Added: 2 years ago
From: johnj2428
Views: 7,274
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (25)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • I think it really is heavily connected to poverty, and it does stand to reason...less children born into poverty means less crime...Seeing as all the statistics, general knowledge, reason and common sense point to the fact that there are higher rates of unwanted pregnancy among women who are...shall we say...less motivated to work hard to get out of poverty.

  • i call BS

  • Stossel is a conservative douche

  • @Saebeck32 How does that cock taste after it's pulled out of your ass?

  • @Saebeck32 He's also a very intelligent douche

  • @Saebeck32 Much better than being a liberal douche.

  • Abortion should not only be legal, but free- paid for by taxpayers. Less unwanted, disadvantaged children lends to a healthier society. Legal, safe, free or affordable access to abortion is good for society on the whole.

  • @andotech And it saves tax payers money in the long run. No money to house prisoners. No money for welfare recipients.

  • It has nothing to do with race or class. When a child is not wanted, mothers treat them differently. This affects the child psychologically.

  • The author maybe overlooking TAXES!

    Throughout most of the 20th century the income tax has been high.

    President Reagan lowered it.

    And it maybe the lower taxes rate that led to more jobs, which led to less violence.

  • @papeluso wow...I am not saying its not possible, but its about as likely as this abortion theory.

  • @papeluso  yeah that's the ticket....hahahaha

  • @papeluso Yeah, because poor drug dealers in inner cities, with no legit job, getting welfare are real concerned about taxes going down a percentage. The legalization of Roe v. Wade is more likely.

  • @xothegirlz I actually think you prove my point.

    Drug dealers are trying to make money; and high taxes prevent job creation.

    What else are the poor suppose to do?

    (P.S. - As an example: see the 1970s when tax rates were around 70 plus percent and the drug problem was out of control.)

  • I don't see how people can disagree with this. Unwanted children, children unwanted for WHATEVER reason, without a doubt have more of a chance to group up and become criminals. Not all, like the President of Black Americans says, but some. You eliminate the unwanted children who grow up to become criminals and that's a drop in crime, period. It's not racist nor is it about murder, except for the murder of those potential criminals no longer on the street.

  • @CavemanShelbs By your theory, we should have had an bigger increase in crime, because after Roe v. Wade, the amount of out of wedlock births increased. Christopher Foote and Goetz found errors in the statistical equations Levitt did, and when doing it correctly, concluded that legalized abortion led to an increase of crime, according to Levitt's data. John Whitley and John R. Lott concluded that legalized abortion INCREASED the murder rate, on average, by 7%. Look up Freedomnomics.

  • @bdg323 Anything endorsed by Ann Coulter, and most things prefaced with the word "freedom", especially when written specifically as a counterpoint to something perceived as unforgivably "liberal" by the conservative right, is generally not something worth looking up. So thank you, but I like to read things that actually cite their sources (unlike folks such as Ann Coulter who cite things entirely out of context and end up misleading readers more than had they not cited anything at all).

  • @chingon255 Huh? I never referenced Ann Coulter, and I did cite my source, Freedomnomics by John R. lott Jr.

  • Essentially this argument is lets kill babies before they can grow up to be criminals. Well why not just kill everybody then? It's like the "go back and time and kill Hitler" argument. Only there's no garantee that baby's going to be Hitler. Therefore it's even MORE repugnant.

    I'd rather have large crime rates then an authoritarian government that euthanizes children for complacentcy and order.

  • That is not the argument. There is a large difference between letting a woman choose not to have an unwanted baby than the government engaging in eugenics.

    The simple facts are that a baby, that is unwanted and born to a single, uneducated, and poor mother is statistically FAR more likely to commit violent crime than someone not born under those circumstances. The fact that you can find exceptions doesn't disprove statistics or their importance.

  • Al Sharpton has alot of nerve getting upset about the statement of a choicer when he himself is prochoice. Atleast that asshole actually rationalizes his demented ideology. Al Sharpton just argues "Hurpdurp! Women! Hurpdurp! Choice!"

    Not to use the tired religious excuses. But the Bible does make a statement about the sins of the father/mother will not be inherited to the child. (Continued cause apparently youtube likes people posting dumbed down posts with it's limited character space)

  • @JimProfitCat You had enough room to include Biblical reference, therefore dumbing down your post on your own.

  • abortion is murder

    so death should not be a penalty to a child who commits no crime yet

  • Comment removed

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more