A doctor does the killing. Vetted and lisenced by society in advance.
I feel like we are arguing in circles. If it is perfectly legal and acceptable by society, what is the harm in publishing it? Obituaries, Weddings, Job Listings, and Relationship ads are all in the paper, why not abortions? These are all very personal and important aspects of our lives, and society takes the liberty to let everyone know about all of these but one.
There is no harm in publishing it, but we have a right to privacy, and most people believe that having some type of medical procudure isn't something needing to be published. If you don't want your Wedding or Obit in the paper, and don't think everyone needs to know about it, you don't send it in to the local press. Besides, for most of those ads, you have to pay money to have them put in. After spending $400+ on having something removed from your uterus, would you want to pay another $30 to have someone put it in the paper?
I believe abortion is ok. Before blood starts flowing through its veins, its not living, therefore, I wouldn't hesitate to have it removed. I feel if its unwanted in your body, its similar to a tumor. It grows, it feeds off you, and it can destroy your life.
I agree with you about abortion being fine if the mother's life is in danger, or if it is early in the pregnancy. My beef with abortion is when it is killed after it is fully developed. I mean, I don't see how anyone could support partial birth abortion or saline or vacuuming.
Is the fetus a human beeing? You cannot argue on the behalf that it would become a human beeing.
If the fetus can not be considered a human beeing at the moment of the abortion, then it has no rights at all - including no right to come to live.
The woman has every right over her own body though. If you want to limit those rights you need a strong reason for doing so. The only thing that could be applied is the fetus having a right to live. That would be a strong case, if the fetus qualifies as a human beeing.
But society having a right for those babys to be born is an extraordinary stupid idea.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." ~J. Krishnamurti
Modjoe: I agree with you on that. In all honesty, you should make the choice to have an abortion early on, not in the second or third trimester when you've decided you can't take the morning sickness anymore. I know if I was already bloated like a whale, I'd just carry the munchkin to term instead of having them sucked out. Besides, there's a higher mortaility rate for the mother the farther along they are.
Rape and incest victims, on the other hand, have the right to have an abortion at any time. If they think they can carry the child, then have a breakdown, they're entitled to be able to have an abortion if they need to. Any time there is physical or emotional abuse involved, the woman is completely entitled to have an abortion.
A doctor does the killing. Vetted and lisenced by society in advance.
I feel like we are arguing in circles. If it is perfectly legal and acceptable by society, what is the harm in publishing it? Obituaries, Weddings, Job Listings, and Relationship ads are all in the paper, why not abortions? These are all very personal and important aspects of our lives, and society takes the liberty to let everyone know about all of these but one.
If people want to annouce their abortions, by all means let them.
What about wanking? do you want to discuss that? we all you do it. It's acceptable. Is it Ok to publish you wanking in the newspaper?
What about if you get cancer of the testicles? do you want that published?
Somethings are best left private mate. Having a private life is perfectly acceptable.
People choose to announce their weddings.
Why do you feel the need to publicly annouce other peoples discomfort? Why would you want to annouce their tragedies, why would you even want to make someone who is already upset feel worse?
How about you learn to mind your own business and don't interfere in things that don't concern you. Even if you were the kind of person to have some sensetivity and sympathy, it's still not your business.
If people want to publicly announce their abortions, they really don't need your help to do it.
If your not directly involved I fail to see what concern it is of yours. Know your place. Other peoples private lives are not it.
A doctor does the killing. Vetted and lisenced by society in advance.
I feel like we are arguing in circles. If it is perfectly legal and acceptable by society, what is the harm in publishing it? Obituaries, Weddings, Job Listings, and Relationship ads are all in the paper, why not abortions? These are all very personal and important aspects of our lives, and society takes the liberty to let everyone know about all of these but one.
If people want to annouce their abortions, by all means let them.
What about wanking? do you want to discuss that? we all you do it. It's acceptable. Is it Ok to publish you wanking in the newspaper?
Being that 98% of males masturbate, and the other 2% are lying, I really wouldn't have an issue having it published.
It would be sweet to have like a 6 page expose dedicated solely to how I pleasure myself, complete with centerfold of you-know-who doing you-know-what. If it were to happen, I'd like it to be in, um, Esquire magazine. The interview would begin with my discussing the topic at hand, as well as cover my opinions on pressing social issues, such as what percentage of American males wank to the idea of Hilary becoming the next president of the USA. Yaaah man, that would be live.
