tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post7165194976260027516..comments2024-03-27T05:47:21.295-07:00Comments on Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature: Orthodox Objectivism: An Autopsy, Part 2Daniel Barneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comBlogger99125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-55693331605735391952018-12-24T07:45:34.979-08:002018-12-24T07:45:34.979-08:00great blog!
Taxi Melbourne
Melbourne Taxigreat blog!<br /><a href="https://melbourne-taxi.com.au" rel="nofollow">Taxi Melbourne</a><br /><a href="https://melbourne-taxi.com.au" rel="nofollow">Melbourne Taxi</a>silver service taxi melbournehttps://melbourne-taxi.com.aunoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-41976509209846474232018-12-24T07:30:40.104-08:002018-12-24T07:30:40.104-08:00great blog1great blog1Melbourne Airport Taxihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12602304724893847557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-17735339800994686472018-03-23T22:35:33.671-07:002018-03-23T22:35:33.671-07:00"You didn't even bother to provide eviden..."You didn't even bother to provide evidence that people have a right to an abortion to begin with."<br /><br />Why would I have to?<br /><br />For one thing, legally, in the US at least, they already do.<br /><br />But if you mean proving people have an inherent right, then there is no particular evidence of fact that can be ever be provided whether they do or don't, because such rights are moral constructs. There is no right one has simply by virtue of existing - any right can be removed by the application of force.<br /><br />Whether they SHOULD have the right is then a personal moral question. If we start from the assumption that people should begin with all rights to their own bodies, and people have no rights over other people's bodies, then we begin with a baseline of a woman having the right to choose whether or not she ought to spend nine months as an incubator for a fetus.<br /><br />After that, any restriction we as a society put on people's bodies ought to be justified in some way. I can't lock you up in prison for no reason; there should be some sufficient justification for removing your right of freedom.<br /><br />You might argue that the fetus is its own person and thus the woman has no right to end its life, but the counter to that is that if the fetus is its own person then it likewise has no right to exist in the woman's body, at her expense.<br /><br />These are extreme positions, however, and a functioning society generally finds a way to compromise - in this case, making abortion legally more difficult in the third trimester. (Honestly, I'm not sure what the current state of abortion laws are today, but that's how they used to be: you needed a special reason to get a late-term abortion.)<br /><br /><br />"Kind of like the Freedom From Religion Foundation and their desire to destroy war memorials built by veterans to honor their dead friends or threaten some small town with massive legal fees because they had the nerve to put a nativity scene in front of the Fire Department a week before Christmas?"<br /><br />Yeah, kind of like dredging up a completely irrelevant thing done by other people in order to deflect criticism away from your own bad handling of a situation. And it changes nothing. You'll still have to reach an accord with people you probably dislike if you expect to get laws passed to your liking, and without that this whole discussion is fairly academic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-62170534192935996662018-03-23T14:02:10.033-07:002018-03-23T14:02:10.033-07:00I think you're either missing or trying to ign...I think you're either missing or trying to ignore my point. I'm saying that there's no firm evidence that anti-abortion laws CAUSE a decline in the illegitimacy rate. All you've shown is that 1) that rate is lower in South Korea; and 2) they have anti-abortion laws. Given that this "cause" doesn't seem to have any effect in many other countries, you're on very shaky ground to call it a cause at all. <br /><br />In this regard, it's interesting to compare Northern Ireland with the Republic of Ireland. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom with its liberal abortion laws, and has an illegitimacy rate of 43.2%. The Republic of Ireland – a strongly Catholic Country where abortion is still illegal and where even contraceptives were illegal until 1980 – has an illegitimacy rate of 36.5%. If there's any “cause” in operation here, it must be a pretty weak one.Gordon Burkowskinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-85287390044527239672018-03-23T05:16:29.562-07:002018-03-23T05:16:29.562-07:00"Your presentation of these facts is not unbi..."Your presentation of these facts is not unbiased (obviously), even if a statistic in and of itself may be free of bias. And in some cases your very sources are biased - you can't really claim Brian Clowes as an impartial, fact-based observer, for example. How you think you've "proved" anything is a mystery."