< 1 2
 
   
 

Abortion and Crime, Revisited

 
Twissel
 
Avatar
 
 
Twissel
Total Posts:  2760
Joined  19-01-2015
 
 
 
30 July 2019 21:44
 
DEGENERATEON - 30 July 2019 08:56 PM
Twissel - 30 July 2019 12:11 AM

we can ignore the white/black difference and focus on the poverty issue, since Whites don’t commit less crimes, they are just statistically less likely to serve time for them.

We might have to start a separate thread based on this claim.  Now if you mean in absolute numbers in the United States, you may be right.  But your additional statement about serving less time for crimes would indicate that isn’t what you meant.  Per capita, you think whites commit MORE crimes?

I meant that non-whites get harsher sentences for the same crimes, and are less likely to get parole. This has been well documented.
Though hopefully “Trump’s” reform might help to reduce this a bit.

 
 
DEGENERATEON
 
Avatar
 
 
DEGENERATEON
Total Posts:  199
Joined  14-09-2017
 
 
 
31 July 2019 09:13
 
Twissel - 30 July 2019 09:44 PM
DEGENERATEON - 30 July 2019 08:56 PM
Twissel - 30 July 2019 12:11 AM

we can ignore the white/black difference and focus on the poverty issue, since Whites don’t commit less crimes, they are just statistically less likely to serve time for them.

We might have to start a separate thread based on this claim.  Now if you mean in absolute numbers in the United States, you may be right.  But your additional statement about serving less time for crimes would indicate that isn’t what you meant.  Per capita, you think whites commit MORE crimes?

I meant that non-whites get harsher sentences for the same crimes, and are less likely to get parole. This has been well documented.
Though hopefully “Trump’s” reform might help to reduce this a bit.

Well we know criminals are likely to commit crimes again, a stint in prison rarely reforms anyone.  So if non-whites get harsher sentences, and are less likely to get parole, then their ability to commit more crimes should be diminished.  But they still account for a wildly disproportionate amount of the crime.  Basically, you have whites committing crimes and getting off with a slap on the wrist - so they are free to commit more crimes.  But somehow that doesn’t follow in the statistics of crime.  Is that logical?

 
Nhoj Morley
 
Avatar
 
 
Nhoj Morley
Total Posts:  6362
Joined  22-02-2005
 
 
 
31 July 2019 09:43
 

Yes, but…

What proportion of black women who have an abortion got pregnant because of a lack of self-control?

 
 
DEGENERATEON
 
Avatar
 
 
DEGENERATEON
Total Posts:  199
Joined  14-09-2017
 
 
 
31 July 2019 09:57
 
Nhoj Morley - 31 July 2019 09:43 AM

Yes, but…

What proportion of black women who have an abortion got pregnant because of a lack of self-control?

Your Trioon mind tricks won’t work on me, boy! 

I have no idea.  My point is to question Twissel’s line of reasoning.  “hey let’s forget the black/white part of this argument because non-whites don’t commit more crimes”  “no I meant whites don’t get the book thrown at them like non-whites”.  Well if that’s true, then the amount of white crime should be increased because they are free to commit more crimes.  And yes I have a metaphorical hard-on for twissel after his senseless attack on me on this forum.  But is my criticism legit?

 
Nhoj Morley
 
Avatar
 
 
Nhoj Morley
Total Posts:  6362
Joined  22-02-2005
 
 
 
31 July 2019 11:50
 
DEGENERATEON - 31 July 2019 09:57 AM

...But is my criticism legit?

It’s silly to resist. I shoulda quote boxed ASD who inspired the inquiry. If your white points are about the same referenced ‘self-control’, then I read you as trying to use logic and statistic to surround the notion that blacks have less self-control than whites. Can we take not committing crimes one knows they could get away with as ‘self-control’?  Why does the argument appear to stop here? The bus has stopped at the first glaring statistical landmark along the way. Are we out of gas?

The stats also support the trioon mind trick and indicate where human’s narrative perception has been encouraged or discouraged in both children and adults.

You’re the second patron to report a Twissel hard-on. You’re welcome to consider posts as attacks as you see fittin’. You have the next box to volley from. Forum-wide vendettas are not permitted. Calling an admin ‘boy’ is not advancing.

I’m not sure how your criticism can be both legit and have no idea at the same time. I agree that there is a point along the way where things look very black and white but I wonder why so many folks want to stop there.

