Defense for abortion? Just a thought

[Jakedubbleya]

I consider the possibility of validity in nearly every argument I hear. The fact of the matter is it is very possible that this argument is valid. Granted there is a lack of control data that makes it nearly impossible to correlate the facts to the theory. However, you presume I would take a step I don't, that this theory, even if valid, justifies abortion. I could say this theory is true, I could even argue the validity of the theory and still not support the conclusion that thus abortion is acceptable. I am morally opposed to abortion, and this argument, even if accepted, does not change my conclusion.

To not consider other arguments, and the possibility of the logic being valid, even if you do not accept the conclusion, leads to a close minded way of looking at things and weakens your own arguments by failing to understand other points of view. At least in my opinion.

Dont you just love all the posts assuming my position was pro life and attackign that, rather than what i said (not you lohman)? wonderfull lol. Its like flaming by telepathy!

Ill just ignore them and get back explaining my post...

My point lohman, sorry if i didnt word it fluidly, was that this isnt at heart an argument that supports abortion. In essense, supporting abortion by showing crime statistics, crimes commited by mature adults, is supporting elitism and genocide, amongst other things.

Why i was upset, is because i see such an argument as a null, unspeakable, its like promoting naziism, but to a much more extreme degree. Perhaps that is closed minded, but there are certain philosophies that go outside the boundaries of human compassion and natural evils, and they are not to be seen as alternatives but rather as examples.

By recognizing this as a valid argument, one is recognizing the crimes that i mentioned, as an acceptable alternative to petty crime, for our society. It is saying that kids that statistically are more prone to commit crime, are not allowed to exist. That people born in poorer neighborhoods unintentionally do not have a right to life.

This of course can be applied in other aspects, do people that are more prone, through no fault of their own, to be a burden on society and the economy not deserve to live (the mentally handicapped)?

This goes outside the boundaries of speculating as to whether the fetus has human rights. This crosses into what SOCIAL BREED of human has more rights... Supporting abortion because it reduces the amount of criminals due to less fortunate kids ending up in jail, is like saying you support killing those less fortunate kids.... Not because the fetus is human per-se but because you are creating less crime by strangling the amount of humans that come out of a certain economical class. Saying that that economical class hasnt the same rights, that kinds born by accident shouldnt have opportunity...

Not sure i explained that so well, but do you get my drift?

[Lohman446]

I understand what you are saying... but the argument never promotes abortion based on class. It does indicate that the abortion of unwanted children may have resulted in a drop in crime, as unwanted children, of any class, are more likely to commit crime.

That doesn't indicate we should change abortion law at all, it only indicates an often unconsidered point of view.

[Jakedubbleya]

I understand what you are saying... but the argument never promotes abortion based on class. It does indicate that the abortion of unwanted children may have resulted in a drop in crime, as unwanted children, of any class, are more likely to commit crime.

That doesn't indicate we should change abortion law at all, it only indicates an often unconsidered point of view.

My reference to the poor as being the main class that produces unwanted children was just overused, sry, if it cam eacross liek they were the only class with unwanted children i apologize, that was not my intention.

I understand that, that is why my first post was in the format it was in.

Id haveto dissagree with you on the indications though. With abortion having so much blind turmoil surrounding it today many people would be likely to use those statistics as an argument for abortion. As was indicated by the SUBJECT of this thread: "Defense for abortion? Just a thought."

The point of view that would support such atrocities, is as i said, sick, and genuinely insane.

[Lohman446]

My reference to the poor as being the main class that produces unwanted children was just overused, sry, if it cam eacross liek they were the only class with unwanted children i apologize, that was not my intention.

I understand that, that is why my first post was in the format it was in.

Id haveto dissagree with you on the indications though. With abortion having so much blind turmoil surrounding it today many people would be likely to use those statistics as an argument for abortion. As was indicated by the SUBJECT of this thread: "Defense for abortion? Just a thought."

The point of view that would support such atrocities, is as i said, sick, and genuinely insane.

I agree that the idea of abortion is morally wrong. I just find this argument more justifiable than any arguement about "choice" after an act taht resulted in pregnancy. To me its as ludicrous as me "choosing" that person X annoys me, and for some reason is a drain on me, and killing them legally because of it. The argument of sentience.. well I agree with at the end of life I do not agree with at the beginning of life. Had it been obvious that Shivo had a 75% chance of becoming sentient in 9 months would we haev been justified in letting her die just because she was not now, or taking a more active role in killing her? Most certainly not.. so why abortion? Anyways, thats not what I meant to get into. I think the argument raises some interesting points is all... and is sadly I think at least partially true. i still don't think it justified abortion.

[slateman]

First off , statistics can mean anything.

Second, you're premise is that abortion is a social good because, statistically, "unwanted" children are more likely to commit crime.

Well thats nice, but theres a lot of stuff that happens between about conception and arresting. I think you're making too broad a jump here. You've completely left out the social/economic environment and, more importantly, the parents.