"Speaking haygywaygy or some other gibberish with your mum doesn't make you foreign." -baff
Good work, Draenor. It seems you feel strongly on this issue, but instead of saying nothing when you disagree, try saying something. C&P this, if you need to:
Prior to Freakonomics, Levitt was regarded as one of the nation's foremost economists, a careful researcher and solid scholar. His reputation at that time was stellar and untarnished.
Then he, along with a journalist colleague, released Freakonomics, a best seller which claimed to reveal numerous unseen truth through the use of statistical anaylsis, essentially a collection of papers previously published by Levitt, converted to prose for understanding by a layperson. Within this book was his most controversial theory. To put it quite simply, he spins a web of convolution and poor scholarship to tie a link between the legalization of abortion and the drop in crime observed twenty years later, proposing the missing "phantom generation" of "unwanted" children was the cause of this lower crime rate. For many very subtle reasons, his theory is not mathematically conclusive.
By the same token, while his theory is wrong, most of the people who attack that theory do so without knowing why. That is to say, their counterarguments are wrong too, and they would be saying the exact same thing if he was right. Like almost every controversy in America, this is a case of two sets of assholes arguing two conflicting, and wrong, viewpoints.
Why are the counterarguments wrong? To start with, you can probably Google up several dozen responses to this paper. Almost all of them are posted by right-leaning groups or individuals, and their bias and lack of scholarly credentials is immediately evident. They usually start with some counterstatistics that are cherry picked and irrelevant, presenting an even more biased statistical view than Levitt delivered. A popular one is homicide rates for young children born in the three years after RvW. They conveniently forget that murder among people of that age are exceptions, that the number of such crimes is too small to be statistically insignificant, that the number of years they sampled is too small of a time period to mean anything statistically, and about fifty other things which make their arguments complete bullshit. In other words, it's standard discrediting propaganda designed to make the chump (reader) feel smart.
Most will also cite the increase in child abuse after the legalization of abortion, as opposed to the supposed decrease which many abortion advocates cite as support of their position. This increase is true and well documented, but it's again statistically inconclusive when related to the subject at hand. Child abuse rates have risen largely because they're heavily tied to substance abuse rates, which have also risen. There's no evidence that child abuse rates wouldn't be even higher if abortion was illegal. I'm not saying that's true. I'm just saying there's no conclusive evidence either way, so nobody has any business saying this claim is true or false. Another example of false conclusions on the part of the opposition here.
That said, Levitt is equally full of shit, but since his equally flawed arguments have a lot more intelligence behind them, it's actually not a simple matter to spot where his methodology is wrong. He has evidence to support what he's saying, and he goes into some detail in accounting for outside factors, but he drops the ball on a number of small things. You might hear arguing economists like that bastard Foote oversimplify the flaws in Levitt's work, but the reality is that most of those jokers are just capitalizing on the guy's fame by trying to raise issues that seem simple. That is to say, they are just like Levitt, willing to compromise their scholarly integrity just to appeal to the masses.
This is why you ignore anything "revolutionary" which a reputable scientist decides to publish in a major book. When a scholar reaches this point, one of two things has happened. The first is that they are whoring themselves out for money, but this is actually quite rare. The second, which is usually the case, is that their ego has become so overhuge that they've lost humility. Look at a guy like Levitt. In 2003, he was voted the best economist under forty by one of the nation's most prestigious economist societies. He deserved it then, but I seriously doubt he deserves any kind of accolade now. Maybe when Superfreakonomics is published, they'll be redeemed. Either that, or they'll become even bigger assholes than before.
I have to give them some credit, though. Freakonomics made economics popular again.
outfctrl, you seem to want adoption laws to be more conducive to more adoptions in the US, so what are your thoughts on gay adoptions? Would you support it? Right now it appears Florida bans gay adoption, which doesn't help the children get adopted any quicker.
Forget about Gay adoptions.....not going to happen.
I am talking about a man and a woman. The only way a child should be brought up. Sorry, thats How I feel. There are so many couples that want to adopt, but wont, because of fear.
Thats why they go to other countries. Poor biological Mother, she made a mistake....booo, hooo, She wants her baby back. BULLSHIT
I say tough shit......you made the decision...live with it.
outfctrl, you seem to want adoption laws to be more conducive to more adoptions in the US, so what are your thoughts on gay adoptions? Would you support it? Right now it appears Florida bans gay adoption, which doesn't help the children get adopted any quicker.
Forget about Gay adoptions.....not going to happen.