[ Edited: 31 July 2019 11:52 by Nhoj Morley]
 
 
DEGENERATEON
 
Avatar
 
 
DEGENERATEON
Total Posts:  199
Joined  14-09-2017
 
 
 
31 July 2019 12:02
 
Nhoj Morley - 31 July 2019 11:50 AM
DEGENERATEON - 31 July 2019 09:57 AM

...But is my criticism legit?

It’s silly to resist. I shoulda quote boxed ASD who inspired the inquiry. If your white points are about the same referenced ‘self-control’, then I read you as trying to use logic and statistic to surround the notion that blacks have less self-control than whites. Can we take not committing crimes one knows they could get away with as ‘self-control’?  Why does the argument appear to stop here? The bus has stopped at the first glaring statistical landmark along the way. Are we out of gas?

The stats also support the trioon mind trick and indicate where human’s narrative perception has been encouraged or discouraged in both children and adults.

You’re the second patron to report a Twissel hard-on. You’re welcome to consider posts as attacks as you see fittin’. You have the next box to volley from. Forum-wide vendettas are not permitted. Calling an admin ‘boy’ is not advancing.

I’m not sure how your criticism can be both legit and have no idea at the same time. I agree that there is a point along the way where things look very black and white but I wonder why so many folks want to stop there.

With regards to the forum-wide vendetta, I am attacking Twissel for his comments in this thread.  As far as calling you “boy”, it was only meant as a star wars reference joke “your jedi mind tricks won’t work on me, boy!”  My apologies - I’ve always seen you as pretty even keeled and fair even if I don’t agree (or understand) everything you post.

My criticism is intended to stop what I view as regressive SJW bullshit in it’s tracks.  That’s the idea.

 
Nhoj Morley
 
Avatar
 
 
Nhoj Morley
Total Posts:  6362
Joined  22-02-2005
 
 
 
31 July 2019 14:07
 

Relax, Mr. Eon. I’m still amused if you are. I stopped at the ewoks.

Point is, why stop anyone in their tracks who appears to have stopped already? Why be concerned or inflamed when folks post SJW-like stuff? How is it regressive? If by ‘stop it in its tracks’, you mean present a convincing counter-argument please proceed. I see two incomplete lines of reasoning and a debate over which is more irresponsible.

 
 
DEGENERATEON
 
Avatar
 
 
DEGENERATEON
Total Posts:  199
Joined  14-09-2017
 
 
 
31 July 2019 14:36
 
Nhoj Morley - 31 July 2019 02:07 PM

Relax, Mr. Eon. I’m still amused if you are. I stopped at the ewoks.

Point is, why stop anyone in their tracks who appears to have stopped already? Why be concerned or inflamed when folks post SJW-like stuff? How is it regressive? If by ‘stop it in its tracks’, you mean present a convincing counter-argument please proceed. I see two incomplete lines of reasoning and a debate over which is more irresponsible.

Jabba the hutt said that to Luke before the ewoks appeared onscreen.  Anyway, good place to stop.

ASD’s OP question seems (to me) to be a complicated question.  There may be something to it but I don’t know, seems Anal put up some educated information.  But when you have a complicated puzzle you want to use the correct pieces.  So stopping an obviously incorrect line of thought is a first step.  If that’s as far as I get on this, that’s fine.
It’s like the Sam Harris and Ezra Klien debate.  “There are differences in the IQ scores of different populations, and at least some of that is due to genetics.”  So what?  Well we can’t even get to “so what” because we can’t agree on the facts.

   

 

 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  6762
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
31 July 2019 15:05
 
Jefe - 30 July 2019 10:55 AM
Antisocialdarwinist - 30 July 2019 10:22 AM

Second, women who accidentally get pregnant are not suffering from the lack of access to contraception, they’re suffering from a lack of self control. It’s easier to procure contraception than it is to get an abortion; the fact that any given accidentally pregnant woman is capable of procuring an abortion says to me that she was also capable of procuring contraception. She made a poor choice to have unprotected sex, then rectified the consequences of that poor choice with the choice to have an abortion.

Every choice to have unprotected sex involves both a man and a woman.
Every unwanted pregnancy requires the (brief) participation of a non-sterile man, not just a woman.
The ‘blame/shame’ you seem to be throwing is a bit mis-directed.

AND, we have plenty of studies that show that access to contraception reduces the instances of abortion, sometimes dramatically.
(In many cases IUD’s, which can be expensive and out of reach for many of the impoverished, are much more effective and less prone to ‘forgetting’ than condoms and ‘the pill’, are a part of these studies.)