<br /><br />This is why I went to the trouble of quoting right-wing think tanks, left-wing think tanks, and the US Federal Government. I am the only one here that has went to the trouble of quoting studies and posting statistics. You have offered no evidence to you're counterargument, but just point to my postings as somehow flawed. You didn't even bother to provide evidence that people have a right to an abortion to begin with. Now if I was saying that the Earth was flat or only 6,000 years old, then I would have been flooded with scientific papers claiming otherwise. In this case I haven't. (Gordon came close with pointing out other countries have high illegitimacy rates and have outlawed abortion. Which even then falls flat because he is not considering South Korea. They outlawed abortion in 1953, have a better infant mortality rate than Europe, and an illegitimacy rate that is less than ten percent.)<br /><br />"See, here's one of your biggest hurdles: not being an dismissive asshole to the VERY PEOPLE YOU WILL HAVE TO CONVINCE to take your side."<br /><br />Kind of like the Freedom From Religion Foundation and their desire to destroy war memorials built by veterans to honor their dead friends or threaten some small town with massive legal fees because they had the nerve to put a nativity scene in front of the Fire Department a week before Christmas? Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07366389218759511353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-60747475815212081732018-03-23T00:34:27.256-07:002018-03-23T00:34:27.256-07:00"First the facts were biased, to which I prov..."First the facts were biased, to which I proved otherwise."<br /><br />Well, no, you didn't, not really. Because this has dragged on over the course of several posts and several attempts to sidestep various points, it's no longer convenient to detail and analyze every last word, but: Your presentation of these facts is not unbiased (obviously), even if a statistic in and of itself may be free of bias. And in some cases your very sources are biased - you can't really claim Brian Clowes as an impartial, fact-based observer, for example. How you think you've "proved" anything is a mystery.<br /><br />"Then the facts didn't matter because correlation doesn't prove causation, to which I proved otherwise."<br /><br />Technically, YOU didn't prove anything there, either, just quoted someone else who did the heavy lifting of actually constructing a theory for you. But even that paper is just that - a theory - subject to investigation an criticism. In other words, just because Janet Yellen has a pet theory and got it published, that does not actually make it true. (I mean, if Christians can argue against Darwin's theories so vigorously, everything else is fair game.) Yellen's theory is *plausable* - which is to say, there's a reasonable attempt to show how one thing causes another beyond just throwing out some numbers and asserting them as proof - and it being plausible is at least a better standard of evidence than you were offering - but there's a long way to go before it meets any rigorous standards for fact.<br /><br />"Now we are at the point where I am right, but its pointless."<br /><br />We were always sort of at that point - not necessarily that you were right, but that most of it is pointless. This is a sidestep, because in making your glib little quip here you completely avoid addressing the actual issue at hand. Even if we were to stipulate to the idea of abortion being directly responsible for the downfall of whatever, that still doesn't in any way affect the hurdles in front of the anti-abortion forces here and now, and in the future.<br /><br />"Besides which, if well reasoned arguments backed up by evidence is pointless, then atheists really need to find a hobby and stop bothering people. Stamp collecting is nice, although fishing is my personal favorite."<br /><br />See, here's one of your biggest hurdles: not being an dismissive asshole to the VERY PEOPLE YOU WILL HAVE TO CONVINCE to take your side. You can talk about the economic problems with abortion all you like, but in the end those economic problems will have to be weighed against a variety of other factors, like individual liberties. Some rights and problems take precedence over others. And, like I've stated before, you will have to make a convincing case that stopping abortion NOW will being about a change for the better that will outweigh its negative impacts. (And pointing at what was once in the past isn't really that great of a predictor of how things will go down in the future. If abortion rights activists decades ago failed to accurately predict the impact on society, how can YOU claim to have any better foresight as to how society will react to a ban on abortion?)<br /><br />This has nothing to do with whether or not you quote the Bible, but more to do with whether you can put yourself into the mind of a person with a different perspective than yourself. If you look at a young pregnant woman who's having to make a tough decision about whether or not to carry a fetus to term, and you assume she's only interested in having as much irresponsible sex as possible without consequences, then you sure aren't going to get HER vote. And if you assume that secularists are only concerned about the impact abortion might have on their wallets, then I suspect you'll find yourself mighty disappointed in the reception to your ideas.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-84881959997315440392018-03-22T18:16:17.678-07:002018-03-22T18:16:17.678-07:00I note the implicit admission that your argument d...<br />I note the implicit admission that your argument doesn't seem to be valid for most countries in the world.