I am talking about a man and a woman. The only way a child should be brought up. Sorry, thats How I feel. There are so many couples that want to adopt, but wont, because of fear.
Thats why they go to other countries. Poor biological Mother, she made a mistake....booo, hooo, She wants her baby back. BULLSHIT
I say tough shit......you made the decision...live with it.
It's already happening. Do you think those kids aren't better off than they would be living in our broke foster care system?
It would be sweet to have like a 6 page expose dedicated solely to how I pleasure myself, complete with centerfold of you-know-who doing you-know-what. If it were to happen, I'd like it to be in, um, Esquire magazine. The interview would begin with my discussing the topic at hand, as well as cover my opinions on pressing social issues, such as what percentage of American males wank to the idea of Hilary becoming the next president of the USA. Yaaah man, that would be live.
LMAO! That's what this thread needed, more cowbell!
It's good to see that you're still here Theodoryk...you're one of the few people here with a good sense of humor.
Good work, Draenor. It seems you feel strongly on this issue, but instead of saying nothing when you disagree, try saying something. C&P this, if you need to:
Except for the fact that I said why this whole thing is pointless, rather than just saying that it is. If you're going to point out inconsistancy or lack of substance to my posts, do it in a thread that's not about politics/religion, because you won't find it. There is a legitimate reason that I gave for this discussion being completely without base on any side of the issue
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Good work, Draenor. It seems you feel strongly on this issue, but instead of saying nothing when you disagree, try saying something. C&P this, if you need to:
Except for the fact that I said why this whole thing is pointless, rather than just saying that it is. If you're going to point out inconsistancy or lack of substance to my posts, do it in a thread that's not about politics/religion, because you won't find it. There is a legitimate reason that I gave for this discussion being completely without base on any side of the issue
Fair enough. I don't even care about the politician the OP was talking about. I just get pissed off that people buy so easily into social pseudoscience and the equally garbage counterstudies. I'm not saying you do, but to give an example, when the FRC releases a paper announcing that gays are far more likely to be child rapists, and they've released two such papers, a lot of people jump up and say, "I knew it!" The left has an equal number of crazy nuts promoting nonsense. The environmental movement has been hijacked by such people, for instance. Half of our environmental policy is based on insanity, as a result, with the nation's most prosperous nations promoting ridiculously inefficient green initiatives.
Good work, Draenor. It seems you feel strongly on this issue, but instead of saying nothing when you disagree, try saying something. C&P this, if you need to:
Except for the fact that I said why this whole thing is pointless, rather than just saying that it is. If you're going to point out inconsistancy or lack of substance to my posts, do it in a thread that's not about politics/religion, because you won't find it. There is a legitimate reason that I gave for this discussion being completely without base on any side of the issue
Fair enough. I don't even care about the politician the OP was talking about. I just get pissed off that people buy so easily into social pseudoscience and the equally garbage counterstudies. I'm not saying you do, but to give an example, when the FRC releases a paper announcing that gays are far more likely to be child rapists, and they've released two such papers, a lot of people jump up and say, "I knew it!" The left has an equal number of crazy nuts promoting nonsense. The environmental movement has been hijacked by such people, for instance. Half of our environmental policy is based on insanity, as a result, with the nation's most prosperous nations promoting ridiculously inefficient green initiatives.As I said, since nobody has any real way knowing anything about what these aborted children would have done with their lives, there is no possible way that I could take a position on this. I am against abortion for reasons similar to Modjoe, though my reasons go beyond his and into the religious ones as well. Regardless of that belief though, all things in this thread, both from outfcntrl, and his liberal counterparts, are made up of pure speculation. So while it may be interesting to talk about in a civil environment, this is not a civil environment.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
I'm not riding Levitt's wave or anything if anyone misunderstood me. I only thought he brought up an interesting concept about abortion, which very well could be wrong but made sense to me. It's an extremely extremely complex subject so i'm not gonna argue any side of it. I agree with you Kurush, Levitt does make all the subjects interesting in his book, especially for layman. I wish more people could do that.
"I just get pissed off that people buy so easily into social pseudoscience and the equally garbage counterstudies"
I'm sorry, but not everyone can be an expert in every aspect of science. In my first post I said "I'm not an expert", basically I was just throwing it out there and seeing who will bite and give their thoughts. Sorry I pissed you off....
______________________________ "When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!" -cheer leading, flag waving American
outfctrl, you seem to want adoption laws to be more conducive to more adoptions in the US, so what are your thoughts on gay adoptions? Would you support it? Right now it appears Florida bans gay adoption, which doesn't help the children get adopted any quicker.
