FA+
Shop
414
Views
Views
1
Favorites
Favorites
Category
Artwork (Digital) / Comics
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 1100 x 900
File Size 242.1 kB
Report this content
More from JeffTheHusky
Obviously I didn't put a lot of effort into this comic, but the point is still there loud and clear.
Roe V Wade just so happened to lower crime in the USA, and that's why I'm pro-choice. One because again I'm all for people doing what they will, and Two because it's made the idiot rate in this country drop significantly.
But that still leaves the idiots who AREN'T criminals but are still run of the mill idiots... >>
To those who disagree:
I like how people who have different beliefs or disagree sometimes just have the NEED to call me an idiot. For those of you who didn't, you can ignore this. But seriously...why go out of your way just to make me look bad for expressing my opinion. This art piece is my work, on MY FA page...nobody is forcing you to look at it. Nobody asked you to look at it, you just looked at it and decided to get upset because I said something you don't agree with.
Sure, maybe I didn't bring up the documentary, but I've based my opinions off of what I've been told...and it makes sense. You people can believe what you want to believe alright...
I can CHOOSE to believe in certain things, but I don't believe in God, I don't believe in Pro-Life, and I CERTAINLY don't believe in reckless regulation.
That doesn't make me a bigot, a fool, or a sinner. I still know the difference between right and wrong, and I can still be civilized. But if you people can't accept that maybe I just think differently from you, like in the case of this comic and my argument against My Little Pony, there's the door.
Roe V Wade just so happened to lower crime in the USA, and that's why I'm pro-choice. One because again I'm all for people doing what they will, and Two because it's made the idiot rate in this country drop significantly.
But that still leaves the idiots who AREN'T criminals but are still run of the mill idiots... >>
To those who disagree:
I like how people who have different beliefs or disagree sometimes just have the NEED to call me an idiot. For those of you who didn't, you can ignore this. But seriously...why go out of your way just to make me look bad for expressing my opinion. This art piece is my work, on MY FA page...nobody is forcing you to look at it. Nobody asked you to look at it, you just looked at it and decided to get upset because I said something you don't agree with.
Sure, maybe I didn't bring up the documentary, but I've based my opinions off of what I've been told...and it makes sense. You people can believe what you want to believe alright...
I can CHOOSE to believe in certain things, but I don't believe in God, I don't believe in Pro-Life, and I CERTAINLY don't believe in reckless regulation.
That doesn't make me a bigot, a fool, or a sinner. I still know the difference between right and wrong, and I can still be civilized. But if you people can't accept that maybe I just think differently from you, like in the case of this comic and my argument against My Little Pony, there's the door.
Category Artwork (Digital) / Comics
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 1100 x 900px
File Size 242.1 kB
What solid evidence do you have to back the claim that abortion laws contribute to a drop in crime? All I'm seeing is rather broad conjecture on your part.
To support your claim, you're working under the assumption that single parenting leads to the children growing up to be criminals, do you have empirical data to back this?
I'm not trying to defend "pro-life", here, it's just that you appear to make a rather large leap in logic to come to your conclusion.
To support your claim, you're working under the assumption that single parenting leads to the children growing up to be criminals, do you have empirical data to back this?
I'm not trying to defend "pro-life", here, it's just that you appear to make a rather large leap in logic to come to your conclusion.
Here's the kicker, this was something I discussed with my father, who watched a documentary on the subject. So basically I'm just voicing the part of my argument that I believe is the point of it all rather than bounce around the subject.
If you want to hear the WHOLE reason for why I think this, it'd be a good idea to watch that documentary.
If you want to hear the WHOLE reason for why I think this, it'd be a good idea to watch that documentary.
So... To back your claim, you're citing your father, who watched a documentary which you haven't specifically identified that you yourself haven't even seen? That doesn't strengthen your position on the topic here, you need to provide proper data.
Like, for example, is there poll data that shows that the children of single parents are more likely to have a criminal record? Is it national or in one state? Because, it's entirely possible that single parents are more likely to raise a criminal in Alabama than Utah. Furthermore, does this -only- include single parents who gave birth to a child due to rape? What teenage pregnancy? How about a perfectly legitimate pregnancy that the father just left? If a child lives with their father, are they more likely to become a criminal than if they lived with their mother? What about children who are orphaned? But wouldn't that also encompass orphaned children who were in a two-parent family but were raised in a bad environment?