<br /><br />I also suspect that if the experience of other countries validated your position, you'd be singing a very different song.Gordon Burkowskinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-66031476508756668592018-03-22T16:35:32.541-07:002018-03-22T16:35:32.541-07:00Gordon, if you can point out a country that is the...Gordon, if you can point out a country that is the same as or almost similar to the United States when it comes to Social Responsibilities, Culture, History and Economics yet has different abortion/contraceptives laws, then I am willing to reconsider my position. <br />Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07366389218759511353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-82828729676151410272018-03-22T16:19:20.490-07:002018-03-22T16:19:20.490-07:00(First posted on 3/21/2018 05:41:00 PM)
"Bla...(First posted on 3/21/2018 05:41:00 PM)<br /><br />"Blanket comparisons between countries do not work."<br /><br />Precisely. But they have to if your argument is to make any sense. <br /><br />If some countries have laws against abortion and less use of contraceptives but end with the same results in terms of births out of wedlock, your argument falls to the ground. That's not even getting into the other kinds of antisocial behaviour which you throw into the mix - such as violence and poverty - which are even more resistant to your naive explanations. <br /><br />You're pretending to give a detailed sociological analysis - but listing all the things that piss you off does not establish causal relations between them. And it really, really doesn't even hint at what you or anyone else can do about any of it. If moaning about it makes you feel better, that's fine. But I think it's the only benefit you're going to get.<br /><br />3/21/2018 05:41:00 PM<br /> Gordon Burkowskinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-37838226039966385512018-03-22T11:32:04.725-07:002018-03-22T11:32:04.725-07:00Wow. Talk about begging the question.
I'm no...Wow. Talk about begging the question.<br /><br />I'm not afraid of repeating myself, given that you ignored (or couldn't answer) my main point: "If some countries have laws against abortion and less use of contraceptives but end with the same results in terms of births out of wedlock, your argument falls to the ground."<br /><br />How about dealing with that, instead of vaporing on about swamp travel?Gordon Burkowskinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-80228285041031639132018-03-22T08:48:46.575-07:002018-03-22T08:48:46.575-07:00Burying your head in the sand and pretending that ...Burying your head in the sand and pretending that there is no problem or at the very least not understanding why the problem exists or how it came to be is beyond foolish. Much like a man who had gotten lost in a swamp. In his foolishness he decides to keep going forward deeper into the bog because going back to the point where he made the wrong turn off dry land would be too difficult. Besides which, only a prude Bible-thumping reactionary would think it was a wrong turn to begin with, so forward it is!<br /><br />"You're pretending to give a detailed sociological analysis - but listing all the things that piss you off does not establish causal relations between them."<br /><br />This is an oversimplification of what I posted and is uncalled for. This was not just my personal opinions, but quotes from studies done by the Brookings Institute, Heritage Foundation, the US Federal Reserve, and professors of Criminology. My statistics were provided by the US Census Bureau and the FBI. Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07366389218759511353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-45522205258299673902018-03-21T16:46:40.466-07:002018-03-21T16:46:40.466-07:00Comparing the US to different countries is like co...Comparing the US to different countries is like comparing apples to oranges. Both are fruit produced by trees and sold as juice, but are radically different in other regards. An example of this would be Italy, Portugal, and France. All three of which are Roman Catholic countries located on continental Europe, but if you look at the illegitimacy rate, all three are radically different. From the numbers taken in 2010, Italy is better than the US, while Portugal is slightly worse, and France is really worse. South Korea, who also beats all Europe when it comes to life expectancy, is far much better at less than ten percent. Comparing the US to Portugal is akin to comparing Vermont to Texas. Blanket comparisons between countries do not work. <br /><br />I primarily focus on America because I am an American and I do not want the country that I love and call home to fall into ruin. Hence my primary focus as to what is better for here. You have to keep in mind that there are long term social/economic factors at work here. Unless you are willing to completely scrap the social welfare system, then a sustainable population is necessary. The child aborted today (or poverty stricken bastard) means one less contributing taxpayer and eventually less money for your Social Security Check. <br /><br />(The illegitimate child and the immigrant both share the same characteristic in that both of them are drains on the System. What we have in the US and in Europe can only work if you have more people pitching in than taking out. As Milton Friedman once pointed out; you can have a welfare state or you can have open borders, but you cannot have both.)Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07366389218759511353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-33490676739073590822018-03-21T13:41:05.646-07:002018-03-21T13:41:05.646-07:00As I've noted before, there are other countrie...As I've noted before, there are other countries on this planet besides the United States of America. There are. Really.<br /><br />Virtually every country in Latin America except Uruguay has laws forbidding abortion in most cases. And because of economic factors, contraception isn't nearly as common as here. In spite of this, well over half of all births are out of wedlock. <br /><br />Meanwhile, in European countries with liberal abortion laws and easily available contraception - such as Denmark, Britain and Sweden - between 45 and 55% of births are out of wedlock.<br /><br />If your argument was valid, there would be sharply differing figures in the numbers from these two continents. There aren't. If anything, the European figures are a little better.<br /><br />Yes, there has been a massive rise in births outside marriage – worldwide and in countries with radically different laws and value systems. There are undoubtedly reasons for this. But I doubt that any plausible analysis of this issue has much to do with the simplistic and American-oriented explanations which you are offering here.Gordon Burkowskinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-52215395024931679702018-03-21T09:12:27.626-07:002018-03-21T09:12:27.626-07:00First the facts were biased, to which I proved oth...First the facts were biased, to which I proved otherwise. Then the facts didn't matter because correlation doesn't prove causation, to which I proved otherwise. Now we are at the point where I am right, but its pointless. <br /><br />"How would you even sell it to secularists"<br /><br />I have used nothing but well researched articles and valid sociological studies on the breakdown of the two parent home, one of which was written by our current Federal Reserve Chairman, Janet Yellen. I have not used a single religious argument for my position. Have I quoted the Bible at all during this debate? No, I have not. Besides which, if well reasoned arguments backed up by evidence is pointless, then atheists really need to find a hobby and stop bothering people. Stamp collecting is nice, although fishing is my personal favorite.<br /><br />Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07366389218759511353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-71362740053189975832018-03-20T10:43:19.233-07:002018-03-20T10:43:19.233-07:00Well, that's a nice try at theorizing how it h...Well, that's a nice try at theorizing how it happened (how long did you have to search for it?) - though I suspect the abortion rate before abortion was legal may be higher than some people think, mainly because it wouldn't be as well reported.<br /><br />Even if that were true, however, the problem is that now that the genie's out of the bottle, so to speak, there's still no viable plan for whatever it is you want to do, here and now, today.<br /><br />That is, do you honestly think that making abortion illegal (if you even could) would re-create some kind of "shotgun marriage" custom? That in today's more liberal culture, you could just somehow make men more responsible, and make women withhold sex without that implicit promise? That custom was a product of its times, which I believe have irrevocably passed.<br /><br />How would you even sell it to secularists (since you opened this by saying you could make a secular case for stopping abortion)? You have to make a case that's able to convince moderates to your cause, and you still haven't really addressed the hurdle of justifying you telling another person (women, mostly) how to handle their pregnancies. You might be able - maybe - to get an all-Republican-controlled government to overturn Roe v. Wade and legislate to forbid abortions, but you can bet the other side of the political spectrum would then devote its time to overturning the overturn.<br /><br />Good luck with that! As contentious as you've been, I'm sure you'll be able to smooth-talk people right into joining your cause. Absolutely sure.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-82321464880820853492018-03-19T12:52:33.119-07:002018-03-19T12:52:33.119-07:00"Until the early 1970s, shotgun marriage was ..."Until the early 1970s, shotgun marriage was the norm in premarital sexual relations. The custom was succinctly stated by one San Francisco resident in the late 1960s: “If a girl gets pregnant you married her. There wasn’t no choice. So I married her.”<br /><br />Since 1969, however, shotgun marriage has gradually disappeared (see table 1). For whites, in particular, the shotgun marriage rate began its decline at almost the same time as the reproductive technology shock. And the disappearance of shotgun marriages has contributed heavily to the rise in the out-of-wedlock birth rate for both white and black women. In fact, about 75 percent of the increase in the white out-of-wedlock first-birth rate, and about 60 percent of the black increase, between 1965 and 1990 is directly attributable to the decline in shotgun marriages. If the shotgun marriage rate had remained steady from 1965 to 1990, white out-of-wedlock births would have risen only 25 percent as much as they have. Black out-of-wedlock births would have increased only 40 percent as much.