Forget about Gay adoptions.....not going to happen.
I am talking about a man and a woman. The only way a child should be brought up. Sorry, thats How I feel. There are so many couples that want to adopt, but wont, because of fear.
Thats why they go to other countries. Poor biological Mother, she made a mistake....booo, hooo, She wants her baby back. BULLSHIT
I say tough shit......you made the decision...live with it.
It's already happening. Do you think those kids aren't better off than they would be living in our broke foster care system? My family has been working in that broke foster care system for over thirty years, "broke" is an understatement. Gay couples, single parents... as long as they're decent people and willing to take on what most 'moral' people wont, then everyone els needs to stay out of the way unless they have help to offer. Working in that system as long as I have, I've seen some crazy stuff, and I've seen far too many people who claim the moral high ground play with peoples lives.
I'm not a very decent man by most accounts, but that's mostly because I don't bother labeling myself to appeal to anyone. I'm not religious, I'm not liberal or conservative, and I've never been much of a do gooder in any sense. I only know a little of right and wrong. I can claim that I do right, but If I'm not helping people, then I have no right to intrude on their lives. I'm not trying to sway anyones stance on any issue, it's much more fun to read what other people think, but at the least, people need to think for themselves instead of reciting the usual tired sound bites. Thanks for bringing that up kurush, that's one of the few questions in this thread that has any reason to it.
outfctrl, you seem to want adoption laws to be more conducive to more adoptions in the US, so what are your thoughts on gay adoptions? Would you support it? Right now it appears Florida bans gay adoption, which doesn't help the children get adopted any quicker.
Forget about Gay adoptions.....not going to happen.
I am talking about a man and a woman. The only way a child should be brought up. Sorry, thats How I feel. There are so many couples that want to adopt, but wont, because of fear.
Thats why they go to other countries. Poor biological Mother, she made a mistake....booo, hooo, She wants her baby back. BULLSHIT
I say tough shit......you made the decision...live with it.
It's already happening. Do you think those kids aren't better off than they would be living in our broke foster care system?
outfctrl, you seem to want adoption laws to be more conducive to more adoptions in the US, so what are your thoughts on gay adoptions? Would you support it? Right now it appears Florida bans gay adoption, which doesn't help the children get adopted any quicker.
Oh Boy......you opened a can of worms asking me that.
It wouldn’t be a broke system if the laws on adoption changed. People are just afraid to adopt in the US.
I will reiterate with conviction: Adoption should only be for a married couple (man and a woman).
Male gay couple scenario:
Little Timmy woke up in the middle of the night and walked to his parents bedroom. He heard grunt noises emanating from the bedroom. He opens the door and there are his parents being intimate.
So he says" Daddy, what are you doing?"
"ummm Timmy we are.........." another voice is heard "I'm the Daddy" Who is the Mommy? Who is the Daddy? What in the world is my Daddy, I mean Mommy, no Daddy...whatever.....doing to each other?
The couple sits him down and tries to explain to him the act. Yea right. Timmy walks away totally confused and embarrassed to no end.
At school, his friends ridicule him and call him names. Timmy grows up a mess, confused with his sexuality and role in life.
outfctrl, you seem to want adoption laws to be more conducive to more adoptions in the US, so what are your thoughts on gay adoptions? Would you support it? Right now it appears Florida bans gay adoption, which doesn't help the children get adopted any quicker.
Oh Boy......you opened a can of worms asking me that.
It wouldn’t be a broke system if the laws on adoption changed. People are just afraid to adopt in the US.
I will reiterate with conviction: Adoption should only be for a married couple (man and a woman).
Male gay couple scenario:
Little Timmy woke up in the middle of the night and walked to his parents bedroom. He heard grunt noises emanating from the bedroom. He opens the door and there are his parents being intimate.
So he says" Daddy, what are you doing?"
"ummm Timmy we are.........." another voice is heard "I'm the Daddy" Who is the Mommy? Who is the Daddy? What in the world is my Daddy, I mean Mommy, no Daddy...whatever.....doing to each other?
The couple sits him down and tries to explain to him the act. Yea right. Timmy walks away totally confused and embarrassed to no end.
At school, his friends ridicule him and call him names. Timmy grows up a mess, confused with his sexuality and role in life.
