Philadelphia Abortion Doctor

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

not that I think it's a good reason for abortions but a side effect to the legalizing of abortions is the drops in crime rates in the 1990's through today. Although some see it as a plague on society it looks to have had a positive effect in dropping murder rates and so on.

According to my friend, a police chief, the drop in murders, vehicular homicides, etc. is primarily due to the quality of the emergency medical care and EMT response. Also, everyone has a cell phone and dudes are on it faster.

Which primarily came to prominence in the 2000's. Cell phones weren't nearly as prevalent in the 90's as they are today and I was talking about more about violent crime when speaking of crime rates, not the survival rate.

That's not to discount at all the way that technology has added to the grand scheme of it though. Cell phones can help mitigate the damage but I don't think they are a big deterrent in the commission of crimes.

[D1B]

I didn't call you stupid, I called your statement stupid. Just as everything you have said here is. I am pro-women having the right to decide abortion is the best option for them and being able to legally and safely get one under certain circumstances. But that is too long to call myself all the time so I think pro-choice works better.

To say abortion should be illegal is a losing argument. Take away the ability to get one legally and you will end up with a lot more "clinics" like this guy ran. Same way prohibition didn't work. People want something they will get it whether you tell them they can or not. So it's best to regulate it and make it as safe as possible.

Sooooooooooooo not true.

If you stop abortions from being legal they will just stop.........the same way more gun laws will stop criminals from owning guns. Its D1B logic its very very simple.

Fuck you Dingleberry. You are an abortion.

*Oh, pm me if you deal TV's - looking for a 40" and a 50" or bigger, 1080...

[TwinTownBisonFan]

According to my friend, a police chief, the drop in murders, vehicular homicides, etc. is primarily due to the quality of the emergency medical care and EMT response. Also, everyone has a cell phone and dudes are on it faster.

Which primarily came to prominence in the 2000's. Cell phones weren't nearly as prevalent in the 90's as they are today and I was talking about more about violent crime when speaking of crime rates, not the survival rate.

That's not to discount at all the way that technology has added to the grand scheme of it though. Cell phones can help mitigate the damage but I don't think they are a big deterrent in the commission of crimes.

i read freakonomics too...

i dunno about all of that... don't forget, that while violent crime peaked in the late 80's/early 90's and has declined - that the drop throughout the 90's could also be attributed to 1) the spike in the prison population, 2) improving economic conditions in high crime areas, and in general in the US through the 90's

it's an interesting theory - and there is certainly evidence that there is a correlation - just no real way to determine causation.

[D1B]

According to my friend, a police chief, the drop in murders, vehicular homicides, etc. is primarily due to the quality of the emergency medical care and EMT response. Also, everyone has a cell phone and dudes are on it faster.

Which primarily came to prominence in the 2000's. Cell phones weren't nearly as prevalent in the 90's as they are today and I was talking about more about violent crime when speaking of crime rates, not the survival rate.

That's not to discount at all the way that technology has added to the grand scheme of it though. Cell phones can help mitigate the damage but I don't think they are a big deterrent in the commission of crimes.

Agree on violent crime. I wonder though in a world where everyone, no matter where they are, is a few keystrokes away from broadcasting any act to millions of people, if this is a deterent.

I certainly have curtailed my heroin use and cock sucking in public. My John are also not allowed to used cell phones while I'm "downstairs".

[Grizalltheway]

Which primarily came to prominence in the 2000's. Cell phones weren't nearly as prevalent in the 90's as they are today and I was talking about more about violent crime when speaking of crime rates, not the survival rate.

That's not to discount at all the way that technology has added to the grand scheme of it though. Cell phones can help mitigate the damage but I don't think they are a big deterrent in the commission of crimes.

Agree on violent crime. I wonder though in a world where everyone, no matter where they are, is a few keystrokes away from broadcasting any act to millions of people, if this is a deterent.

I certainly have curtailed my heroin use and cock sucking in public. My John are also not allowed to used cell phones while I'm "downstairs".

Bull-fucking-shit! See if you ever get my business again.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

It's strange JJ, I too am a Catholic - and while I don't like abortion at all - and wish that it would never happen - I'm a realist. Here in the real world, shit happens. Here in the real world, no matter what you do, no matter how hard you try, there will always be unplanned pregnancies, there will always (tragically) be horrible cases of rape and incest...

As a Catholic who values life, I think our first priority is not passing prohibitions against abortions... prohibitions that don't work... and instead focus on reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies - reducing the burdens on those having children - and ensuring that each life, when brought in to the world is cared for with the fervency directed toward those lives in the womb. I would contend that isn't the case now - and I would argue that for decades Catholics (some) have had their eye off the ball - and should focus on reducing the need, and worry less about the legal status of abortion itself.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

Which primarily came to prominence in the 2000's. Cell phones weren't nearly as prevalent in the 90's as they are today and I was talking about more about violent crime when speaking of crime rates, not the survival rate.

That's not to discount at all the way that technology has added to the grand scheme of it though. Cell phones can help mitigate the damage but I don't think they are a big deterrent in the commission of crimes.

i read freakonomics too...

i dunno about all of that... don't forget, that while violent crime peaked in the late 80's/early 90's and has declined - that the drop throughout the 90's could also be attributed to 1) the spike in the prison population, 2) improving economic conditions in high crime areas, and in general in the US through the 90's

it's an interesting theory - and there is certainly evidence that there is a correlation - just no real way to determine causation.

Aha! I just figured out who the guy was that had recomended it! I said on another thread that it was skelly & maybe kalm but kalm declined. It was you.

I believe I used the words "side effect" in the original post so I don't know where the idea is coming from that I was saying it is this and only this. I don't disagree with any of the above.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

Which primarily came to prominence in the 2000's. Cell phones weren't nearly as prevalent in the 90's as they are today and I was talking about more about violent crime when speaking of crime rates, not the survival rate.

That's not to discount at all the way that technology has added to the grand scheme of it though. Cell phones can help mitigate the damage but I don't think they are a big deterrent in the commission of crimes.

Agree on violent crime. I wonder though in a world where everyone, no matter where they are, is a few keystrokes away from broadcasting any act to millions of people, if this is a deterent.

I certainly have curtailed my heroin use and cock sucking in public. My John are also not allowed to used cell phones while I'm "downstairs".

Could be but no criminal wants to do any sort of criming in front of witnesses anyway so maybe not so much as you would at first think.

You wouldn't need to worry about me D, I always have respect for the performance and make sure my cell phone is off so we're good.

[JoltinJoe]

You know what's funny? The original feminists hated abortion and reasoned (correctly) that abortion was an act of violence, and an easy "out option", foisted upon women by a society indifferent to the physical and emotional needs of pregnant women. They were right.

"There must be a remedy even for such a crying evil as this. But where shall it be found, at least where begin, if not in the complete enfranchisement and elevation of women?" -- Elizabeth Cady Stanton, 1868.

Women couldn't even vote in 1868. It's a different, and far less brutal world for women.

So now that women can vote, Elizabeth Cady Stanton would think abortion is no longer evil?

The original feminists had it right when they complained that abortion was an act of violence and oppression against a woman. That segments of society today, with the aid of so-called feminists, have duped some women into believing that abortion is a "right" is shameful. Abortion oppresses women; those who support abortion play on the fear that benefits of our society are foreclosed to mothers who have unplanned pregnancies.

[Vidav]

Tell me, how is an abortion that a woman chooses to have an act of oppression?

[Vidav]

He says it far better than I can.

http://atheism.about.com/od/feministlib ... usLove.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[JoltinJoe]

Tell me, how is an abortion that a woman chooses to have an act of oppression?

I just explained it in the post to which you responded. Women are told they are foreclosed from full benefits of our society, be they educational or economic, if they proceed with unplanned pregnancies. The original feminists understood that society should re-order itself to accommodate childbearing by women without foreclosing the full benefits of society; modern society still does not allow this.

Those who favor abortion "rights" tell women that abortion is necessary to protect their professional and educational standing. They have failed to re-order society to be more accommodating of women; they have instead duped women into being more accommodating of society's expectations, at least if they desire to have full participation in society's benefits.

The great original feminists would be appalled that women are so eagerly encouraged to do violence to their offspring as a trade off for standing in society.

[JoltinJoe]

He says it far better than I can.

http://atheism.about.com/od/feministlib ... usLove.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Actually, he supports what I say. He just lacks any real grasp of historical feminism or moral philosophy.

I say abortion is sold to women as a "right" to ensure full participation in society. He says abortion is necessary to ensure a woman's full participation in society. The irony that he wants women to conform to society's expectations, rather than advocate for a woman having the access to full societal benefits even when faced with an unplanned pregnancy, is simply lost on him -- and on much of the pro abortion movement.

[Vidav]

Tell me, how is an abortion that a woman chooses to have an act of oppression?

I just explained it in the post to which you responded. Women are told they are foreclosed from full benefits of our society, be they educational or economic, if they proceed with unplanned pregnancies. The original feminists understood that society should re-order itself to accommodate childbearing by women without foreclosing the full benefits of society; modern society still does not allow this.

Those who favor abortion "rights" tell women that abortion is necessary to protect their professional and educational standing. They have failed to re-order society to be more accommodating of women; they have instead duped women into being more accommodating of society's expectations, at least if they desire to have full participation in society's benefits.

The great original feminists would be appalled that women are so eagerly encouraged to do violence to their offspring as a trade off for standing in society.

Shit I need to start telling women that then. Guess I missed the boat on that one.

[JoltinJoe]

I just explained it in the post to which you responded. Women are told they are foreclosed from full benefits of our society, be they educational or economic, if they proceed with unplanned pregnancies. The original feminists understood that society should re-order itself to accommodate childbearing by women without foreclosing the full benefits of society; modern society still does not allow this.

Those who favor abortion "rights" tell women that abortion is necessary to protect their professional and educational standing. They have failed to re-order society to be more accommodating of women; they have instead duped women into being more accommodating of society's expectations, at least if they desire to have full participation in society's benefits.

The great original feminists would be appalled that women are so eagerly encouraged to do violence to their offspring as a trade off for standing in society.

**** I need to start telling women that then. Guess I missed the boat on that one.

Yes, you did.

The original feminists thought society should change to be more accommodating of and open to women.

Women today, to be successful, are encouraged by society to be more like men.

Society didn't change. Expectations of women have changed.

[Vidav]

I think that is untrue. Society and expectations of BOTH sexes have changed.

[89Hen]

...or outlaw acts all that do not agree with your religious tenets & punish accordingly...

Religion has zippy to do with it holic.

[89Hen]

Obviously there are limits. There are certain things that it makes sense to legalize and regulate. Other things just simply shouldn't be done and anyone that does them should get in trouble.

Limits like robbery vs killing a person?

[89Hen]

Or, we could just outlaw condoms and birth control. Because, you know, then everyone would follow the rhythm method favored by the catholic crime syndicate, I mean church, and no one would ever have abortions again. Right?

Hasn't the Catholic Church moved past the rythym method? I'm pretty sure it's been a few decades since they advocated that.

No, they still advocate that, but I'm a Catholic and I don't practice it. Imagine that, I do think for myself.

[89Hen]

Its D1B logic its very very simple.

DB1 logic (if there is such a thing) is very, very "simple".

[89Hen]

Tell me, how is an abortion that a woman chooses to have an act of oppression?

So if you kill a mute, it's not murder?

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

I think that is untrue. Society and expectations of BOTH sexes have changed.

Agree.

At no time in history have women had more freedoms to make their choices in this and many other countries. Saying that they are bullied into having abortions by society is silly. Not having abortions is where most of the bullying comes from. I think the couples ought to make the choices together but it falls to the women if they want it they are gonna have it. Pro choicers are not advocating that people get abortions. I would advocate that they don't if I were asked but it's still on them as to what they need to do.

The workforce/businesses/government have bent over backwards to make it as easy as they can for women to have a child, keep their jobs, and still function in a going concern. You (for the most of us) have to produce. That's just a fact of life and it's not the fault of society that some think they can't do it. There is a good deal of selfishness there I'm sure but society didn't stick drop a load in the chick.

They do not have to exercise their choice no matter how hard you try to put that on what our society demands from it's contemporaries.

[Pwns]

Tell me, how is an abortion that a woman chooses to have an act of oppression?

In both cases, it is clear that concern for the children or the fetuses isn't really motivating them because all their "concern" seems to end once we stop talking about limiting the rights of others as part of the protection efforts. If you try to turn the conversation towards increased food assistance, better education, environmental cleanups, and so forth, suddenly you're a socialist who is trying to inappropriately infringe on the economic liberties of the wealthy.

So pro-life folks concern for people's right to life ends at birth? In what way? That's weak.

[Vidav]

Tell me, how is an abortion that a woman chooses to have an act of oppression?

So if you kill a mute, it's not murder?

[Vidav]

Tell me, how is an abortion that a woman chooses to have an act of oppression?

In both cases, it is clear that concern for the children or the fetuses isn't really motivating them because all their "concern" seems to end once we stop talking about limiting the rights of others as part of the protection efforts. If you try to turn the conversation towards increased food assistance, better education, environmental cleanups, and so forth, suddenly you're a socialist who is trying to inappropriately infringe on the economic liberties of the wealthy.

So pro-life folks concern for people's right to life ends at birth? In what way? That's weak.

I think what he is saying is that there is a huge fight for a right to live and all this but then once they are born they are all on their own. Helping people with healthcare, education etc is socialist and let them die if they don't want to have insurance. So people are being hypocritical.