Sorry no dice. Too many variables can happen in a child's life between conception and arrest.

[Lohman446]

First off , statistics can mean anything.

Second, you're premise is that abortion is a social good because, statistically, "unwanted" children are more likely to commit crime.

Well thats nice, but theres a lot of stuff that happens between about conception and arresting. I think you're making too broad a jump here. You've completely left out the social/economic environment and, more importantly, the parents.

Sorry no dice. Too many variables can happen in a child's life between conception and arrest.

Oh... you have proven that there is no good control data set and correlation in socioeconomic conditions and statistics are extremely hard to deal with. God, don't I feel like an idiot, I wish I had thought of it, like in

Now I understand social theories are hard to work with, as you cannot have a good control data set. Just wondering what others thought on this theory?

or

I agree that the connection in most socioeconomic patterns to the cause is nearly impossible to correlate due to the lack of a controlled data set.

or

I am really not looking for the proof of it, which I would not beleive if I saw it, I know the impossibility of proving the corralation

or even

Granted there is a lack of control data that makes it nearly impossible to correlate the facts to the theory

God, I wish I had thought of that, or else someone might have made me look bad by pointing it out. Next topic of discussion - does most of AO actually bother to read a thread before responding, especially if they can make someone look like an idiot for things like, say not acknowleding the vast amount of variables unnacounted for in socio-economic theory because of the lack of a control group?

[Glickman]

Next topic of discussion - does most of AO actually bother to read a thread before responding, especially if they can make someone like an idiot for things like, say not acknowleding the vast amount of variables unnacounted for in socio-economic theory because of the lack of a control group?

why even bother asking?



another very promident problem here could be solved with lincoln's quote:

"It is better to be thought of as dumb then to open your mouth and erase all doubt. "

[Jakedubbleya]

I agree that the idea of abortion is morally wrong.

Although i never said abortion was morally wrong, i agree with you on most of that last post.

exceeeeept (you knew it was comin):

I just find this argument more justifiable than any arguement about "choice" after an act taht resulted in pregnancy

I just wrote a frickin thesis in this thread showing exactly WHY it isnt an applicable argument!

ill stop whining now, obviously i did a lousy job

[ScatterPlot]

Might as well jump on in on this...


I am glad you posted the argument. Why? Not because it helps change my viewpoint, but because it is something interesting to think about. I don't really think it could be used as a valid argument, but I think it's interesting to see how stuff fits together. I believe that abortion is morally wrong. I'm not going to change that opinion without some REALLY good arguing, but I will listen while you say what you want. I don't think that argument is valid- that's sort of a fortunate byproduct to a bad thing. I know you aren't using this to support abortion- I see where you're coming from. Good post.

[Lohman446]

I just wrote a frickin thesis in this thread showing exactly WHY it isnt an applicable argument!

ill stop whining now, obviously i did a lousy job

I beleive your argument had a flaw in it, I think. It required several things to support it that may or may not be supported. First one had to beleive that a fetus represented a human life. I'm with you on this though, as I had said earlier if Terry Shivo had been 75% (or whatever the carry to term rate is, I'm expecting higher) of being self-aware ("alive") then allowing her to die, or more actively "killing" her would have been unthinkable to most people, yet we allow it with the unborn. Secondly your argument presupposed that value judgements about the child would become a criminal were a deciding factor in the abortion. Its not. If a mother does want the child, and is forced to carry it, statistics indicated that "unwanted and unplanned" children have a higher chance of being convicted of a crime. I am not making the judgement to abort any individual pregnancy based on the chance of that child becoming a criminal, I am just pointing out what may be a side effect of allowing the right to choose. I by no means advocate "we should abort this pregnancy because there's a chance the child will be a criminal." The argument doesn't even go that far, it just indicates that allowing abortion may have been a factor in lowering the crime rate. May not have been to... as has been pointed out with no control data set in socio-economic studies it is nearly impossible to draw a conclusive correlation between the results and the causes and most arguments will stand as simple theories because of the inability to reduplicate a controlled experiment.

[Jakedubbleya]

I beleive your argument had a flaw in it, I think. It required several things to support it that may or may not be supported. First one had to beleive that a fetus represented a human life. I'm with you on this though, as I had said earlier if Terry Shivo had been 75% (or whatever the carry to term rate is, I'm expecting higher) of being self-aware ("alive") then allowing her to die, or more actively "killing" her would have been unthinkable to most people, yet we allow it with the unborn. Secondly your argument presupposed that value judgements about the child would become a criminal were a deciding factor in the abortion. Its not. If a mother does want the child, and is forced to carry it, statistics indicated that "unwanted and unplanned" children have a higher chance of being convicted of a crime. I am not making the judgement to abort any individual pregnancy based on the chance of that child becoming a criminal, I am just pointing out what may be a side effect of allowing the right to choose. I by no means advocate "we should abort this pregnancy because there's a chance the child will be a criminal." The argument doesn't even go that far, it just indicates that allowing abortion may have been a factor in lowering the crime rate. May not have been to... as has been pointed out with no control data set in socio-economic studies it is nearly impossible to draw a conclusive correlation between the results and the causes and most arguments will stand as simple theories because of the inability to reduplicate a controlled experiment.

