Abortion decreases crime rates

[Titanic]

Less unwanted children born out of wedlock means a lower crime rate.

Show me mathematically where I'm wrong.

Show me the proof that THAT statement is accurate. And who is to decide who is "unwanted" and who is "wanted"?


(This is one of those issues that really shows the difference between the conservative and liberal mindsets..... and for the life of me, I can't figure out the liberal stance)

Is anyone actually taking a stance here?

Implying that abortion is a GOOD thing because it "decreases" the crime rate is a stance.


I don't care if abortion made the crime rate fall to ZERO (which if all babies were aborted it would drop to zero because the human race would die out) , it's still wrong.

Of course, I forgot, you only love the freedoms and civil liberties that you like.

[the1brother]

How is abortion wrong?

If a woman gets raped and gets pregnant as a result, she shouldn't have the right to terminate the pregnancy?

A fetus less than 10 weeks old is not a sentient being. It's not a "murder" to abort it.

Why does it matter if the baby is sentient or not at this period? It is still the same person as the sentient man/woman that it's going to grow into.

Back to topic, snorri is saying that less people means more resources to go around, and hence, more people will be driven to crime. There's a few problems with that. The amount of resources available is not a fixed amount. It is largely dependent on how much it is being produced. Who produces the resources? People. If you start killing off people, then there will be less people to produce resources and the will be less resources to go around. Is there more crime today then there was a thousand or two thousand years ago? There are a whole lot more people today than at those periods.

[thegreekdog]

Yours truly disagreed and gave the drug dealer example, positing that criminals are criminals because they would rather do that than work at a supermarket (or whatever). Mr. natty_dread (a/k/a Mr. Scorpio) indicated that people dealt drugs because they had to pay for their habit.

My point being, you can't just bundle criminals or drug dealers or drug addicts in to one group and try to find some kind of universal reason which makes them criminals, drug dealers or drug addicts.

There are various reasons, depending on circumstances.

Sure, some are criminals because they'd rather do that than work at some supermarket with lousy pay.

And some are just bored kids who do it for kicks.

Some do crime because of socio-economic reasons: lack of education, living conditions, poverty, etc. This does not justificate crime, but explains some of the reasons why people turn criminals.

Abortions won't decrease crime per se. Making abortions a viable alternative to giving birth to unwanted babies in poor conditions might decrease crime somewhat, but a much better solution would be to improve the living conditions of the people who are likely to become criminals or drug addicts. When people have less reasons to commit crimes, there will be less crimes.

Yes, that's also exactly my point. The OP (and Snorri) posit that more abortions (i.e. less people) necessarily equals lower crime rates.

[natty dread]

Why does it matter if the baby is sentient or not at this period? It is still the same person as the sentient man/woman that it's going to grow into.

No it's not. It's not even a person yet.

Furthermore, it is not set at that time what kind of person the fetus would grow up to. Environmental factors, interaction with other people, chance, all play a part, and there's no way to know. And don't throw me any deterministic bullshit either...

Also it matters, becuase if we need to weigh the rights of an unborn fetus that is not a sentient being yet against the rights of the mother who is a sentient being, the choice should be clear.

[72o]

Less unwanted children born out of wedlock means a lower crime rate.

Show me mathematically where I'm wrong.

Show me the proof that THAT statement is accurate. And who is to decide who is "unwanted" and who is "wanted"?


(This is one of those issues that really shows the difference between the conservative and liberal mindsets..... and for the life of me, I can't figure out the liberal stance)

I was making fun of someone else's post in this thread. The joke was that it's impossible to "mathematically" prove or disprove certain theories or assumptions.

Although I do believe the statement is true, I don't have any proof of it.

I think the "wanted" and "unwanted" determination is pretty cut and dry. If a pregnant woman doesn't want to have a child, and would abort the pregnancy if it were legal and free, that's an "unwanted" pregnancy.

