It Makes No Sense..Follow

Funny, you make no mention of the irresponsible behavior of the man.

Why such woman hate?

This surprises no one.

Santorum is pretty gross.

The belief is that if elective abortion isn't an option, more women will be more selective with their sexual partners. More of them will only engage in intercourse with men they are either married to or intend to marry (or at least would consider marrying), so that if they get pregnant the odds of them becoming a single mother are lessened. Heaven forbid people take a little more responsibility *before* engaging in sexual behavior instead of the pseudo responsibility the abortion choice offers them after the fact.

I guess I'll also turn the question around. Are you suggesting that the Roe V. Wade decision reduced the number of single women having children? Cause the statistics would seem to go in the other direction. And while I'm well aware of the correlation vs causation component here, you're still dealing with an uphill battle when you realize that the percentage of children born to single mothers in the US has increased dramatically since the early 70s. The typical response to that is to point the finger at some broad social change during that time frame, but don't you agree that decisions like Roe v Wade have an impact on said social change?


It's kinda the same conservative argument that always seems to apply: When you provide someone a safety net, they are more likely to engage in dangerous behavior. The left never seems to realize this, much less acknowledge it.

He doesn't need to; he pulls out real early, remember? Presumably he pulls it out before the girl even gets into his car, and she runs away screaming. No pregnancy risk there.

Right. Explain that math to me.

I'm not suggesting anything. I'm asking Varus to prove his point. Which he can't do.

But no worries! gbaji to the rescue with some made up explanation!!

Actually, you aren't. You're asking an unrelated question and hoping no one notices.




But I can. Which is why I responded.

In addition to the question of increased need for abortion as a psychological response to the increased availability of abortion, your question fails to address the core issue here. What pushes women into welfare isn't the birth of "unwanted" children, but the birth of children while out of wedlock. Whether those children are wanted or not doesn't have anything at all to do with whether they end out on welfare, does it?

So the real question is whether or not the easy availability of elective abortion increases or decreases the rate of children born to single women. My response is pretty much spot on since it directly addresses this issue. I argue that because abortion is so easily available women are less concerned about the consequences of having sex with someone they aren't married to and don't intend to marry. Obviously, nothing is in a vacuum, so there are also the elements of sex education teaching about "safe sex" and even the creation of the welfare programs in the first place which combine to turn something which used affect a very small percentage of the population into something that now affects over 40% of all children born in the US.

And among minority populations, especially African American, the rate is at epidemic proportions. Last I recall, the rate of children born to single mothers among that group was somewhere north of 80%. The Roe v. Wade decision alone isn't responsible. But it's one of many in a trend.



And it's a just plain bad ruling.



At least I'm not parroting what someone else said! ;)

Sorry, ***** was just stealing the show

Ignoring for the moment the question about whether a given view of "modernizing" or "improving" is going to be agreed upon by all parties, that's not the same as "investment" in an economic sense. It's another example of the left taking advantage of a word that can have a broad meaning, by using it in a context where a more narrow one is expected.

In a very broad sense, you can call any action you take with the expectation of something positive as a result as an "investment". But it's somewhat silly to use that broad sense when talking about the economy and/or fiscal policy. I can say that buying that video game is an "investment in my future", since by enjoying it I'll experience a positive outcome.

Most parents aren't going to buy that and no one at all would accept it in the context of a discussion about budgets and spending choices. Well, almost no-one.


Let me put it another way:

Explain to me the difference between the forms of investment you're talking about and what anyone else would just call "spending". Is there a difference between investing in infrastructure improvements, and "spending money on" infrastructure improvements? Can you tell me how we distinguish those? And if you can't, then isn't it wrong to use the word "invest", which has a specific "gain money over time" connotation, when the word "spend" would fit just as well and is more correct?

This begs the obvious question that if women are off having casual sex based on the idea that they can always just get an abortion, why aren't they getting an abortion rather than becoming unwed mothers. Are you saying that there's a significant number of women who plan to use abortion as a means of birth control and then deciding they'd rather just keep the baby?

Interesting theory but I won't exhaust myself by asking you to back it up with anything beyond your own guesses.