Well, i was trying to say that promoting abortion of unwanted children because those children were more likely criminals was the problem.

Now, this information has the nature of just a harmless statistic, but when used to defend abortion rights, i believe it has serious indications of elitism that extend past the realms of abortion.

Lets assume i am pro-abortion rights. I believe the fetus is just a part of the womans body untill it reaches my personal qualifications for "humanity". And I just heard this argument used and was disgusted. Even though i am pro-abortion i am not for discriminating which child, wanted or unwanted has more or less rights to existance. The fact that somebody was promoting abortion by a statistic that showed what the child may or may not do AFTER it was born shows that this argument is invalid, and also indicates that the person making this argument believes that allowing fewer unwanted children into the world is a solution to crime.
That crosses into the boundaries of which kind of people have a right to live, that POTENTIAL criminals should be prevented from existing. It shows that that person has little respect for human dignity. Under no circumstances is a human life void of that dignity, every human life has the capability for good and the right to use it or not use it no matter WHAT the circumstances of the parent-child relationship may be. Even though i believe that aborted fetuses are not humans, i dont believe that there should be a discrimination on the kind of people that should enter this world.

Get me yet?

[Lohman446]

and also indicates that the person making this argument believes that allowing fewer unwanted children into the world is a solution to crime.
That crosses into the boundaries of which kind of people have a right to live, that POTENTIAL criminals should be prevented from existing.

I understand what you mean but I think here is too great a leap. Even if we accept that argument as truthful that allowing abortions did contribute to a decrease in crime (which is debatable) there is nothing in that argument that than says we should abort based soley on the likelihood of crime. I understand the aversion to the idea that you are stating, and that the argument in one way justifies allowing abortion based on something unpredictable. Perhaps there is a benefit to allowing abortion that is unseen - not that this benefit should be the sole reason to allow abortion. But you are making a leap that does not seem... well its hard.

I see two positions to not accepting this data and its conclusion, I am sure there are more. One is that abortion is morally wrong, and this beneficial coincidence does not make it any less morally wrong. The second is that the data is flawed, because of the lack of a control data set and the impossibility of accounting for all the variables that could have caused the result. There is some good logic behind both of these arguments, though I still see the logic that abortion may have lowered crime rate as being reasonably solid logic. Keep in mind I never put out the idea that this justified abortion - though my title was misleading.

[Jakedubbleya]

But you are making a leap that does not seem... well its hard.

I believe this is where i tip my hat and shake your hand.

[Hasty8]

I agree that the connection in most socioeconomic patterns to the cause is nearly impossible to correlate due to the lack of a controlled data set. Nor does this change my view on abortion. It was a viewpoint that I had not heard before, and found interesting at least, a consideration of a possibility that I had never considered.

I am really not looking for the proof of it, which I would not beleive if I saw it, I know the impossibility of proving the corralation. What I am asking is what others think of this theory.

Lohman, read Freakonomics by Steven D. Levitt & Stephen J. Dubner.

Their book covers this very issue as well as others and the data very well argues this very point that the reason crime dropp so significantly was due to the fact that those who are most likely to grow up to ciommit crimes are also those who are most likely to be aborted.

Of course, I don't expect it to have any difference seeing as how you already said that you would not believe it even if you saw it but the book is a good read.

[Hasty8]

I worded the title poorly, its not truly meant to be a defense of abortion, however it is an argument that was new to me, and when I first heard it I was like.. no way. But it holds some logic to it... to me more logic than other abortion advocacy arguments.

That being said my view on abortion is thus: To beleive abortion is wrong you must accept that the fetus is a human and thus has rights. As such abortion, for any reason other than the risk of EXTREME health risks to the mother is immoral. As is abortion for rape or incest. Accepting abortion for rape is punishing the child (killing) for the crimes of the father (or mother). As such it cannot follow the logical view. I am against abortion actually, and this argument does not change my viewpoint... however, I found it interesting for discussion and philisophical reasons. It is a rather sick view when one considers it, but its not really one I advocate... it was just, well interesting that the line was even able to be drawn (though obviously, without a control data set it could be a very wrong theory)

Aborting the result of rape or incest is punishing the unborn child? How about the rape victim? So, in your view if a 16 year old girl is gang raped she should be required to carry the child to term, thereby effectivly ending her ability to have a normal adolesence and adulthood? Have you at all bothered to think of just how much that child could be hated by the parent?

And don't even think of saying adoption. I swear, if one more person advocates adoption as an alternative for abortion I'll puke.

And there is nothing "sick" about it. It's nothing more than making a sound judgement from a data set.

And you obviously have no clue about statisical analysis by your continued incorrect use of the phrase "control group". The control group in this instance would be the section of society which does not lead to crime, i.e., the "upper-classes" so there very much is a "control group" here.