It is my belief that "less fortunate members of our society"" (see stupid people referenced in my previous post in this thread) are far more likely to commit crimes. I'm sure there's some statistics to back this up somewhere, but I don't have the patience to look for it. Unfortunately, the lovely social programs that liberals love so much encourage these less fortunate people to reproduce at a higher rate than fortunate people. Since there's more of them, and they're more likely to commit crimes, reducing their numbers would reduce crime rates.

Because of these incentives, I don't think abortions would occur in these segments of the population in high enough numbers to eliminate all "unwanted" pregnancies, even if abortions were free and legal. There's too much money in having another kid, if you're already a ward of the state. If we could do away with these incentives, then offering free abortions would have a positive impact on crime rate.

I am VERY conservative on most issues, but abortion is not one of them. I'm all for abortions. I just wish that the people having them were the ones that "should" be having abortions. The ones that take their fifteen screaming children to walmart and let them run free. The ones that bring their 7 kids to a restaurant on kids eat free night and only pay for a salad, tip shitty, and complain the whole time about the service. The ones that let other people claim their kids on a tax return so they can get the Earned Income Credit and split the money. The ones that depend on their government check coming on the 1st of every month so they can get their nails done and put some more minutes on their prepaid cell phone.

[Snorri1234]

We're not talking about underage drinking or smoking pot, we're talking about crime. You think you would start smoking crack if you had a friend who smoked crack?

Edit: Or started robbing old people because your friends were robbing old people?

YES! Absolutely yes!

You think people are in gangs because "they lack resources" and not because all their friends are in gangs? You think people are in the Italian mafia because, well, we don't have enough food? Do you really, really think that?

What the fucking f*ck?

You're the one saying that people only do things because their friends do it, and nothing else. Like poverty and lack of social mobility don't mean a goddamn thing. By your logic criminals would never exist. And crime would be the same in every town and city. The absurdity of your claims is striking.

If you seriously think that if a friend of yours starts smoking crack that you will too then you must've either led a very sheltered life or you're ridiculously gullible.

[thegreekdog]

We're not talking about underage drinking or smoking pot, we're talking about crime. You think you would start smoking crack if you had a friend who smoked crack?

Edit: Or started robbing old people because your friends were robbing old people?

YES! Absolutely yes!

You think people are in gangs because "they lack resources" and not because all their friends are in gangs? You think people are in the Italian mafia because, well, we don't have enough food? Do you really, really think that?

What the fucking f*ck?

You're the one saying that people only do things because their friends do it, and nothing else. Like poverty and lack of social mobility don't mean a goddamn thing. By your logic criminals would never exist. And crime would be the same in every town and city. The absurdity of your claims is striking.

If you seriously think that if a friend of yours starts smoking crack that you will too then you must've either led a very sheltered life or you're ridiculously gullible.

I don't think that (probably because I have not led a sheltered life and I'm not gullible... I'm also not stupid). C'mon now. All i'm saying is that there are reasons for people committing crimes that have less to do with "lack of resources" or "overpopulation" and have more to do with things like "I can make more money this way" and "all my friends do it" and "lack of good parenting."

[Snorri1234]

Back to topic, snorri is saying that less people means more resources to go around, and hence, more people will be driven to crime. There's a few problems with that. The amount of resources available is not a fixed amount. It is largely dependent on how much it is being produced. Who produces the resources? People. If you start killing off people, then there will be less people to produce resources and the will be less resources to go around.

The amount of resources is ultimately a fixed amount. A patch of land can only support so much food, there is only so much room in a city, there's only so much time in a day you can make money.

But more importantly, it's not a simple linear function. The more people you get, the harder it is to provide them all with enough resources. 10 people can easily provide for 10 people, but 1000 people might only provide the same for 990 people. And if you start to think in families and not simply people, then it gets even more skewed. It is harder for a single mother to provide for 4 kids than it is for two parents to provide for 2 kids. That immediately means less resources for those kids.

[Snorri1234]

I don't think that (probably because I have not led a sheltered life and I'm not gullible... I'm also not stupid). C'mon now. All i'm saying is that there are reasons for people committing crimes that have less to do with "lack of resources" or "overpopulation" and have more to do with things like "I can make more money this way" and "all my friends do it" and "lack of good parenting."