I could go on, but what I'm illustrating here is that this is far too complicated for you to just say "Abortion's lowered crime because un-aborted fetuses grow up to be criminals," and except it to actually mean anything in reality. I've seen scientists suggest that video games are the result of crime dropping and I could support it with equally conjectural data, but it just doesn't work that way.
Like, for example, is there poll data that shows that the children of single parents are more likely to have a criminal record? Is it national or in one state? Because, it's entirely possible that single parents are more likely to raise a criminal in Alabama than Utah. Furthermore, does this -only- include single parents who gave birth to a child due to rape? What teenage pregnancy? How about a perfectly legitimate pregnancy that the father just left? If a child lives with their father, are they more likely to become a criminal than if they lived with their mother? What about children who are orphaned? But wouldn't that also encompass orphaned children who were in a two-parent family but were raised in a bad environment?
I could go on, but what I'm illustrating here is that this is far too complicated for you to just say "Abortion's lowered crime because un-aborted fetuses grow up to be criminals," and except it to actually mean anything in reality. I've seen scientists suggest that video games are the result of crime dropping and I could support it with equally conjectural data, but it just doesn't work that way.
Gotta love people who are quick to accuse others of conjecture without first doing some research themselves, then turn the argument into what sources of information can and cannot be trusted. Always a fun gag. Anyway...
As a Libertarian I am effectively pro-choice, and need no "empirical evidence" to support such a view. As the entire thing is about personal choice, laws dictating such one way or the other have no place in government at all. What one person chooses to do with their reproductive system has no effect on someone completely unrelated to them. Anyone arguing against that is just a hopeless authoritarian. Incidentally, the only non-religious backing for pro-life arguments that I have heard of is the one that consists of "who speaks for the unborn." My answer: the parent. If the would-be parent doesn't want to bring an unwanted child into the world, they should not be forced to. Simple as that. Of course there's always the issue of "responsibility" which is a valid point in any case, but then again, accidents happen no matter how careful two people can be. Also, since I am also a proponent of abolishing the IRS, the argument regarding government funding of abortion is also moot.
On a personal level however, I am pro-responsibility. Apply accordingly.
As a Libertarian I am effectively pro-choice, and need no "empirical evidence" to support such a view. As the entire thing is about personal choice, laws dictating such one way or the other have no place in government at all. What one person chooses to do with their reproductive system has no effect on someone completely unrelated to them. Anyone arguing against that is just a hopeless authoritarian. Incidentally, the only non-religious backing for pro-life arguments that I have heard of is the one that consists of "who speaks for the unborn." My answer: the parent. If the would-be parent doesn't want to bring an unwanted child into the world, they should not be forced to. Simple as that. Of course there's always the issue of "responsibility" which is a valid point in any case, but then again, accidents happen no matter how careful two people can be. Also, since I am also a proponent of abolishing the IRS, the argument regarding government funding of abortion is also moot.
On a personal level however, I am pro-responsibility. Apply accordingly.
I'm sorry, what?
Dude, I'm not even stating my opinion on the abortion discussion here, I honestly feel I don't have any right to have an opinion on abortion since I have no relevance to it.
What I'm defending here is just a little bit of common sense. You can have any number of reasons to support any side of this argument but you can't just put up something that's entirely conjecture under the pretense of fact.
Now, he could have easily claimed that he felt that abortions lowered crime for this very reason (Although I could just as easily turn around and say I feel that abortions are the sole cause of the death of any kitten given there's just as little verifiable evidence to support either arguments), but that wasn't the case. In the comic is illustrates a graph which implies collated data.
So when I asked what data he had and he pretty much said he had none, I simply illustrated that the argument he holds is entirely meaningless because there's nothing to support his claim, and that the world's more complicated that these two particular subjects you pulled out from the pile and effectively claim they're connected.
Again, I can just as well say that pro-abortion laws are what have caused the economic recession and you'd call me stupid, but here we are assuming abortion has lowered crime largely under the assumption that they're connected somehow because they've loosely happened at the same time(?)
