Posted on 02/26/2010 11:44:15 AM PST by presidio9
If that's true, then how come there isn't really much of a correlation to actually suggest that what you said is true? After all, the leniency we currently see in our penal system arose more as a response to rising crime rates, instead of being a leading indicator. Further, how come violent crime peaked out in states where the penal system often was the harshest? Besides....how likely is a "liberal doctorate student" going to be noting, and promoting, the correlation between liberal abortion laws and crime rates? Sheesh, you can't even get your slams straight.
Sorry, but no, abortion is not "legal in Middle Eastern countries." In fact, the only countries in that region which have anything even approaching Western-style lenient laws on abortion are Tunisia, Turkey, and Israel. Every other country in the region - from Morocco to Pakistan - falls into one of the bottom two "worst" categories in the estimation of pretty much every pro-abortion group that bothers to issue an opinion about Middle Eastern abortion laws. You simply DON'T know what you're talking about here.
My social moderate definition: For abortion in case of violent rape, incest or extreme danger to mother’s life for full term pregnancy. Against abortion for any fetus capable of surviving outside of mother’s womb.
That would be what I would term a "soft pro-life" position. While not hard-core pro-life, I think you may be a little more uncomfortably conservative on this issue than you think you are.
Allow equal rights to gays, lesbians and trans genders.
Okay....you realise that these groups already have equal rights?
For death penalty in premeditated murders.
Obviously, I would agree. But this isn't exactly a "moderate" position, it's a right-wing one.
If Roe v Wade was overturned, this country would steadily head back into the other direction.
Your other assumptions in that post are well off target.
I'll take that under advisement.
It is MY definition of moderate social position, not advocating on any one else.
The country I am most familiar with is India, the largest democracy in the world. Abortion is definitely legal there.
And violent crime in comparison to USA is much much lower. So your theory explodes on its assumption. A Billion Plus population is better proof than some statistics you obtained from who knows who.
Fair enough.
The country I am most familiar with is India, the largest democracy in the world. Abortion is definitely legal there.
And violent crime in comparison to USA is much much lower. So your theory explodes on its assumption. A Billion Plus population is better proof than some statistics you obtained from who knows who.
Well, what's interesting is that India's violent crime rates also started going way up about the time the abortion laws were liberalised right around the same time that America's were.
We all know what an Ugly American is, right? An American who goes to other countries and wanders around with a frown on his face, wondering why these silly people don't speak English and have a McDonald's close at hand. Essentially, someone who tries to judge other countries by the standards of his own homeland. In that sense, you're kind of being an "Ugly Indian." America and India are not the same. They are two completely different entities, as I'm sure you're well aware. Trying to compare America and India on the issue of abortion availability and its effect on crime is rather silly.
Remember, I said there is a correlation between the liberalisation of abortion laws and the crime rate going up. I didn't imply that there was direct causation - correlation does not equal causation, and all that - but correlation does suggest that there is a positive effect going on between the two. There are other factors that affect crime rate - wealth disparity, population density, stability of the nuclear family, etc. All of these are folded in, none is alone directly causative.
Yet, even with the case of India, and the fact that its crime rate did go up starting in the early 1970s, we see that there seems to be some correlation between the two. Why is the crime rate lower overall in India? Well, a number of reasons, probably. Frankly, Indians are quite a bit more, ah, docile than are Americans, for the most part. India does not also enjoy the presence of minority groups which have subsets of their populations that are prone to criminal, especially gang-related, activity. India also has greater stability in its basal family units.
All of these help to keep the crime rate lower, in comparison to the USA, and probably did even before the 1970s (haven't seen stats that far back). However, both countries saw the crime jump at around the same time, and both liberalised their abortion laws at around this same time. To argue that there is NO correlation whatsoever is surely a fool's errand.
Why did the effect seem to be much greater in the USA? Well, and no offence is meant, but it's because the USA was traditionally grounded in a Judeo-Christian ethic, while India is grounded in Hinduism of its various flavours. In Hindu India, there has always been a "baseline" of a lack of respect for individual, innocent human life, at least in comparison with animals, plants, etc. Remember, this is the society that burnt widows, and like many societies, left female babies exposed to die (a direct ancestor of today's Indian sex-selective abortion imbalance). It's less likely you'll value human life individually when you view humans as just part of the karmic cycle, no better or worse than a cow, or a tree, or an amoeba. When you're part of the great Cosmic Blah, the individual life is relatively meaningless. Hence, when laws are liberalised to allow the destruction of the unborn, it isn't going to have as much of a psychological and moral impact, since it sort of goes along with the prevailing sense anywise.
In the USA, however, these was a broadly understood sense that human beings are the special, unique creation of God, different from and superior to the rest of the natural world. As a special creation, human life was viewed to be of special value. This obviously didn't stop murder, wars, etc., but this is so to the extent that individuals and nations failed to internalise the Judeo-Christian ethos. As such, when the abortion laws were liberalised, it represented a tectonic shift in the way we viewed the value of human life, and the shift was downward.
In short, the American situation is vastly different from the Indian, and to try to compare the one to the other is really comparing apples to oranges.
You are some what mis-informed about burning widow’s alive in India. I have a family tree & history book going back 10 generations encompassing hundreds of families and there is not a single incidence of “sati”.
It was very rare, mostly voluntary by devoted women who did not desire to go on living without their husband. It was also limited mostly among people in high positions of power.
Since I have spent many decades in both India and USA, I have first hand observation of life in both. You most likely do not have that experience. Your opinions are based on 2nd hand reading of articles and books.
When I look at murders, divorces, adultery, abandonment of parents by their children & vice versa, fornication, etc..
USA is worse off by orders of magnitude than India. The judeo-christian heritage has obviously not helped in violence and family stability. But these factors hardly affect in my personal life. There are also some things better in USA than India, such as less corruption, more freedom, better living conditions, and I love the climate in the Northwest where I can enjoy my favorite sport of golf for 9 months of the year.
Personally I prefer living in USA because it has offered me better opportunity than India could decades ago when I left. At that time India was mired in socialistic government. Things are much different now that Indians have awakened to the benefits of capitalism. If I was a young man in India today, I would most likely not emigrate.
Did you know India & China had world’s largest economies 400-500 years ago? Based on what I am witnessing, both are on the way to regaining that position in this century. My only wish is India gets there as a democracy and not an autocracy.
Getting back to abortion, unless one has lived first hand in China and India, one has no concept of over population. I have no problem with people in over-populated countries making abortion available. In my country of citizenship of USA, I would prefer abortion restricted to cases of violent rape, incest, serious risk to mother’s life, and only in early pregnancy period. It is extreme cruelty to abort a fetus capable of surviving on it’s own outside of mother’s body.
I agree 100% that no one should impose their social agenda on any one else. It goes both ways, however.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.