And I am saying that those reasons are directly influenced by "lack of resources". I am not using it as a personal reason, I am using it as the overall explanation for why crime begins and why crime-rates differ from place to place.

"all my friends do it" leads one to ask why all your friends are doing it. And why other friends in other places aren't doing the same. The only difference I see is (unless you're going with 72o's "stupid people" explanation) poverty. And that means less things and less acces to things, i.e. "lack of resources".

And that's why I argue that less people means a lower crime-rate. With less people there is less poverty (at least here) because the resources are divided over fewer people. It probably isn't that easy (there are other factors too) but I think it's a good basic rule.

[Titanic]

I don't think that (probably because I have not led a sheltered life and I'm not gullible... I'm also not stupid). C'mon now. All i'm saying is that there are reasons for people committing crimes that have less to do with "lack of resources" or "overpopulation" and have more to do with things like "I can make more money this way" and "all my friends do it" and "lack of good parenting."

And I am saying that those reasons are directly influenced by "lack of resources". I am not using it as a personal reason, I am using it as the overall explanation for why crime begins and why crime-rates differ from place to place.

"all my friends do it" leads one to ask why all your friends are doing it. And why other friends in other places aren't doing the same. The only difference I see is (unless you're going with 72o's "stupid people" explanation) poverty. And that means less things and less acces to things, i.e. "lack of resources".

And that's why I argue that less people means a lower crime-rate. With less people there is less poverty (at least here) because the resources are divided over fewer people. It probably isn't that easy (there are other factors too) but I think it's a good basic rule.

Poverty stricken people don't normally turn to crime because of a lack of resources, its because of abd parenting. Studies have shown that parenting is a bigger influence on how successful the child then income is. Its just that a lot more of parents on lower income can't be a good parents due to time constraints, financial constraints, too many children, single parent, unable to counter bad influences from neighbourhood etc...

[thegreekdog]

I don't think that (probably because I have not led a sheltered life and I'm not gullible... I'm also not stupid). C'mon now. All i'm saying is that there are reasons for people committing crimes that have less to do with "lack of resources" or "overpopulation" and have more to do with things like "I can make more money this way" and "all my friends do it" and "lack of good parenting."

And I am saying that those reasons are directly influenced by "lack of resources". I am not using it as a personal reason, I am using it as the overall explanation for why crime begins and why crime-rates differ from place to place.

"all my friends do it" leads one to ask why all your friends are doing it. And why other friends in other places aren't doing the same. The only difference I see is (unless you're going with 72o's "stupid people" explanation) poverty. And that means less things and less acces to things, i.e. "lack of resources".

And that's why I argue that less people means a lower crime-rate. With less people there is less poverty (at least here) because the resources are divided over fewer people. It probably isn't that easy (there are other factors too) but I think it's a good basic rule.

Yeah, but like I said before, there's a difference between stealing bread to feed your hungry family and dealing drugs because you don't want to work at McDonald's. And I think there are a whole lot more people in the latter category than in the former category.

[Johnny Rockets]

Poverty stricken people don't normally turn to crime because of a lack of resources, its because of abd parenting. Studies have shown that parenting is a bigger influence on how successful the child then income is. Its just that a lot more of parents on lower income can't be a good parents due to time constraints, financial constraints, too many children, single parent, unable to counter bad influences from neighbourhood etc...

If you can't raise your kids properly because of time or financial restraints, or you live in a bad neibourhood, then WTF are you having kids for? Why have a baby when you are not set up to properly care for one?

And Yes they Do turn to crime. But it's not as simple as that. The poor, generally are (excluding handicapped, ill or disabled) under educated BECAUSE of bad parenting.
The under educated (henceforth called: stupid) make bad choices like:
-engaging in crimes they are not smart enough to get away with.
- having more kids they are unable to raise.
- getting addicted to drugs and alcohol.