To turn the argument around, we’d have many fewer unwanted pregnancies if all male children received vasectomies when they were 13-16 years old, and only had them reversed when they intended to start a family.  (This method chosen because it has been demonstrated to be easily reversible.)

 

Since the woman is the one who becomes pregnant with all the consequences that entails, it’s incumbent upon her to keep from getting pregnant—purely from the standpoint of her own self interest. It has nothing to do with blaming or shaming.

Point me to one of those studies, please. I’d like to know specifically what “access to contraception” means in that context. Are you suggesting that women have easier access to abortion than to contraception? You’ll have a hard time convincing me that someone with the wherewithal to get an abortion can’t procure contraception.

If it were up to me, I’d sterilize everyone at birth and require that prospective parents meet certain criteria before being allowed to reproduce. So I’m with you on your turned around argument.

 
 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7119
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
31 July 2019 22:57
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 31 July 2019 03:05 PM
Jefe - 30 July 2019 10:55 AM
Antisocialdarwinist - 30 July 2019 10:22 AM

Second, women who accidentally get pregnant are not suffering from the lack of access to contraception, they’re suffering from a lack of self control. It’s easier to procure contraception than it is to get an abortion; the fact that any given accidentally pregnant woman is capable of procuring an abortion says to me that she was also capable of procuring contraception. She made a poor choice to have unprotected sex, then rectified the consequences of that poor choice with the choice to have an abortion.

Every choice to have unprotected sex involves both a man and a woman.
Every unwanted pregnancy requires the (brief) participation of a non-sterile man, not just a woman.
The ‘blame/shame’ you seem to be throwing is a bit mis-directed.

AND, we have plenty of studies that show that access to contraception reduces the instances of abortion, sometimes dramatically.
(In many cases IUD’s, which can be expensive and out of reach for many of the impoverished, are much more effective and less prone to ‘forgetting’ than condoms and ‘the pill’, are a part of these studies.)

To turn the argument around, we’d have many fewer unwanted pregnancies if all male children received vasectomies when they were 13-16 years old, and only had them reversed when they intended to start a family.  (This method chosen because it has been demonstrated to be easily reversible.)

 

Since the woman is the one who becomes pregnant with all the consequences that entails, it’s incumbent upon her to keep from getting pregnant—purely from the standpoint of her own self interest. It has nothing to do with blaming or shaming.

Then providing easy access to contraception is a no brainer.
Free access would be best when considering that 75% of abortions are sought by the impoverished.
IUD’s are proven to be most effective because they are not prone to budget problems. 
A woman with an IUD does not need to choose between contraception and repairing the car she needs to get to work…etc…

 

Antisocialdarwinist - 31 July 2019 03:05 PM

Point me to one of those studies, please. I’d like to know specifically what “access to contraception” means in that context. Are you suggesting that women have easier access to abortion than to contraception? You’ll have a hard time convincing me that someone with the wherewithal to get an abortion can’t procure contraception.

Specifically IUDs as mentioned above.  They have the least risk of being affected by budget management issues.


Studies? Start here:
https://medicine.wustl.edu/news/access-to-free-birth-control-reduces-abortion-rates/

https://www.self.com/story/abortion-rates-birth-control-trump-administration

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/free-birth-control-access-can-reduce-abortion-rate-by-more-than-half/

http://healthland.time.com/2012/10/05/study-free-birth-control-significantly-cuts-abortion-rates/

https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2016/03/new-clarity-us-abortion-debate-steep-drop-unintended-pregnancy-driving-recent-abortion

 

 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  920
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
01 August 2019 04:09
 

(From a “statistician,” as it were…)

Re this “lacking self-control” canard, hundreds of thousands of women will accidentally get pregnant, even if all sexually active women not seeking pregnancy were using contraception.  Based on last known demographics of contraception use, and depending on how one estimates sexual activity, accidental pregnancies given contraception—i.e. “self-control”—can range from 160,000 to 200,000 annually (this assumes “perfect use” as well).  Now, the number of abortions in 2015 (the most recent CDC data, I think) was 638,000, so that means roughly 25-30% of those abortions could potentially have been due to unintentional pregnancies with contraception, i.e. under the assumption all women at the time used it, exactly as it is supposed to be used. To be sure, that number could also be lower because 10% of sexually active women don’t use it at all, and they account for a large proportion of abortions—likely the majority.  But, the assumptions of ‘if they did use it’ and ‘perfectly’ shows just how likely accidental pregnancy can be, even with contraception; hence this self-control business—a moral, not an actuarial category in any case—really doesn’t belong in this discussion.  What’s at issue is unwanted pregnancy and what to do about it, not why one got pregnant in the first place. 

