Cold calculations; abortion = criminal culling?

[Cow of Shame]

Orson Scott Card, a famous sci-fi writer, has taken a look at sex, abortion, crime, and society in general. He brings up some interesting points, which may appear to be pretty nasty until you [b]read the whole article[/b]. I must admit I was shocked at the beginning, but he leads you down a path that ends in what some could see as a logical conclusion.

We start with:

---------------------------------------------------------
"In 1973, Roe v. Wade made abortion permissible throughout the United States. The floodgates opened, and vast numbers of abortions were performed. As a result, vast numbers of children were not born.

Ah, but which children? The vast majority of the abortions were among women who would have been raising their children without a father; substantial numbers of these women were addicts. And even the abortions performed on middle-class women were somewhat more likely to be the result of liaisons in which one partner or the other, or both, had poor impulse control.

In other words, the fetuses that were aborted, had they been born, would have become children who were statistically the most likely group to become criminals. Raised by single mothers, in poverty, with genes that might not provide them with much ability to foresee the longterm consequences of impulsive actions.

The crime rates began falling exactly when that generation of children would have reached adolescence and those with such tendencies would have begun their criminal careers.

It certainly looked as if we killed off much of our criminal class in the womb. "
------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm sorry to link to a long(ish) article...I typically don't take the time to follow links. I'm guilty of the sin I place on others; laziness in writing a thoughtful synopsis of the information you'd like to convey to readers in this forum.

I'd like to see your opinions on what he wrote. Quote the sections you have a problem with, followed by your response to it, so we can all follow along.

[url="http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2005-09-11-1.html"]Card's blog[/url]


This does not mean that I condone abortion. However, you could take the first part of this article & run with it to give credence to certain pro-choice arguments....and it's always good to know what topics the opposition might bring to the table.

Edited October 9, 2005 by Cow of Shame

[philothea]

Thanks for linking; that was [i]very[/i] interesting, though also quite disturbing. Looks like perfect logic to me. (I like Card a lot.)

I guessed the cause of the rising crime rate, prior to its drop.

I wonder what the immediate implication of making abortion illegal again would be? I don't know if we can get back to an era where people are all expected to control themselves. Not without a disaster happening to shake people up. Hrm.

Another result of birth control that people speculate on, is the dwindling population of liberals. I have seen loads of conservative religious families with zillions of kids. And all my liberal friends are childless. Over time this is going to be overwhelming. It may be already.

[avemaria40]

I thought the article was interesting. Also, i learned that we used to have 2000 abortion clinics in this country, now we only have 741 And as we go on, it turns out that most abortion doctors are men over 40. And more teenagers believe in saving sex for marriage and that abortion is wrong

I guess that means good trumps evil, all the time

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='avemaria40' date='Oct 9 2005, 01:53 PM']I thought the article was interesting.  Also, i learned that we used to have 2000 abortion clinics in this country, now we only have 741   And as we go on,  it turns out that most abortion doctors are men over 40.  And more teenagers believe in saving sex for marriage and that abortion is wrong

I  guess that means good trumps evil, all the time
[right][snapback]751636[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
unfortunately, those teenagers go to college and then their parents let them do whatever they want. it's sad. i know a lot of parents with this "be a good little high school kid, then go to college and do whatever you want" mentality.

also, where did you get those statistics?

[quote]And sometime you actually have to have some facts -- you know, the kind you get by going out and working hard and asking stuff and observing. [/quote]
this is why I want to be a reporter

[avemaria40]

My mom's Harvard's Guide to Women's Health, Life Dynamics Website, and there's another one, i just can't remember it.

[Cow of Shame]

The only paragraph that jumped out at me was this one:

------------
"But no one has yet demonstrated a single ill effect from "repression." For the simple reason that the other names for "repression" are words like "conscience" and "responsibility" and "impulse control." The virtues we link with adulthood."
-----------

Actually, I believe the sexual problems that are coming to light in the priesthood are partially as a result of priests repressing their sexual desires. Instead of acknowledging that we are sexual creatures & dealing with these desires in a positive manner, we are told to repress them, letting them seeth & roil in shameful darkness. If you see a really hot, smokin', stacked chick, and all you do is avert your eyes & say "I shouldn't look, I shouldn't look, bad boy, down down down" then you're not really solving any problems. You're continuing to view your 'sisters in Christ' as sex objects, even though you're trying to repress these thoughts. Repression is definitely the first step, but we need to move on to more constructive modes of dealing with our fallen sexuality. Ideally, we should be able to look at scantily dressed women & appreciate their inner beauty without stumbling upon the physical.

[Cow of Shame]

[quote name='avemaria40' date='Oct 9 2005, 11:53 AM']
I  guess that means good trumps evil, all the time
[right][snapback]751636[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

No. Evil will always triumph because good is dumb.