Their stupid kids grow up and breed more stupid kids, and the cycle goes round and round.

Give them free abortions. Hell, PAY them to get them. Pay them 5000.00 each to get sterilized. ( Reversible of course...) This would be cheap when you consider the long term costs it would offset.

Poverty rates would plunge in three generations. Crime would be reduced, productivity would increase thus enlarging the tax base, addictions and the cost of treating and incarceration would shrink.

But Nooooooooo.......everyone has a right to f*ck it all up for the rest of us. Breed like rabbits, abuse and neglect your kids, f*ck them up royally and let them spawn the next generation of society's cancer.

Remember that having and raising a child in a safe, healthy and loving environment is the most important job anyone will ever have, because THAT is the future of our species.
It should not be a RIGHT to participate in that future, but a privilege. A privilege earned by proving that the rights of your child, that should supersede yours Every Time are safeguarded. This proof is shown my meeting criteria on your education, ability, income, lack of addictions, and child related offences. ( Abuse, violent crime, ect. )


JRockets

[Snorri1234]

I don't think that (probably because I have not led a sheltered life and I'm not gullible... I'm also not stupid). C'mon now. All i'm saying is that there are reasons for people committing crimes that have less to do with "lack of resources" or "overpopulation" and have more to do with things like "I can make more money this way" and "all my friends do it" and "lack of good parenting."

And I am saying that those reasons are directly influenced by "lack of resources". I am not using it as a personal reason, I am using it as the overall explanation for why crime begins and why crime-rates differ from place to place.

"all my friends do it" leads one to ask why all your friends are doing it. And why other friends in other places aren't doing the same. The only difference I see is (unless you're going with 72o's "stupid people" explanation) poverty. And that means less things and less acces to things, i.e. "lack of resources".

And that's why I argue that less people means a lower crime-rate. With less people there is less poverty (at least here) because the resources are divided over fewer people. It probably isn't that easy (there are other factors too) but I think it's a good basic rule.

Yeah, but like I said before, there's a difference between stealing bread to feed your hungry family and dealing drugs because you don't want to work at McDonald's. And I think there are a whole lot more people in the latter category than in the former category.

And like I continue to say, you are missing the point. It's like you are unable to read or something.

I don't care about teh personal reasons. They are not important to my point. If you are faced with the choice between dealing drugs and flipping burgers then that means you already have a lack of education and probably lived in a poor area.

[thegreekdog]

So why don't they just flip burgers then? You're completely ignoring that choice. Why don't people choose crime, choose flipping burgers instead? Lack of resources? Um, no. It must be something else.

[72o]

Poverty stricken people don't normally turn to crime because of a lack of resources, its because of abd parenting. Studies have shown that parenting is a bigger influence on how successful the child then income is. Its just that a lot more of parents on lower income can't be a good parents due to time constraints, financial constraints, too many children, single parent, unable to counter bad influences from neighbourhood etc...

If you can't raise your kids properly because of time or financial restraints, or you live in a bad neibourhood, then WTF are you having kids for? Why have a baby when you are not set up to properly care for one?

And Yes they Do turn to crime. But it's not as simple as that. The poor, generally are (excluding handicapped, ill or disabled) under educated BECAUSE of bad parenting.
The under educated (henceforth called: stupid) make bad choices like:
-engaging in crimes they are not smart enough to get away with.
- having more kids they are unable to raise.
- getting addicted to drugs and alcohol.

Their stupid kids grow up and breed more stupid kids, and the cycle goes round and round.

Give them free abortions. Hell, PAY them to get them. Pay them 5000.00 each to get sterilized. ( Reversible of course...) This would be cheap when you consider the long term costs it would offset.

Poverty rates would plunge in three generations. Crime would be reduced, productivity would increase thus enlarging the tax base, addictions and the cost of treating and incarceration would shrink.

But Nooooooooo.......everyone has a right to f*ck it all up for the rest of us. Breed like rabbits, abuse and neglect your kids, f*ck them up royally and let them spawn the next generation of society's cancer.