<br /><br />What links liberalized contraception and abortion with the declining shotgun marriage rate? Before 1970, the stigma of unwed motherhood was so great that few women were willing to bear children outside of marriage. The only circumstance that would cause women to engage in sexual activity was a promise of marriage in the event of pregnancy. Men were willing to make (and keep) that promise for they knew that in leaving one woman they would be unlikely to find another who would not make the same demand. Even women who would be willing to bear children out-of-wedlock could demand a promise of marriage in the event of pregnancy.<br /><br />The increased availability of contraception and abortion made shotgun weddings a thing of the past. Women who were willing to get an abortion or who reliably used contraception no longer found it necessary to condition sexual relations on a promise of marriage in the event of pregnancy. But women who wanted children, who did not want an abortion for moral or religious reasons, or who were unreliable in their use of contraception found themselves pressured to participate in premarital sexual relations without being able to exact a promise of marriage in case of pregnancy. These women feared, correctly, that if they refused sexual relations, they would risk losing their partners. Sexual activity without commitment was increasingly expected in premarital relationships." https://www.brookings.edu/research/an-analysis-of-out-of-wedlock-births-in-the-united-states/Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07366389218759511353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-90433625499688452472018-03-15T11:14:14.917-07:002018-03-15T11:14:14.917-07:00"1940 Abortion is Illegal - 4% illegitimacy r..."1940 Abortion is Illegal - 4% illegitimacy rate<br /><br />TODAY Abortion IS legal - 40% illegitimacy rate"<br /><br />But again, that's NOT PROOF. Correlation is not causation. The fact that the majority of criminals might like chocolate does not mean that chocolate causes crime, but that's the kind of logic you're presenting here. You have no workable hypothesis as to HOW one stat causes the other, you just throw them together and assume it must be so. All of your so-called evidence is like this, statistics with no context. It is not hard to come up with a reasonable counter-theory as to why these stats might be this way without blaming abortion itself:<br /><br />For example (and I am not claiming this is necessarily 100% true, just that it MIGHT be true if all the evidence you give is of this kind): Back when abortion was illegal, that did not mean abortion never happened, just that it was kept quiet and done in "back alleys", so people might have been more discreet about having abortions. Also, there was a greater stigma against unwed mothers, so that also was often a factor, with people hiding and lying about such things. Today, there is much less stigma about one-person parentage, and few except for a certain number up on their moral high-horse consider such kids "illegitimate" (as if they are somehow less of a person because through no fault of their own their parents didn't marry). That might easily explain why the single-parent rate has increased while having little to do with the legality of abortion.<br /><br />You still don't have any answer as to HOW stopping abortion would lower the rate of unwed parents! You don't even try. That's probably because you can't have any answer that couldn't be immediately countered. Do you think bringing more fetuses to term would magically make an irresponsible father become more responsible? I don't, and there's no rational reason to assume so. And spitting out more stats upon stats doesn't change that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-28071879639267482492018-03-15T10:40:36.784-07:002018-03-15T10:40:36.784-07:00This is cherry-picking of the worst kind. Virtual...This is cherry-picking of the worst kind. Virtually all - and I mean all - of the countries with the best life expectancy figures and child mortality figures have universal health care ("socialized medicine", as you call it). How about talking about the first 20 countries? But of course, that wouldn't fit the narrative, would it?<br /><br />No surprise here: health insurance arrangements in the U.S. are both morally and economically indefensible. So its defenders have no choice but to play fast and loose with the facts. <br /><br />Gordon Burkowskinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-73543975949308362552018-03-15T09:58:32.076-07:002018-03-15T09:58:32.076-07:00I am a veteran, and jokes about the VA are more th...I am a veteran, and jokes about the VA are more than justifiable. <br /><br />If you look at the numbers for Under 5 Mortality Rates, the US comes in at #32. Which looks bad, however this does not make a very good case for socialized medicine. United Kingdom comes in at #24, while Canada comes in at #28. Greece is #19, which means you would have a better chance of living to age 5 then #23 Switzerland. Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07366389218759511353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-46046521338631271182018-03-15T08:55:07.712-07:002018-03-15T08:55:07.712-07:00Among the countries of the world, the U.S. ranks e...Among the countries of the world, the U.S. ranks either 31st or or 43rd in life expectancy - depending whose numbers you pick. Infant mortality rates in the U.S. rank 35th or 38th. In other words, there are 34 countries out there where a child has a better chance of making it to his or her 5th birthday than one born in the United States of America. Those figures are a disgrace. Maybe you should think about what to do about such numbers - instead of making wisecrackks about the VA.Gordon Burkowskinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-53484503086359563822018-03-15T08:16:42.653-07:002018-03-15T08:16:42.653-07:00That sensible person has never had to deal with th...That sensible person has never had to deal with the VA.Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07366389218759511353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-64073590184393377352018-03-15T07:56:24.090-07:002018-03-15T07:56:24.090-07:00A sensible person might point out that the Barbara...A sensible person might point out that the Barbara Wagner story is an argument for universal medicare. The same states that are up in arms about assisted suicide have no problem in letting thousands of their poorer residents die because they can't afford private insurance.Gordon Burkowskinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-65898690125669640612018-03-15T06:22:07.525-07:002018-03-15T06:22:07.525-07:00The Netherlands has a rather progressive attitude ...The Netherlands has a rather progressive attitude to abortion. They went and took the practice to its logical conclusion by expanding the subjects of disposal to not only include unwanted children, but the sick and the elderly through assisted suicide laws. Which kind of reminds me of this story from Oregon about a terminally ill woman named Barbara Wagner. (Oregon has a Medically Assisted Suicide Law) Her insurance company sent her a letter saying that they will not cover the cost of her cancer medication, but will gladly pay for her to kill herself. There is a similar story about a California mother of four who was told that her chemotherapy will be denied, but her suicide pills only have a $1.20 copay. Her cancer drugs were previously covered, until California passed it's own Assisted Suicide Law. What is even more disturbing, is that there are reports coming out of the Netherlands about doctors making the decision for you. Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07366389218759511353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-34547596156992357382018-03-15T05:00:58.330-07:002018-03-15T05:00:58.330-07:00"But you can't prove that reducing aborti..."But you can't prove that reducing abortion or imposing any other form of your moral restraint would achieve that. In fact, reducing abortion would by necessity increase the incidence of one-parent families, so how you figure that the things you want would magically achieve your utopia is beyond rationality."<br /><br />1940 Abortion is Illegal - 4% illegitimacy rate<br /><br />TODAY Abortion IS legal - 40% illegitimacy rate<br /><br />You are an idiot. I do not believe in "utopia". It is my belief that human nature is unchangeable and that man is seriously flawed. Just look at all the damage done by people thinking that man is some rational, blank-slate bit of machinery. Radical Atheists going around telling everybody that we just need to throw away grandpa's superstitions and then things will be better. Progressives saying that another couple of billion to end poverty when each time we do it it keeps getting worse and worse. Libertarians who think that multinational businesses are run by angels and we just need to get rid of that damned regulation. It never works, and it will never work. We have thrown away thousands of years of societal evolution just because we have this new gadget and have figured out a way to pass the buck off to someone else. We have replaced the Gods of The Copybook Headings with gilded idols of our own genitals.Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07366389218759511353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-38399965601614767122018-03-15T01:34:08.634-07:002018-03-15T01:34:08.634-07:00"There is definite evidence that the breakdow..."There is definite evidence that the breakdown of the American Family is directly related to increased use of drugs, crime, and poverty."<br /><br />But related how? Is it the cause, or a symptom? Are the drugs causing the breakdown, or are the drugs being taken because of the breakdown? My proposition is you don't actually know, though you assume you know.<br /><br />"I would be very happy to deal with the consequences of a world full of intact families, low levels of poverty, and reduced rates of crime."<br /><br />But you can't prove that reducing abortion or imposing any other form of your moral restraint would achieve that. In fact, reducing abortion would by necessity increase the incidence of one-parent families, so how you figure that the things you want would magically achieve your utopia is beyond rationality. I suppose you figure God will just step in and make it work somehow, but you'll have to pardon me if I don't accept your logic with its flaws.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com