Runs for political office and becomes a member of Congress. Is placed in charge of the Congressional page program.
outfctrl, you seem to want adoption laws to be more conducive to more adoptions in the US, so what are your thoughts on gay adoptions? Would you support it? Right now it appears Florida bans gay adoption, which doesn't help the children get adopted any quicker.
Oh Boy......you opened a can of worms asking me that.
It wouldn’t be a broke system if the laws on adoption changed. People are just afraid to adopt in the US.
I will reiterate with conviction: Adoption should only be for a married couple (man and a woman).
Male gay couple scenario:
Little Timmy woke up in the middle of the night and walked to his parents bedroom. He heard grunt noises emanating from the bedroom. He opens the door and there are his parents being intimate.
So he says" Daddy, what are you doing?"
"ummm Timmy we are.........." another voice is heard "I'm the Daddy" Who is the Mommy? Who is the Daddy? What in the world is my Daddy, I mean Mommy, no Daddy...whatever.....doing to each other?
The couple sits him down and tries to explain to him the act. Yea right. Timmy walks away totally confused and embarrassed to no end.
At school, his friends ridicule him and call him names. Timmy grows up a mess, confused with his sexuality and role in life.
Runs for political office and becomes a member of Congress. Is placed in charge of the Congressional page program.
Adoption should only be for a married couple (man and a woman).
On the subject of hetro sexual couples being the ultimate model for parenting of any sort.
I guess you realise that Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Geoffery Darma, Pol Pot, Charles Manson, Sadam and every other mass murderer, dictator and generaly unworthy human beings have been the result of hetro sexual couplings and marriges ?
The notion that only a man and a woman can raise normal, healthy, well adjusted children is just not supported by the evidence.
+-+-+-+-+-+ "MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol" http://purepwnage.com -+-+-+-+-+-+ "Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
Comments
There is no harm in publishing it, but we have a right to privacy, and most people believe that having some type of medical procudure isn't something needing to be published. If you don't want your Wedding or Obit in the paper, and don't think everyone needs to know about it, you don't send it in to the local press. Besides, for most of those ads, you have to pay money to have them put in. After spending $400+ on having something removed from your uterus, would you want to pay another $30 to have someone put it in the paper?
I believe abortion is ok. Before blood starts flowing through its veins, its not living, therefore, I wouldn't hesitate to have it removed. I feel if its unwanted in your body, its similar to a tumor. It grows, it feeds off you, and it can destroy your life.
I agree with you about abortion being fine if the mother's life is in danger, or if it is early in the pregnancy. My beef with abortion is when it is killed after it is fully developed. I mean, I don't see how anyone could support partial birth abortion or saline or vacuuming.https://easynulled.com/
Free porn videos, xxx porn videos
Onlyfans nudes
Onlyfans leaked
Is the fetus a human beeing? You cannot argue on the behalf that it would become a human beeing.
If the fetus can not be considered a human beeing at the moment of the abortion, then it has no rights at all - including no right to come to live.
The woman has every right over her own body though. If you want to limit those rights you need a strong reason for doing so. The only thing that could be applied is the fetus having a right to live. That would be a strong case, if the fetus qualifies as a human beeing.
But society having a right for those babys to be born is an extraordinary stupid idea.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society."
~J. Krishnamurti
Modjoe: I agree with you on that. In all honesty, you should make the choice to have an abortion early on, not in the second or third trimester when you've decided you can't take the morning sickness anymore. I know if I was already bloated like a whale, I'd just carry the munchkin to term instead of having them sucked out. Besides, there's a higher mortaility rate for the mother the farther along they are.
Rape and incest victims, on the other hand, have the right to have an abortion at any time. If they think they can carry the child, then have a breakdown, they're entitled to be able to have an abortion if they need to. Any time there is physical or emotional abuse involved, the woman is completely entitled to have an abortion.
If people want to annouce their abortions, by all means let them.
What about wanking? do you want to discuss that? we all you do it. It's acceptable. Is it Ok to publish you wanking in the newspaper?
What about if you get cancer of the testicles? do you want that published?
Somethings are best left private mate. Having a private life is perfectly acceptable.
People choose to announce their weddings.
Why do you feel the need to publicly annouce other peoples discomfort? Why would you want to annouce their tragedies, why would you even want to make someone who is already upset feel worse?
How about you learn to mind your own business and don't interfere in things that don't concern you. Even if you were the kind of person to have some sensetivity and sympathy, it's still not your business.
If people want to publicly announce their abortions, they really don't need your help to do it.