Remember that having and raising a child in a safe, healthy and loving environment is the most important job anyone will ever have, because THAT is the future of our species.
It should not be a RIGHT to participate in that future, but a privilege. A privilege earned by proving that the rights of your child, that should supersede yours Every Time are safeguarded. This proof is shown my meeting criteria on your education, ability, income, lack of addictions, and child related offences. ( Abuse, violent crime, ect. )


JRockets

My new favorite person on the forums. Amen, brother.

[Snorri1234]

So why don't they just flip burgers then? You're completely ignoring that choice. Why don't people choose crime, choose flipping burgers instead? Lack of resources? Um, no. It must be something else.

Because flipping burgers isn't as profitable? Isn't associated with such a high pay-off after a few years? Has low status?
f*ck if I know the personal reason for the choice, but I just said I don't fucking care about them.

Why am I not a drug-dealer? Could it possibly be because I had better options than selling crack or flipping burgers?


It is not important why people personally choose crime. Because we can't find out all of them. We simply see that in an environment where there are so few choices and crime like that is actually a viable option, there are more people who go for crime.

[Titanic]

Poverty stricken people don't normally turn to crime because of a lack of resources, its because of abd parenting. Studies have shown that parenting is a bigger influence on how successful the child then income is. Its just that a lot more of parents on lower income can't be a good parents due to time constraints, financial constraints, too many children, single parent, unable to counter bad influences from neighbourhood etc...

If you can't raise your kids properly because of time or financial restraints, or you live in a bad neibourhood, then WTF are you having kids for? Why have a baby when you are not set up to properly care for one?

And Yes they Do turn to crime. But it's not as simple as that. The poor, generally are (excluding handicapped, ill or disabled) under educated BECAUSE of bad parenting.
The under educated (henceforth called: stupid) make bad choices like:
-engaging in crimes they are not smart enough to get away with.
- having more kids they are unable to raise.
- getting addicted to drugs and alcohol.

Their stupid kids grow up and breed more stupid kids, and the cycle goes round and round.

Give them free abortions. Hell, PAY them to get them. Pay them 5000.00 each to get sterilized. ( Reversible of course...) This would be cheap when you consider the long term costs it would offset.

Poverty rates would plunge in three generations. Crime would be reduced, productivity would increase thus enlarging the tax base, addictions and the cost of treating and incarceration would shrink.

But Nooooooooo.......everyone has a right to f*ck it all up for the rest of us. Breed like rabbits, abuse and neglect your kids, f*ck them up royally and let them spawn the next generation of society's cancer.

Remember that having and raising a child in a safe, healthy and loving environment is the most important job anyone will ever have, because THAT is the future of our species.
It should not be a RIGHT to participate in that future, but a privilege. A privilege earned by proving that the rights of your child, that should supersede yours Every Time are safeguarded. This proof is shown my meeting criteria on your education, ability, income, lack of addictions, and child related offences. ( Abuse, violent crime, ect. )


JRockets

I'm not defending these people, just sying what the facts show. I agree with a lot of what you said, but unfortunately our freedom means that other people have the freedom to be "stupid".

[72o]

I'm not defending these people, just sying what the facts show. I agree with a lot of what you said, but unfortunately our freedom means that other people have the freedom to be "stupid".

I agree, but if you use incentives to promote positive results instead of negative ones, you'll get the desired response. Like JR said, pay them to have abortions or be sterilized. That'd be better than paying them to have children.

[Titanic]

I'm not defending these people, just sying what the facts show. I agree with a lot of what you said, but unfortunately our freedom means that other people have the freedom to be "stupid".

I agree, but if you use incentives to promote positive results instead of negative ones, you'll get the desired response. Like JR said, pay them to have abortions or be sterilized. That'd be better than paying them to have children.

Or fund projects and social initiatives which means that these people do not grow up in bad environments? For example, parenting classes, child tax credits, a healthy economy, suitable housing etcc...