Did you see anything?
No, sir! I didn't see you playing with you dolls again.
Good!

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='Cow of Shame' date='Oct 9 2005, 04:41 PM']No.  Evil will always triumph because good is dumb.
[right][snapback]751787[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
awww that's no fun. Evil may achieve short-term goals but ultimately it will be defeated. God is omnipotent, after all.

[morostheos]

I thought it was a really good article. The unsubstantiated "facts" that are spread around like wildfire all the time are definitely a major problem with the media, and I suppose will probably always be.

[Maria]

I also found it to be a good, interesting article.

[Benedict]

[quote name='Cow of Shame' date='Oct 9 2005, 02:41 PM']No.  Evil will always triumph because good is dumb.


Did you see anything?
No, sir! I didn't see you playing with you dolls again.
Good!
[/quote]
For anyone who might not know, these lines are from Spaceballs, the best Mel Brooks movie ever.


My favorite part of the article:

[quote]Often, though, the falsehoods we hear are not so easily checked. You have to know something about the mathematics of statistical analysis or the way studies are conducted in order to have a hope of evaluating the truth.

And sometime you actually have to have some facts -- you know, the kind you get by going out and working hard and asking stuff and observing.

...

In the process of reading it, you'll also be given a short but effective course in analyzing causal assertions -- or, in other words, you'll be trained to hear statistical assertions skeptically, because you'll have a clearer idea of how they can be massaged and manipulated and misunderstood.

You'll also be given a wake-up call about how many of the statistics on which we base public opinion and policy are simply made up.

You know, lies.
[/quote]
I have studied mathematics, statistics, and a bit of psychology. I am also a scientist. So this really speaks to my experience.

To spin Mel Brooks, "Ignorance and falsehoods will always triumph because research and truth is hard."

Edited October 12, 2005 by Benedict

[Socrates]

It's been a while since I've read this, but I've seen that books' claim that falling crime rates are the result of abortion quite thoroughly and satisfactorily refuted. (Unfortunately, I forget where I read that.) Of course, if abortion did reduce crime, that would still not make it right, but this argument is actually fallacious and poor science.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Cow of Shame' date='Oct 9 2005, 03:36 PM']The only paragraph that jumped out at me was this one:

------------
"But no one has yet demonstrated a single ill effect from "repression." For the simple reason that the other names for "repression" are words like "conscience" and "responsibility" and "impulse control." The virtues we link with adulthood."
-----------

Actually, I believe the sexual problems that are coming to light in the priesthood are partially as a result of priests repressing their sexual desires.  Instead of acknowledging that we are sexual creatures & dealing with these desires in a positive manner, we are told to repress them, letting them seeth & roil in shameful darkness.  If you see a really hot, smokin', stacked chick, and all you do is avert your eyes & say "I shouldn't look, I shouldn't look, bad boy, down down down" then you're not really solving any problems.  You're continuing to view your 'sisters in Christ' as sex objects, even though you're trying to repress these thoughts.  Repression is definitely the first step, but we need to move on to more constructive modes of dealing with our fallen sexuality.  Ideally, we should be able to look at scantily dressed women & appreciate their inner beauty without stumbling upon the physical.
[right][snapback]751782[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

No offense, but I think this is nonsense!

Are you insinuating that seminarians "become gay" (or ebophilic) becuase they are "repressing" their sexual desires?
Maybe If they spent more time at strip clubs looking at scantily-clad women, rather than being so "repressed," then they wouldn't feel compelled to shag the altar boy?

The problem, I think, is young men entering seminaries who have pre-existing sexual disorders. (The priesthood is seen as a way of life where they will not feel pressured to date or marry).

Hey Cow, could you send me some girly pics so that I might "appreciate the inner beauty" of the models?

Edited October 13, 2005 by Socrates

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

Repression isn't the cause of most of the priest sex abuse. Most of the priests who were abusive had been abusive since they became priests. There hasn't been anything to show that there is some sort of 'waiting period' during which their repressed desires build up. Also, the incidence of sex abusers amongst the priest population isn't significantly higher than the general population. Ergo, the repression - which mosts priests call celibacy - can not be correlated with being a sex abuser. Most of the attitude towards priests has been formulated by what we've been presented. If a priest is a sex abuser, you will hear about it at some point. If a priest isn't a sex abuser, you'll hear about that priest in his obituary, and the obituary 99.99999% of the time will neglect to factually report that the priest didn't sexually abuse anyone.

As far as the general population goes, repression doesn't cause any bad effects. I think Jason Evert said it best with something like "You don't see mental wards for those who waited until marriage."