If your not directly involved I fail to see what concern it is of yours. Know your place. Other peoples private lives are not it.
If people want to annouce their abortions, by all means let them.
What about wanking? do you want to discuss that? we all you do it. It's acceptable. Is it Ok to publish you wanking in the newspaper?
Being that 98% of males masturbate, and the other 2% are lying, I really wouldn't have an issue having it published.
https://easynulled.com/
Free porn videos, xxx porn videos
Onlyfans nudes
Onlyfans leaked
"Speaking haygywaygy or some other gibberish with your mum doesn't make you foreign."
-baff
Prior to Freakonomics, Levitt was regarded as one of the nation's foremost economists, a careful researcher and solid scholar. His reputation at that time was stellar and untarnished.
Then he, along with a journalist colleague, released Freakonomics, a best seller which claimed to reveal numerous unseen truth through the use of statistical anaylsis, essentially a collection of papers previously published by Levitt, converted to prose for understanding by a layperson. Within this book was his most controversial theory. To put it quite simply, he spins a web of convolution and poor scholarship to tie a link between the legalization of abortion and the drop in crime observed twenty years later, proposing the missing "phantom generation" of "unwanted" children was the cause of this lower crime rate. For many very subtle reasons, his theory is not mathematically conclusive.
By the same token, while his theory is wrong, most of the people who attack that theory do so without knowing why. That is to say, their counterarguments are wrong too, and they would be saying the exact same thing if he was right. Like almost every controversy in America, this is a case of two sets of assholes arguing two conflicting, and wrong, viewpoints.
Why are the counterarguments wrong? To start with, you can probably Google up several dozen responses to this paper. Almost all of them are posted by right-leaning groups or individuals, and their bias and lack of scholarly credentials is immediately evident. They usually start with some counterstatistics that are cherry picked and irrelevant, presenting an even more biased statistical view than Levitt delivered. A popular one is homicide rates for young children born in the three years after RvW. They conveniently forget that murder among people of that age are exceptions, that the number of such crimes is too small to be statistically insignificant, that the number of years they sampled is too small of a time period to mean anything statistically, and about fifty other things which make their arguments complete bullshit. In other words, it's standard discrediting propaganda designed to make the chump (reader) feel smart.
Most will also cite the increase in child abuse after the legalization of abortion, as opposed to the supposed decrease which many abortion advocates cite as support of their position. This increase is true and well documented, but it's again statistically inconclusive when related to the subject at hand. Child abuse rates have risen largely because they're heavily tied to substance abuse rates, which have also risen. There's no evidence that child abuse rates wouldn't be even higher if abortion was illegal. I'm not saying that's true. I'm just saying there's no conclusive evidence either way, so nobody has any business saying this claim is true or false. Another example of false conclusions on the part of the opposition here.
That said, Levitt is equally full of shit, but since his equally flawed arguments have a lot more intelligence behind them, it's actually not a simple matter to spot where his methodology is wrong. He has evidence to support what he's saying, and he goes into some detail in accounting for outside factors, but he drops the ball on a number of small things. You might hear arguing economists like that bastard Foote oversimplify the flaws in Levitt's work, but the reality is that most of those jokers are just capitalizing on the guy's fame by trying to raise issues that seem simple. That is to say, they are just like Levitt, willing to compromise their scholarly integrity just to appeal to the masses.
This is why you ignore anything "revolutionary" which a reputable scientist decides to publish in a major book. When a scholar reaches this point, one of two things has happened. The first is that they are whoring themselves out for money, but this is actually quite rare. The second, which is usually the case, is that their ego has become so overhuge that they've lost humility. Look at a guy like Levitt. In 2003, he was voted the best economist under forty by one of the nation's most prestigious economist societies. He deserved it then, but I seriously doubt he deserves any kind of accolade now. Maybe when Superfreakonomics is published, they'll be redeemed. Either that, or they'll become even bigger assholes than before.
I have to give them some credit, though. Freakonomics made economics popular again.
Forget about Gay adoptions.....not going to happen.
I am talking about a man and a woman. The only way a child should be brought up. Sorry, thats How I feel. There are so many couples that want to adopt, but wont, because of fear.
Thats why they go to other countries. Poor biological Mother, she made a mistake....booo, hooo, She wants her baby back. BULLSHIT
I say tough shit......you made the decision...live with it.
Forget about Gay adoptions.....not going to happen.
I am talking about a man and a woman. The only way a child should be brought up. Sorry, thats How I feel. There are so many couples that want to adopt, but wont, because of fear.