Strerilisations is just too far for me, as well as paying them for abortions. Its like the government saying we don't want you to have a baby and is taking away some of their liberties with it. I would rather the government let them decide what they want to do, but do everything possible to make it as benefitial to society as is posible with minimal costs, and also so that they can enjoy a good standard of living.

[john9blue]

Unless each aborted baby would kill on average 1 person each... yeah it's wrong...

Obviously that's simplifying it a bit but my point still stands.

[72o]

I'm not defending these people, just sying what the facts show. I agree with a lot of what you said, but unfortunately our freedom means that other people have the freedom to be "stupid".

I agree, but if you use incentives to promote positive results instead of negative ones, you'll get the desired response. Like JR said, pay them to have abortions or be sterilized. That'd be better than paying them to have children.

Or fund projects and social initiatives which means that these people do not grow up in bad environments? For example, parenting classes, child tax credits, a healthy economy, suitable housing etcc...

What you are proposing is precisely the problem. If you give them a nice place to live and money just for having a kid, do you think you're going to reduce teenage pregnancy? Teenage pregnancy contributes to them being uneducated and having less earning power, which makes them permanent wards of the state.

Entitlements are always going to expand the problem they are trying to address.

Enabling them to fail is what causes them to fail. The only way to stop the cycle is to end the entitlements, and make it clear that you have to earn everything that's coming to you.

Strerilisations is just too far for me, as well as paying them for abortions. Its like the government saying we don't want you to have a baby and is taking away some of their liberties with it.

The government wouldn't be taking any liberties, they would be voluntarily giving them up. I bet if the federal government offered $5K each to women that received federal assistance last year to be voluntarily sterilized, they'd get a million takers. That's a lot less welfare, medicaid, housing, etc. to worry about.

I would rather the government let them decide what they want to do, but do everything possible to make it as benefitial to society as is posible with minimal costs, and also so that they can enjoy a good standard of living.

Sure, I'd rather be able to teleport wherever I want to go. But I live in the real world. What you are saying cannot happen. The government can't make people beneficial to society. That's part of "letting them decide what they want to do". Many people decide to be useless. That is their choice. But the government shouldn't be in the business of making these useless people, who are useless by choice, "enjoy a good standard of living".

In your world of rainbows and unicorns, people would try to be productive members of society because it makes them feel good or something. In the real world, it's always "what's in it for me?". If it weren't for the entitlements, choosing to be useless would have negative consequences, and would thus deter the people from being useless. Since they have the entitlements, the negative consequences go away.

[jay_a2j]

Less unwanted children born out of wedlock means a lower crime rate.

Show me mathematically where I'm wrong.

Show me the proof that THAT statement is accurate. And who is to decide who is "unwanted" and who is "wanted"?


(This is one of those issues that really shows the difference between the conservative and liberal mindsets..... and for the life of me, I can't figure out the liberal stance)

I was making fun of someone else's post in this thread. The joke was that it's impossible to "mathematically" prove or disprove certain theories or assumptions.

Although I do believe the statement is true, I don't have any proof of it.

I think the "wanted" and "unwanted" determination is pretty cut and dry. If a pregnant woman doesn't want to have a child, and would abort the pregnancy if it were legal and free, that's an "unwanted" pregnancy.

It is my belief that "less fortunate members of our society"" (see stupid people referenced in my previous post in this thread) are far more likely to commit crimes. I'm sure there's some statistics to back this up somewhere, but I don't have the patience to look for it. Unfortunately, the lovely social programs that liberals love so much encourage these less fortunate people to reproduce at a higher rate than fortunate people. Since there's more of them, and they're more likely to commit crimes, reducing their numbers would reduce crime rates.

Because of these incentives, I don't think abortions would occur in these segments of the population in high enough numbers to eliminate all "unwanted" pregnancies, even if abortions were free and legal. There's too much money in having another kid, if you're already a ward of the state. If we could do away with these incentives, then offering free abortions would have a positive impact on crime rate.