As this estimate shows, a statement like “women who accidentally get pregnant are not suffering from the lack of access to contraception, they’re suffering from a lack of self-control” is clearly false.  Plenty of women with access to contraception accidentally get pregnant even while using it.

Jefe has linked to the obvious proposition that access to birth control reduces abortions.  Another way to suggest the same is that in in the last 20 years there has been a push to subsidize contraception for low income women, and abortions have declined steeply and suddenly during that time (from ~1.3 million in 2000 to 638,000 in 2015—the steepest decline on record).

It is unclear how many women who seek an abortion actually used contraception prior to having one, but self-reports by women who got one during 2000 and 2014 put the number at about 50%.  There is, no doubt, an incentive—and probably a large one—to report having used contraception, even if one didn’t, but just how much effect that has on self-reports is impossible to estimate.

As an end note, this estimate of accidental pregnancy presumes perfect use.  In real world terms, the failure rate of contraception is much higher, and a more realistic estimate puts the number of accidental pregnancies with contraception closer to 1.2-1.5 million—or roughly half of unintended pregnancies in a given year (the other half presumably come from the 10% of women who do not use contraception). In any case, these real world failure rates go less to “self-control” than toward “not being perfect,” so if one wanted to be similarly moralistic and denigrating, one could turn “not being perfect” into being “too stupid to use contraception correctly”... if so inclined. 

As a final perspective, accidental pregnancy for a fraction of women who do use contraception (90% of those sexually active) approximates the accidental pregnancies of the 10% who don’t.  With that in mind, the self-reported 50% of abortions despite contraception seems reasonable. (It’s a “fraction” because 17% of women who do use contraception chose sterilization, which is foolproof).

[ Edited: 01 August 2019 05:07 by TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher]
 
lynmc
 
Avatar
 
 
lynmc
Total Posts:  477
Joined  03-08-2014
 
 
 
01 August 2019 10:39
 

Here is an article from Wikipedia re race and crime. “The direct correlation between crime and class, when factoring for race alone, is relatively weak. When gender, and familial history are factored, class correlates more strongly with crime than race or ethnicity”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States

There’s also a lot about racial discrimination in the justice system.

 
lynmc
 
Avatar
 
 
lynmc
Total Posts:  477
Joined  03-08-2014
 
 
 
02 August 2019 11:47
 
DEGENERATEON - 31 July 2019 09:13 AM
Twissel - 30 July 2019 09:44 PM
DEGENERATEON - 30 July 2019 08:56 PM
Twissel - 30 July 2019 12:11 AM

we can ignore the white/black difference and focus on the poverty issue, since Whites don’t commit less crimes, they are just statistically less likely to serve time for them.

We might have to start a separate thread based on this claim.  Now if you mean in absolute numbers in the United States, you may be right.  But your additional statement about serving less time for crimes would indicate that isn’t what you meant.  Per capita, you think whites commit MORE crimes?

I meant that non-whites get harsher sentences for the same crimes, and are less likely to get parole. This has been well documented.
Though hopefully “Trump’s” reform might help to reduce this a bit.

Well we know criminals are likely to commit crimes again, a stint in prison rarely reforms anyone.  So if non-whites get harsher sentences, and are less likely to get parole, then their ability to commit more crimes should be diminished.  But they still account for a wildly disproportionate amount of the crime.  Basically, you have whites committing crimes and getting off with a slap on the wrist - so they are free to commit more crimes.  But somehow that doesn’t follow in the statistics of crime.  Is that logical?

No, it it isn’t.  Whites get off completely for a lot of crimes, such as drug use, so they never get counted in the crime statistics in the first place, they never experience the detrimental effects such as not being able to get a job due to having a criminal record, or other effects that could lead to more crime.  Even if both persons of races are convicted, the “slap on the wrist” the relatively wealthy white guy is more likely to receive is less likely to close off options for “solid citizenship,” or learn the violent behavior one learns in prisons, than someone who gets a long term and therefore believes, with good reason, the system is fixed against him anyway.

 
 < 1 2