Thats why they go to other countries. Poor biological Mother, she made a mistake....booo, hooo, She wants her baby back. BULLSHIT
I say tough shit......you made the decision...live with it.
It's already happening. Do you think those kids aren't better off than they would be living in our broke foster care system?
It's good to see that you're still here Theodoryk...you're one of the few people here with a good sense of humor.
Except for the fact that I said why this whole thing is pointless, rather than just saying that it is. If you're going to point out inconsistancy or lack of substance to my posts, do it in a thread that's not about politics/religion, because you won't find it. There is a legitimate reason that I gave for this discussion being completely without base on any side of the issue
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
"Speaking haygywaygy or some other gibberish with your mum doesn't make you foreign."
-baff
Except for the fact that I said why this whole thing is pointless, rather than just saying that it is. If you're going to point out inconsistancy or lack of substance to my posts, do it in a thread that's not about politics/religion, because you won't find it. There is a legitimate reason that I gave for this discussion being completely without base on any side of the issue
Fair enough. I don't even care about the politician the OP was talking about. I just get pissed off that people buy so easily into social pseudoscience and the equally garbage counterstudies. I'm not saying you do, but to give an example, when the FRC releases a paper announcing that gays are far more likely to be child rapists, and they've released two such papers, a lot of people jump up and say, "I knew it!" The left has an equal number of crazy nuts promoting nonsense. The environmental movement has been hijacked by such people, for instance. Half of our environmental policy is based on insanity, as a result, with the nation's most prosperous nations promoting ridiculously inefficient green initiatives.
Except for the fact that I said why this whole thing is pointless, rather than just saying that it is. If you're going to point out inconsistancy or lack of substance to my posts, do it in a thread that's not about politics/religion, because you won't find it. There is a legitimate reason that I gave for this discussion being completely without base on any side of the issue
Fair enough. I don't even care about the politician the OP was talking about. I just get pissed off that people buy so easily into social pseudoscience and the equally garbage counterstudies. I'm not saying you do, but to give an example, when the FRC releases a paper announcing that gays are far more likely to be child rapists, and they've released two such papers, a lot of people jump up and say, "I knew it!" The left has an equal number of crazy nuts promoting nonsense. The environmental movement has been hijacked by such people, for instance. Half of our environmental policy is based on insanity, as a result, with the nation's most prosperous nations promoting ridiculously inefficient green initiatives.As I said, since nobody has any real way knowing anything about what these aborted children would have done with their lives, there is no possible way that I could take a position on this. I am against abortion for reasons similar to Modjoe, though my reasons go beyond his and into the religious ones as well. Regardless of that belief though, all things in this thread, both from outfcntrl, and his liberal counterparts, are made up of pure speculation. So while it may be interesting to talk about in a civil environment, this is not a civil environment.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
I'm not riding Levitt's wave or anything if anyone misunderstood me. I only thought he brought up an interesting concept about abortion, which very well could be wrong but made sense to me. It's an extremely extremely complex subject so i'm not gonna argue any side of it. I agree with you Kurush, Levitt does make all the subjects interesting in his book, especially for layman. I wish more people could do that.
"I just get pissed off that people buy so easily into social pseudoscience and the equally garbage counterstudies"
I'm sorry, but not everyone can be an expert in every aspect of science. In my first post I said "I'm not an expert", basically I was just throwing it out there and seeing who will bite and give their thoughts. Sorry I pissed you off....
______________________________
"When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
-cheer leading, flag waving American
Forget about Gay adoptions.....not going to happen.
I am talking about a man and a woman. The only way a child should be brought up. Sorry, thats How I feel. There are so many couples that want to adopt, but wont, because of fear.
Thats why they go to other countries. Poor biological Mother, she made a mistake....booo, hooo, She wants her baby back. BULLSHIT
I say tough shit......you made the decision...live with it.
It's already happening. Do you think those kids aren't better off than they would be living in our broke foster care system? My family has been working in that broke foster care system for over thirty years, "broke" is an understatement. Gay couples, single parents... as long as they're decent people and willing to take on what most 'moral' people wont, then everyone els needs to stay out of the way unless they have help to offer. Working in that system as long as I have, I've seen some crazy stuff, and I've seen far too many people who claim the moral high ground play with peoples lives.