I am VERY conservative on most issues, but abortion is not one of them. I'm all for abortions. I just wish that the people having them were the ones that "should" be having abortions. The ones that take their fifteen screaming children to walmart and let them run free. The ones that bring their 7 kids to a restaurant on kids eat free night and only pay for a salad, tip shitty, and complain the whole time about the service. The ones that let other people claim their kids on a tax return so they can get the Earned Income Credit and split the money. The ones that depend on their government check coming on the 1st of every month so they can get their nails done and put some more minutes on their prepaid cell phone.

It is "stupid" people who commit crime not "unwanted" people. Someone do a research of "unwanted" babies who became very successful (Axel Rose comes to mind). Poor parenting should not ever condemn a child. Those "screaming" kids at Wal-Mart have just as much a right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as anyone else. The 7 kids who's father walked out of their lives and who's mother works 3 jobs to pay the bills should be ashamed of themselves for having a "free meal" that THE RESTAURANT promotes?

So abortion is kill the kids that annoy me? If that small child growing in the womb is alive enough to grow into a colicky infant, than surely it was ALWAYS a life. And to end that life is..... murder.

[72o]

It is "stupid" people who commit crime not "unwanted" people. Someone do a research of "unwanted" babies who became very successful (Axel Rose comes to mind). Poor parenting should not ever condemn a child. Those "screaming" kids at Wal-Mart have just as much a right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as anyone else. The 7 kids who's father walked out of their lives and who's mother works 3 jobs to pay the bills should be ashamed of themselves for having a "free meal" that THE RESTAURANT promotes?

So abortion is kill the kids that annoy me? If that small child growing in the womb is alive enough to grow into a colicky infant, than surely it was ALWAYS a life. And to end that life is..... murder.

For every Axel Rose there are probably 1,000,000 that are useless drains on society. They have children too early, they don't have a good work ethic, because their parents didn't, so they obviously weren't taught otherwise. They are far more likely to commit crimes. This is a statistical fact.

I'm not saying we should start aborting all pregnancies of poor people. I'm saying LET THEM CHOOSE to abort if they want. We'll even pay for it. Better to pay once now, than to pay forever from now on.

Having children is a decision, just like the decision to carjack or shoot someone. It should have consequences.

Probably 95% of the time, the mother who has 7 kids and a father (or multiple fathers) that walked out is not working 3 jobs. She's sitting at home on a rented couch, in a 4 bedroom apartment paid for by Section 8 Housing, eating ice cream bought with food stamps, watching cable on a TV bought by selling her food stamp privileges for cash, collecting a check each month from TANF and Social Security.

The restaurant promotes free kids meals to draw in parents who will spend money in their establishment. It's not a fucking soup kitchen. It's a for-profit business.

It's not about killing kids that annoy me. It's about preventing children from being brought into the world in terrible situations. Those screaming kids at Walmart are not being taught even the basics of behavior and couth. They will surely have a tough time becoming successful in an increasingly competitive marketplace. That makes it highly likely that they'll follow in their parents' footsteps, and be massive failures with too many children.

I'm not debating the "is it a life" crap. I don't really give a shit. Sure, it's a life. One that will be miserable for the child, and one that I'll end up paying for. If it means that one out of a million times, they might be aborting the next Barack Obama or Axel Rose, who became successful in spite of being born into a shitty life, it will still be a positive result.

[Titanic]

Or fund projects and social initiatives which means that these people do not grow up in bad environments? For example, parenting classes, child tax credits, a healthy economy, suitable housing etcc...

What you are proposing is precisely the problem. If you give them a nice place to live and money just for having a kid, do you think you're going to reduce teenage pregnancy? Teenage pregnancy contributes to them being uneducated and having less earning power, which makes them permanent wards of the state.

Entitlements are always going to expand the problem they are trying to address.

Enabling them to fail is what causes them to fail. The only way to stop the cycle is to end the entitlements, and make it clear that you have to earn everything that's coming to you.

I think you misunderstood me. I think the primary objective of this social care should be before the child is even concieved. The government should be doing more to life people out of the vicious cycle on single parents, too many kids, living on low incomes etc.. A healthy economy and suitable housing falls into this (by suitable housing I meant building real places for people to live, not ghettos or horrible estates where standards of living and crime are awful).

Also, I do not beleive child tax credits are an incentive to have kids. I really don't beleive anyone actually sets out to have a kid for financial purposes (even if there are exceptions who do, they are clearly idiots as you spend more on a baby then a government could ever subsidise you). My parents recieves child benefits and I think it helped a lot as they went through a rough patch financially about 15 years ago, and that extra income made sure that me and my brothers continued getting the food and clothing that we needed. For the poorer families it means that the parents continuously have a fighting chance of providing for their kids and just getting them the cheapest option (which could easily be damaging in the long run).

I honestly don't believe any of these factors contribute to teenage pregnancies. The biggest contributor to that is a lack of education. If they knew to use protection, to take contreception, to not lose their virginity at 13 or something or had decent role models and confident parents then they the proportion taking that road will be significantly less. I don't think high school girls get knocked up because they just can't wait to get child support to help them take care of a kid which will cost them huge amounts of money and time.

Strerilisations is just too far for me, as well as paying them for abortions. Its like the government saying we don't want you to have a baby and is taking away some of their liberties with it.

The government wouldn't be taking any liberties, they would be voluntarily giving them up. I bet if the federal government offered $5K each to women that received federal assistance last year to be voluntarily sterilized, they'd get a million takers. That's a lot less welfare, medicaid, housing, etc. to worry about.

...and a hidiously low birth rate which will have deeper consequences in the long run. Why not let them have as many kids as they want but try to get them integrated into society?

I would rather the government let them decide what they want to do, but do everything possible to make it as benefitial to society as is posible with minimal costs, and also so that they can enjoy a good standard of living.

Sure, I'd rather be able to teleport wherever I want to go. But I live in the real world. What you are saying cannot happen. The government can't make people beneficial to society. That's part of "letting them decide what they want to do". Many people decide to be useless. That is their choice. But the government shouldn't be in the business of making these useless people, who are useless by choice, "enjoy a good standard of living".

In your world of rainbows and unicorns, people would try to be productive members of society because it makes them feel good or something. In the real world, it's always "what's in it for me?". If it weren't for the entitlements, choosing to be useless would have negative consequences, and would thus deter the people from being useless. Since they have the entitlements, the negative consequences go away.[/quote]

I don't think the world is full of rainbows and unicorns. I've been screwed over enough times to know there are true b*stards out there, but I'm still an optimist and believe the majority of people are decent enough and know the right choices.

To those people who are completely useless and don't want a function in society I wouldn't help them, but there a ridiciously small proportion of society. To those who are less well of and want help and are willing to put the effort in if needed, I would offer them greater primary education and healthcare, social benefits to help them live a better life, employment protection to prevent corporations abusing mothers and pregnant women and so on. All these things make a huge difference and can help close the vicious cycle and prevent just another kid being born who is almost doomed to fail and become either a criminal or a state junkie.

[Johnny Rockets]

One simple problem is that we ( In Canada ) have parenting classes. We have regional supported housing. We have welfare, medicare, social workers with respite programs, child tax credits and a healthy economy thank you very much.

But in my city the largest growing segment of the population is the poor that are causing more and more strain on every branch of social and civic services DESPITE all of the government supports available.

The availability of these supports is very important, but they alone will not fix or reverse the situation. Physically reducing the numbers of the poor is the only way you are truly going to get a hand on the situation socially, and fiscally.

Now I'm not talking about death squads, and cattle cars. The poor as they are right now have every human right as everyone else to live a full life and be as happy as possible as long as the pursuit of such does no harm to any other.
But the wonderful thing about the stupid is that they WILL line up for their $5000 sterilization bonus.

You could have child poverty under control in 3 generations. You would have made more ground in ensuring children rights, child safety and true hope for the advancement of the next generation then ever and only for a few billion dollars.
Cheaper than a war eh?