miscarriage
b : induced expulsion of a human fetus

Note: I did not use the word "murder".

As far as the "lack of religious imposition". No, actually I'd call you more a "libertarian" for that.

So the "Freak" correlation IS that for an increased rate in the terminating of life, particularly a poor state of life, there tends to be a corresponding decreased rate in the incidence of crime. Right?

The book cites reliable statistics correlating the legalization of abortion with a subsequent decrease in violent crime, after a 20-30 year lag. And vice-versa. This was shown valid in numerous countries, at various points in history. Take it for what its worth to you.

They do not refer to abortion as "terminating of life". They refer to it as abortion. Nor make reference to the "state of life". They are not debating the morals or legalities of it, just one measurable effect upon society. Again, take those numbers for what they are worth to you.

There is much more to the definition of abortion than a simple Merriam-Webster entry, and you know it. When does a human life begin in terms of having a soul? When does a human have awareness of existence? All religious, philosophical, and in part medical questions. Not to be answered with a Collegiate dictionary!

I just posed some questions. Questions that I doubt we would find a consensus here amongst even like-minded political types.

Even though I may disagree with you, I have too much respect for YOUR beliefs and values to even considering arguing with them. Not sure I would disagree, actually. But when it comes to imposing those beliefs on the population as a whole, we would probably disagree. Call me a libertarian in that regard. Its the nicest thing I've been called here in a long time!

[Franco]

Actually, Libetarians are split 60/40 on the Abortion issue according to John Stossel.

The research quoted makes sense to me.

[dnf777]

Actually, Libetarians are split 60/40 on the Abortion issue according to John Stossel.

The research quoted makes sense to me.

Not to nit-pick, but what do you mean by "the abortion issue"?

Being opposed to it morally, personally..........or imposing those morals via legislation upon the masses? Big difference, especially to a libertarian.

[Franco]

Not to nit-pick, but what do you mean by "the abortion issue"?

Being opposed to it morally, personally..........or imposing those morals via legislation upon the masses? Big difference, especially to a libertarian.

First, all Libetarians don't all think the same. There is diversity of ideas which is welcomed. What is shared is the core value of a small and lean Federal Government, a return to a Free Market system and a love for The Constitution.

Lets not forget that in The Constituition, the people are given power against a government out of control.

The Abortion Issue; the debate over the continuation of Roe Vs Wade or the abolishment of it, making them illegal. Not all Libetarians agree, it is split 60/40 in favor of Roe Vs Wade.

However, instead of getting bogged down with that debate, there are more important issues like our out of control Federal Government. Just two years ago they blew almost a TRILLION dollars on some BS stimulus. Payoffs to the unions is what it was and I called it then. Then they had to bailout thier financial supporters on Wall St. After they stole trillions right from under our governments nose. I want to see some real cuts in the budget for we can not support the government we have.

[dnf777]

First, all Libetarians don't all think the same. There is diversity of ideas which is welcomed. What is shared is the core value of a small and lean Federal Government, a return to a Free Market system and a love for The Constitution.

Lets not forget that in The Constituition, the people are given power against a government out of control.

The Abortion Issue; the debate over the continuation of Roe Vs Wade or the abolishment of it, making them illegal. Not all Libetarians agree, it is split 60/40 in favor of Roe Vs Wade.

However, instead of getting bogged down with that debate, there are more important issues like our out of control Federal Government. Just two years ago they blew almost a TRILLION dollars on some BS stimulus. Payoffs to the unions is what it was and I called it then. Then they had to bailout thier financial supporters on Wall St. After they stole trillions right from under our governments nose. I want to see some real cuts in the budget.

I couldn't agree more with all of the above. Abortion is not an issue for me at all actually, since I don't plan on ever having one.

And I understand libertarians don't all think the same, except when it comes to limiting government power and maintaining individual freedom. I was asking that question, because I was surprised that libertarians would have even 40% in favor of a government ban on abortion. I didn't know if those numbers referred to personal opinion, or public policy opinion. That's all.

But getting back to Ron Paul, do you have trouble reconciling his comment about nullification being justified and constitutional......with a love for the Constitution? Unless that article misquoted him, that's what he said.

[aandw]

dnf, are you against legislating morality? was it the health care or tax increase that obama claimed was the moral thing to do. i believe he requested that priests/preachers talk about it in church.

[dnf777]

dnf, are you against legislating morality? was it the health care or tax increase that obama claimed was the moral thing to do. i believe he requested that priests/preachers talk about it in church.

Many of our laws are based on moral principles. But mainly principles that if not upheld, will infringe on the peace and rights of others.

I am not for legislating morals for their own intrinsic sake, if they do not affect others. That's how we end up with prohibition, and laws governing what consenting adults can and cant do in their own homes!

Would you want Puritans passing laws based on their morals? How about Muslims? How about Jews? Radical Christians? Non-radical Christians? The Pope?

Think of the moral laws we could end up with.

[Franco]

But getting back to Ron Paul, do you have trouble reconciling his comment about nullification being justified and constitutional......with a love for the Constitution? Unless that article misquoted him, that's what he said.

I think you have to look at the context in which he made those comments.

Paul is the only politican that is being honest with the American people. We have a 14 trillion debt which we can't even pay the interest on and we are over our annual budget by 1.4 trillion.

We should not raise the Debt Limit! We need to cut the fat and more out of the Fed Gov! They won't do it themselves and the GOP is only asking for 61 billion in cuts and will probably settle for less! This is an insane situation. Defaulting on loans is what's going to be forced on us if we can't control our government.

I'm off to watch Swamp People.