Dude, I'm not even stating my opinion on the abortion discussion here, I honestly feel I don't have any right to have an opinion on abortion since I have no relevance to it.
What I'm defending here is just a little bit of common sense. You can have any number of reasons to support any side of this argument but you can't just put up something that's entirely conjecture under the pretense of fact.
Now, he could have easily claimed that he felt that abortions lowered crime for this very reason (Although I could just as easily turn around and say I feel that abortions are the sole cause of the death of any kitten given there's just as little verifiable evidence to support either arguments), but that wasn't the case. In the comic is illustrates a graph which implies collated data.
So when I asked what data he had and he pretty much said he had none, I simply illustrated that the argument he holds is entirely meaningless because there's nothing to support his claim, and that the world's more complicated that these two particular subjects you pulled out from the pile and effectively claim they're connected.
Again, I can just as well say that pro-abortion laws are what have caused the economic recession and you'd call me stupid, but here we are assuming abortion has lowered crime largely under the assumption that they're connected somehow because they've loosely happened at the same time(?)
Aw crap. I was hoping you'd see that I meant that in a general sense and not as a direct slight toward you.
No, your specific argument in this case is valid as he didn't really point out the documentary in question (which I'm just gonna take a wild guess and say Freakonomics). All I meant is just that... the entire "you lack data" rebuttal is... beyond archaic. Everyone uses it and gets caught up in it, even when it is in no way relevant to the subject at hand.
All I am saying is that, from my point of view, the only evidence anyone needs lies within the Bill of Rights. You even summed it up perfectly:
I honestly feel I don't have any right to have an opinion on abortion since I have no relevance to it.
Exactly. Nobody does, and laws dictating such have no place in government.
No, your specific argument in this case is valid as he didn't really point out the documentary in question (which I'm just gonna take a wild guess and say Freakonomics). All I meant is just that... the entire "you lack data" rebuttal is... beyond archaic. Everyone uses it and gets caught up in it, even when it is in no way relevant to the subject at hand.
All I am saying is that, from my point of view, the only evidence anyone needs lies within the Bill of Rights. You even summed it up perfectly:
I honestly feel I don't have any right to have an opinion on abortion since I have no relevance to it.
Exactly. Nobody does, and laws dictating such have no place in government.
Oh, my apologies, then, actual civility is in short supply around here, so I respect you going out of your way to correct this misunderstanding.
I'm not sure I agree with the assertion that empirical data is an "Archaic" tool in its entirety, but I do agree that it really has no real place in the discussion, even if you could provide proof that abortion has some ancillary benefit/detriment it undermines the significance of the discussion itself. Although my contention here isn't really about this matter and more about my OP attempting this without any actual data of any kind; dressing up conjecture as fact gets my panties in a bunch almost instantaneously.
I'm not sure I agree with the assertion that empirical data is an "Archaic" tool in its entirety, but I do agree that it really has no real place in the discussion, even if you could provide proof that abortion has some ancillary benefit/detriment it undermines the significance of the discussion itself. Although my contention here isn't really about this matter and more about my OP attempting this without any actual data of any kind; dressing up conjecture as fact gets my panties in a bunch almost instantaneously.
If by "around here" you mean the internet... ayup.
I didn't mean to imply that empirical data is in itself archaic (as a libertarian that would be quite counter-productive), but the rebuttal that points out a lack of it is ubiquitous to an annoying degree. That said, yeah, archaic was the wrong word. I also don't think Jeff intended to present conjecture as fact, either. Rather I think it was just a vague statement like one of those "something I heard somewhere that I happen to agree with" sort of situation.
Oi I really need sleep. This thread has made me realise my coherency is bordering nil.
I didn't mean to imply that empirical data is in itself archaic (as a libertarian that would be quite counter-productive), but the rebuttal that points out a lack of it is ubiquitous to an annoying degree. That said, yeah, archaic was the wrong word. I also don't think Jeff intended to present conjecture as fact, either. Rather I think it was just a vague statement like one of those "something I heard somewhere that I happen to agree with" sort of situation.
Oi I really need sleep. This thread has made me realise my coherency is bordering nil.
Comments