[Theoketos]

[quote]Ah, but which children? The vast majority of the abortions were among women who would have been raising their children without a father; substantial numbers of these women were addicts. And even the abortions performed on middle-class women were somewhat more likely to be the result of liaisons in which one partner or the other, or both, had poor impulse control.[/quote]

The problem with this is abortion actually increases the number childern concieved out of wedlock. It also not only increases that number it also increases childern (who are innocent defenselss human beings) being aborted. And lastly, abortion and contraception, because they encourage more 'casual' sex increase the number of illigitiamte childern in general.

Lastly, even if Abortion did illiminate poverty, the end neve justifies the means. Abortion is the unjust death of an innocent person.

EDIT

Contracpetion (the pill) and Abortion were strongly promoted in the 1930's as a means to irradicate the poor by Margerit Sanger. She also thought that it would be a good way to commint genocide against the enemies of the white race, because you know they are a poor and dirty. Yeah, that sounds like a great idea...if you are bat carp insaine.

Edited October 13, 2005 by Theoketos

[philothea]

Did you read the whole article, Theoketos?

One hint: Orson Scott Card is notorious throughout science fiction for being the radical religious conservative...

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

[quote name='Theoketos' date='Oct 13 2005, 11:41 AM']Contracpetion (the pill) and Abortion were strongly promoted in the 1930's as a means to irradicate the poor by Margerit Sanger.[right][snapback]757089[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Not quite. The birth control pill wasn't developed until the 1950's. The method of contraception she promoted was sterilization. She wasn't anywhere close to being pro-choice. She believed that the strong should reproduce and the weak should be barred from reproducing.

Edit: she did promote other methods of birth control available at the time such as condoms and diaphragms, but she was definitely in favor of eugenics from a birth control standpoint.

Edited October 13, 2005 by 1337 k4th0l1x0r

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

I think the whole article did a good job of not only showing how people readily accept statistics from 'experts,' but will often have a knee jerk reaction to a statistic without thinking about thinking the whole thing through. It seems we had a few people who jumped on the abortion reduces crime statistic without first realizing the crime issue from a large standpoint. Most of his readers are conservative as well and probably were appalled at first about how Card seems to make a case for abortion reducing the crime rate at first. We first thought, 'no way' and tried to deny the fact that abortion has reduced the crime rate from the 1980s. As much as we want to criticize liberals for using unfounded data and spewing off 'facts' without really checking them, we have to realize that we can fall into the same fault. He was not only writing about that process, but reading the article was an exercise in realizing we do the same things.

[Socrates]

[quote name='1337 k4th0l1x0r' date='Oct 13 2005, 12:35 PM']We first thought, 'no way' and tried to deny the fact that abortion has reduced the crime rate from the 1980s. As much as we want to criticize liberals for using unfounded data and spewing off 'facts' without really checking them, we have to realize that we can fall into the same fault.  He was not only writing about that process, but reading the article was an exercise in realizing we do the same things.
[right][snapback]757157[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

However, the "fact" that "abortion reduced crime rates" is just another example of unfounded data (an unfounded hypotheses, really) being spewed out by the media.
While, unfortunately, I forget where I read it and the details (this was over a year ago), I read a quite convincing rebuttal of this hypothesis, using statistics on crime rates and demographics. I beleive it showed that the actual population of young minority "at risk" males actually increased during the period in which crime rates fell. There were other, more likely, explanations for the fall in crime rates.

The "abortion as crime-fighter" hypothesis is something that makes for interesting conversation and debate, but is actually a completely unproven hypothesis which appears to have no solid basis in the facts. And anyway, one can never prove "what would've happened."

This whole thing is an unproven assertion that has no factual evidence, and should not be treated as an unsettling yet undisputable "fact."

[philothea]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Oct 13 2005, 07:12 PM']However, the "fact" that "abortion reduced crime rates" is just another example of unfounded data (an unfounded hypotheses, really) being spewed out by the media.
While, unfortunately, I forget where I read it and the details (this was over a year ago), I read a quite convincing rebuttal of this hypothesis, using statistics on crime rates and demographics.  I beleive it showed that the actual population of young minority "at risk" males actually increased during the period in which crime rates fell.  There were other, more likely, explanations for the fall in crime rates.
[right][snapback]757560[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Did you read the article at all?

Card is talking primaily about the book [i]Freakonomics[/i] which deals with how the media does shoddy (or no) research with statistics! The abortion/crime correlation was just the intro, mentioned first, I imagine, for shock purposes.

In no way is Card condoing abortion. Neither is he any part of the media (unless you consider science fiction novels "media"). He's a conservative Mormon. Er, unlike all those liberal Mormons? Nevermind.

This is not a news story at all; that's the point. There are real statistics out there that no one wants to examine because they don't fit current paradigms.