JustUsBoys.com gay porn forum

logo

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 51 to 100 of 120
  1. #51

    Re: Researcher: Economic Impact of Abortion in U.S. Since 1970 - $35 to $70 Trillion

    Good. Let's go back to immediate hangings after a murder has been committed then.

    Think of all the prison space and expense that would save.

    Quote Originally Posted by jdbadboy View Post
    Check this out: http://www.freakonomics.com/2005/05/...d-you-believe/

    Abortion saves money actually. Children born to teenager and mothers unable to care for them are more likely to become criminals. So by having abortions we actually save money from being spent on the judicial system and imprisonment.

  2. #52
    JockBoy87
    Guest

    Re: Researcher: Economic Impact of Abortion in U.S. Since 1970 - $35 to $70 Trillion

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Springer View Post
    Good. Let's go back to immediate hangings after a murder has been committed then.

    Think of all the prison space and expense that would save.
    Historically prisons were not used often as long term holding, just too expensive.

    Most criminals were put in stocks, branded, or executed.

  3. #53
    PerScientiam AdJustitiam bankside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Beware the deepity.
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Married (to a man)
    Posts
    16,824
    Blog Entries
    2

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Researcher: Economic Impact of Abortion in U.S. Since 1970 - $35 to $70 Trillion

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Springer View Post
    Good. Let's go back to immediate hangings after a murder has been committed then.

    Think of all the prison space and expense that would save.
    Just a second, no one is making the argument that abortion is a good idea because of cost savings. If people are going to argue that abortion is a financial drag on the economy however, that argument deserves to be refuted, because it's not true.
    Americans need to keep their guns so they can protect themselves from gun violence just like Nancy Lanza did. And like Chris Kyle did. And like Gabby Giffords did. And like Tom Clements did. And like Michael Piemonte. And Joseph Wilcox.

  4. #54

    Re: Researcher: Economic Impact of Abortion in U.S. Since 1970 - $35 to $70 Trillion

    Quote Originally Posted by bankside View Post
    Just a second, no one is making the argument that abortion is a good idea because of cost savings. If people are going to argue that abortion is a financial drag on the economy however, that argument deserves to be refuted, because it's not true.
    jdbadboy made the point that abortions save money.

  5. #55
    PerScientiam AdJustitiam bankside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Beware the deepity.
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Married (to a man)
    Posts
    16,824
    Blog Entries
    2

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Researcher: Economic Impact of Abortion in U.S. Since 1970 - $35 to $70 Trillion

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Springer View Post
    jdbadboy made the point that abortions save money.
    The only reason to make that point is to refute the nonsense coming from people who don't like abortion for personal moral reasons who say that it also costs the economy trillions of dollars. It isn't a point ever made for its own sake.
    Americans need to keep their guns so they can protect themselves from gun violence just like Nancy Lanza did. And like Chris Kyle did. And like Gabby Giffords did. And like Tom Clements did. And like Michael Piemonte. And Joseph Wilcox.

  6. #56

    Re: Researcher: Economic Impact of Abortion in U.S. Since 1970 - $35 to $70 Trillion

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Springer View Post
    jdbadboy made the point that abortions save money.
    That's all right wingers think about..... money.

  7. #57
    MikeyLove
    Guest

    Re: Researcher: Economic Impact of Abortion in U.S. Since 1970 - $35 to $70 Trillion

    Quote Originally Posted by bankside View Post
    The only reason to make that point is to refute the nonsense coming from people who don't like abortion for personal moral reasons who say that it also costs the economy trillions of dollars. It isn't a point ever made for its own sake.
    Okay, for the sake of argument, please back up your statement with resources for us to look at.

  8. #58
    PerScientiam AdJustitiam bankside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Beware the deepity.
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Married (to a man)
    Posts
    16,824
    Blog Entries
    2

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Researcher: Economic Impact of Abortion in U.S. Since 1970 - $35 to $70 Trillion

    Quote Originally Posted by MikeyLove View Post
    Okay, for the sake of argument, please back up your statement with resources for us to look at.

    For the sake of argument, here is my argument:

    1) We read an article about economics. Is it in the Journal of Political Economy? Is it in Econometrica? Is it in the Journal of Economic Theory? No, it's from an anti-freedom, anti-gay website pretending to offer rational information on economics, but they aren't economists, they're anti-abortion campaigners.

    2) We think "Hmm…never mind all that, I wonder if it could really be true that abortions shrink the economy."

    3) We read articles from "Freakonomics" that show economic improvements in a whole bunch of places in the years after they made abortion safe and legal. Articles from actual economists who are better equipped to study the economy than anti-abortion campaigners. Articles from economists who are neither pro or con in the abortion debate; they're just economists pointing out what the data shows.

    4) We say "Hey, actually that anti-abortion claim is wrong. If anything, the data looks like abortion saves money, as well as not subjecting women to undignified or unsafe restrictions on their fertility."

    5) Then we hear an overblown response accusing pro-choice people which boils down to: "Oh My God! Now the baby murderers want more babies murdered because of their baby-murdering financial greed!"

