Pre-emptive Executions?

[Freedom_from_Chains]

Came across this last night and thought this might actually be a good way to get fundamentalist conservatives on board to support Roe v. Wade. By convincing them that half of all abortions is just executing future criminals, which every conservative likes to be killing something to solve a problem, that could cater to their basic blood lust, and keep them happy that they are doing god's work.

As for the other half, we should convince them that it is just liberals that are being killed as everyone knows only liberal women have abortions, so any children they have would most likely just grow up to vote Democrat.

What do you think; it is just insane enough that they would probably go for it.

May 9, 2005 Issue
Copyright © 2005 The American Conservative



Pre-emptive Executions?

The notion that legalizing abortion drives down crime rates is logically flawed and morally repugnant.


by Steve Sailer


Did legalizing abortion in the early ’70s reduce crime in the late ’90s by allowing “pre-emptive capital punishment” of potential troublemakers? Or did the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, by outmoding shotgun weddings, adoption, and respect for life, instead make more murderous the early ’90s crack wars fought by the first generation of youths to survive legalized abortion?

Since 1999, the University of Chicago economist Steven D. Levitt has been pushing his theory that legal abortion is responsible for half of the recent fall in crime. This assertion is the most prominent element in Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything, the entertaining new book Levitt co-wrote with journalist Stephen J. Dubner.

Despite his claim to be a “rogue economist” (and his excruciating taste in book titles), Levitt is much admired within his profession. In 2003, the American Economics Association awarded him, at the unusually early age of 35, its biennial John Bates Clark medal as the outstanding economist under 40.


(con't) http://www.amconmag.com/2005_05_09/feature.html

Confronting the Judicial War on Faith

[forgethell]

1. Your mistake is

in thinking that conservatives are driven by "blood lust". they are driven, like we are, by their ideas about what constitutes a "good" society.

I have ranted before about the mistake that we make when we decide most conservatives are stupid. It leads to "misunderestimating" them. It is an equally serious mistake to think that their motives are "evil". If we cannot accurately identify their motives, how the hell do we figure out how to convince them that our ideas are better than theirs?

No wonder we keep losing elections.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

2. Your position is completly subjective and flawed

Fundamentalists are not driven by a desire or ideas about what constitutes a good society, although they tell themselves they are and apparently have convinced you of the same. They are driven by an authoritarian need to control others that in fact has a social-psychopathic bloodlust component about it.

Having been subjected to a childhood in a fundamentalist church and having been a republican for many years, I am quite qualified to make a objective opinion as to their true nature. These are not people whom one can persuade or reason with. These are people who can only be "dealt" with, and you are incorrect, they are in fact evil, if there is in fact a reality that can be described as evil. The sooner that Democrats accept that fact, the better chance of saving the republic from them they have.


Confronting the Judicial War on Faith

[forgethell]

3. No doubt some of

them are. Just like many Progressives want to control other people. And may be controlled by blood lust. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, even the sainted Fidel, are all from the Left end of the spectrum. But not all on either side. To lump all conservatives together is the essence of bigotry.

But worse, it is a mistake to do so. We will continue to lose as long as we continue to think like this.

Still to think that the pro-life crowd will approve of abortions for the reason stated is ridiculous. To observe that liberals may be killing off their future generations is just that, an observation, which may or may not be true.

This is just an example of the way many Democrats are thinking nowadays. We not only do not understand our opponents; we make now attempt to do so. We would rather express our own prejudices than give our opponents any credit for a common humanity with us, to consider them people we can reason with, and if not agree with, at least compromise with, so that we can all live peacefully together.

Now, I'm not saying that I understand other people all that well wither, the people I agree with as well as the people that I don't. But I am trying to make the effort to do so. Can you honestly make that statement?

[Freedom_from_Chains]

4. One cannot say that something is true about all in any group

Nor was that my intent to say here. In fact, I would go so far as to say that many who are currently supporting the evangelical political movement really don't understand what they are supporting, ie. They do not understand that their leaders at the top are in fact theocrates.

By the same token, it is still fair to say many of these people are vicious and mean, and I think that is a point that gets lost on many democrates. I see many post on this board that ask the question, "how did we get to where we are today", when the writing has been on the wall for 30 years.

"Still to think that the pro-life crowd will approve of abortions for the reason stated is ridiculous"

Perhaps I should suggest you look up the word satire. Come on, lighten up, it was an early morning post.