I'm not a very decent man by most accounts, but that's mostly because I don't bother labeling myself to appeal to anyone. I'm not religious, I'm not liberal or conservative, and I've never been much of a do gooder in any sense. I only know a little of right and wrong. I can claim that I do right, but If I'm not helping people, then I have no right to intrude on their lives. I'm not trying to sway anyones stance on any issue, it's much more fun to read what other people think, but at the least, people need to think for themselves instead of reciting the usual tired sound bites. Thanks for bringing that up kurush, that's one of the few questions in this thread that has any reason to it.
Never give up and never surrender!
Forget about Gay adoptions.....not going to happen.
I am talking about a man and a woman. The only way a child should be brought up. Sorry, thats How I feel. There are so many couples that want to adopt, but wont, because of fear.
Thats why they go to other countries. Poor biological Mother, she made a mistake....booo, hooo, She wants her baby back. BULLSHIT
I say tough shit......you made the decision...live with it.
It's already happening. Do you think those kids aren't better off than they would be living in our broke foster care system?
They passed the law here last month.
There will be gay adoptions. Count on it.
You look like a joker.
Oh Boy......you opened a can of worms asking me that.
It wouldn’t be a broke system if the laws on adoption changed. People are just afraid to adopt in the US.
I will reiterate with conviction: Adoption should only be for a married couple (man and a woman).
Male gay couple scenario:
Little Timmy woke up in the middle of the night and walked to his parents bedroom. He heard grunt noises emanating from the bedroom. He opens the door and there are his parents being intimate.
So he says" Daddy, what are you doing?"
"ummm Timmy we are.........." another voice is heard "I'm the Daddy" Who is the Mommy? Who is the Daddy? What in the world is my Daddy, I mean Mommy, no Daddy...whatever.....doing to each other?
The couple sits him down and tries to explain to him the act. Yea right. Timmy walks away totally confused and embarrassed to no end.
At school, his friends ridicule him and call him names. Timmy grows up a mess, confused with his sexuality and role in life.
Oh Boy......you opened a can of worms asking me that.
It wouldn’t be a broke system if the laws on adoption changed. People are just afraid to adopt in the US.
I will reiterate with conviction: Adoption should only be for a married couple (man and a woman).
Male gay couple scenario:
Little Timmy woke up in the middle of the night and walked to his parents bedroom. He heard grunt noises emanating from the bedroom. He opens the door and there are his parents being intimate.
So he says" Daddy, what are you doing?"
"ummm Timmy we are.........." another voice is heard "I'm the Daddy" Who is the Mommy? Who is the Daddy? What in the world is my Daddy, I mean Mommy, no Daddy...whatever.....doing to each other?
The couple sits him down and tries to explain to him the act. Yea right. Timmy walks away totally confused and embarrassed to no end.
At school, his friends ridicule him and call him names. Timmy grows up a mess, confused with his sexuality and role in life.
Runs for political office and becomes a member of Congress. Is placed in charge of the Congressional page program.
Fixed.
Oh Boy......you opened a can of worms asking me that.
It wouldn’t be a broke system if the laws on adoption changed. People are just afraid to adopt in the US.
I will reiterate with conviction: Adoption should only be for a married couple (man and a woman).
Male gay couple scenario:
Little Timmy woke up in the middle of the night and walked to his parents bedroom. He heard grunt noises emanating from the bedroom. He opens the door and there are his parents being intimate.
So he says" Daddy, what are you doing?"
"ummm Timmy we are.........." another voice is heard "I'm the Daddy" Who is the Mommy? Who is the Daddy? What in the world is my Daddy, I mean Mommy, no Daddy...whatever.....doing to each other?
The couple sits him down and tries to explain to him the act. Yea right. Timmy walks away totally confused and embarrassed to no end.
At school, his friends ridicule him and call him names. Timmy grows up a mess, confused with his sexuality and role in life.
Runs for political office and becomes a member of Congress. Is placed in charge of the Congressional page program.
Fixed.ROFL
It is the duty of all free nations to resist by every means possible any attempt by foreign powers to force their principles on others.
Sad to hear that America stands for facism in your eyes.
On the subject of hetro sexual couples being the ultimate model for parenting of any sort.
I guess you realise that Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Geoffery Darma, Pol Pot, Charles Manson, Sadam and every other mass murderer, dictator and generaly unworthy human beings have been the result of hetro sexual couplings and marriges ?
The notion that only a man and a woman can raise normal, healthy, well adjusted children is just not supported by the evidence.
+-+-+-+-+-+
"MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol"
http://purepwnage.com
-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon