|
Post by Nathan on Feb 13, 2007 17:05:44 GMT -6
lets pass some abortion laws in the Frenzy... wont that be cool?
|
|
|
Post by Z on Feb 15, 2007 7:24:35 GMT -6
Well part of the problem is that nobody wants a American born and fucked up kid. When most uppre middle class adoptions go down they just get a baby from China or Guatemala. Now granted these kids (Chinese/etc babies) are just as deserving of good homes as our own children but I kinda feel like we need to take care of our own. Also granted what happens to un-adopted babies in a Guatemalan, Russian, or Chinese orphanage is way worse than what happens to... 60% of kids in foster care. Still I cant help but feel that as nice as it is that your giving this child from X developing nation access to a first world lifestyle maybe you could try giving a kid from the Mississippi delta a fare shot.
Assuming my wife would go along with it I think I defiantly want to adopt. I want have my own kids at one point but I'm white and upper middleclass enough that I guess I feel a certain sense of noblese oblige as far as taking care of the next generation goes.
As for the cost of adoption I don’t think it would be as much of a problem if we changed the culture surrounding adoption. As I said if your white and upper middleclass your adopting a Chinese baby. There are thousands upon thousands of American orphans in need of good homes and we as the privileged (that means you ZIFF!!!) need to start being responsible for the wellbeing of those less fortunate then us. I think that the solution to this problem has to trickle down (not to borrow a terminology from the most fucked up economic theory of the 20th century).
Now that I’ve outlined my thoughts on adoption lets get back to killing babies. Anyone remember the fall in violent crime that came in like 94 or 95ish. Now I don’t remember the exact statistics but I believe the career of the average petty criminal peeks when their around twenty two twenty three or something. Now around 94 95 we saw a substantial decrease in violent crime. A question which is interesting to ask his how many years was it since Roe V. Wade. Well as a matter of fact the decrease in violent crime corresponds with the peek in violent crime for those criminals born in the years following Roe V. Wade. Now what population is most likely to become involved in violent crime? The poor, disenfranchised, youth from unstable homes that’s who. Now in 95 we seemed to have fewer criminals. Why? An entire generation of future criminals was never born thanks to Roe V. Wage. Those mothers whose children were at the greatest risk of getting involved in violent crime where able to get abortions and thus the substantial decrease in violent crime.
Just play with that.
|
|
|
Post by Nathan on Feb 15, 2007 12:04:53 GMT -6
Your arguement depends on lumping all children born to poor/poverty level single mothers into the violent criminal category. That's like saying young black men are statistically more prone to commit violent crimes so we should kill them so they don't commit crimes.
|
|
|
Post by FCM on Feb 15, 2007 12:12:03 GMT -6
adoption isnt free there? thats fucked up
u have to go thru years of waiting and close scrutiny by social services AND u have to pay for the pleasure???
abortion should be legal so long as the feotus is in the early stages of development
|
|
|
Post by Nathan on Feb 15, 2007 12:15:31 GMT -6
America loves its capitalism VERY much. More than its own citizens
|
|
|
Post by Z on Feb 15, 2007 15:39:11 GMT -6
Actually it wasn’t my argument I was just repeating an argument I've read. and if you didn’t notice its complete bullshit. The book I read it in is freakanomics. The authors basic premise is you can take any set of statistics and make them support your thesis. (decrease in violent crime supporting roe v. wade)
So yeah its kinda interesting but its certainly not conclusive evidence for... anything.
|
|
|
Post by mz on Feb 15, 2007 17:23:57 GMT -6
yea... so about sealand...?
|
|
|
Post by Brian Capelle on Feb 15, 2007 22:02:10 GMT -6
Heh.
Same theory behind Indonesia's recent ban of SmackDown!: they used the fact that wrestling fans who were teens tended to be violent to say that wrestling in culture causes teens to become violent, which was pointed out as dumb by a teacher who said WWE fans in his class tended to be very smart, bright kids so you could use the same argument to say that WWE makes you smart.
In other words you can twist statistics in maniacal directions if you desire to.
|
|