    The point is, not one organisation campaigning for the freedom to have a safe abortion has ever said "The reason we should do this is to grow the economy." The only reason it was ever mentioned is to refute the nonsense published by the likes of anti-freedom campaign groups masquerading as economists.
    Last edited by bankside; September 29th, 2012 at 11:28 AM.
    Americans need to keep their guns so they can protect themselves from gun violence just like Nancy Lanza did. And like Chris Kyle did. And like Gabby Giffords did. And like Tom Clements did. And like Michael Piemonte. And Joseph Wilcox.

  9. #59
    Execuvette Rolyo85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Boystown, Chicago
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    8,930

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Researcher: Economic Impact of Abortion in U.S. Since 1970 - $35 to $70 Trillion

    Yeah, this won't really fly. They saw that one post, decided how to interpret it, and now everything you hear will be "did you or did you not say that!" because context is for sissies...
    That we are capable only of being what we are, remains our unforgivable sin.
    - Gene Wolfe

  10. #60
    JUB Addict andysayshi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Sydney
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Available
    Posts
    4,298

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Researcher: Economic Impact of Abortion in U.S. Since 1970 - $35 to $70 Trillion

    Quote Originally Posted by bankside View Post
    The point is, not one organisation campaigning for the freedom to have a safe abortion has ever said "The reason we should do this is to grow the economy." The only reason it was ever mentioned is to refute the nonsense published by the likes of anti-freedom campaign groups masquerading as economists.
    Great post, Bankside!

    The original article linked here reminds me of the whole Intelligent Design debate. You have a group of people with an ideological belief, who try to build a case for their argument with fake science.

    It's perfectly okay to be morally opposed to abortion, if your faith or belief system requires it. I get that. But you can't make up fake numbers in an attempt to scientifically explain your opinion. Just as you can't explain God with science, you can't make up bogus numbers around moral issues like abortion and hope to be taken seriously.

    As Clinton said at the Dem Convention: "It's arithmetic!"

  11. #61
    Rambunctiously Pugnacious JayHawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    River Quay - KC
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    24,238

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Researcher: Economic Impact of Abortion in U.S. Since 1970 - $35 to $70 Trillion

    Remember republicans like rasining up more criminals because it helps the prison and corrections industry. they have turned that into a booming business.
    Everyone can be great, because everyone can serve.
    ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.


  12. #62
    JockBoy87
    Guest

    Re: Researcher: Economic Impact of Abortion in U.S. Since 1970 - $35 to $70 Trillion

    Quote Originally Posted by andysayshi View Post
    Great post, Bankside!

    The original article linked here reminds me of the whole Intelligent Design debate. You have a group of people with an ideological belief, who try to build a case for their argument with fake science.

    It's perfectly okay to be morally opposed to abortion, if your faith or belief system requires it. I get that. But you can't make up fake numbers in an attempt to scientifically explain your opinion. Just as you can't explain God with science, you can't make up bogus numbers around moral issues like abortion and hope to be taken seriously.

    As Clinton said at the Dem Convention: "It's arithmetic!"
    It's about making a crusade out of personal conviction, conformity to which must be wrought by any means necessary.

  13. #63
    MikeyLove
    Guest

    Re: Researcher: Economic Impact of Abortion in U.S. Since 1970 - $35 to $70 Trillion

    Quote Originally Posted by bankside View Post
    For the sake of argument, here is my argument:

    1) We read an article about economics. Is it in the Journal of Political Economy? Is it in Econometrica? Is it in the Journal of Economic Theory? No, it's from an anti-freedom, anti-gay website pretending to offer rational information on economics, but they aren't economists, they're anti-abortion campaigners.

    2) We think "Hmm…never mind all that, I wonder if it could really be true that abortions shrink the economy."

    3) We read articles from "Freakonomics" that show economic improvements in a whole bunch of places in the years after they made abortion safe and legal. Articles from actual economists who are better equipped to study the economy than anti-abortion campaigners. Articles from economists who are neither pro or con in the abortion debate; they're just economists pointing out what the data shows.

    4) We say "Hey, actually that anti-abortion claim is wrong. If anything, the data looks like abortion saves money, as well as not subjecting women to undignified or unsafe restrictions on their fertility."

    5) Then we hear an overblown response accusing pro-choice people which boils down to: "Oh My God! Now the baby murderers want more babies murdered because of their baby-murdering financial greed!"

    The point is, not one organisation campaigning for the freedom to have a safe abortion has ever said "The reason we should do this is to grow the economy." The only reason it was ever mentioned is to refute the nonsense published by the likes of anti-freedom campaign groups masquerading as economists.
    You still did not give resources to back up your statements.

  14. #64
    JUB Addict loveguys72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    1,335

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Researcher: Economic Impact of Abortion in U.S. Since 1970 - $35 to $70 Trillion

    Quote Originally Posted by rareboy View Post
    And Remember kids....

    Monty Python FTW!!!

  15. #65
    GiancarloC
    Guest

    Re: Researcher: Economic Impact of Abortion in U.S. Since 1970 - $35 to $70 Trillion

    Quote Originally Posted by MikeyLove View Post
    You still did not give resources to back up your statements.
    And you have?

  16. #66
    PerScientiam AdJustitiam bankside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Beware the deepity.
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Married (to a man)
    Posts
    16,824
    Blog Entries
    2

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Researcher: Economic Impact of Abortion in U.S. Since 1970 - $35 to $70 Trillion

    Quote Originally Posted by MikeyLove View Post
    You still did not give resources to back up your statements.
    That's not how proof works with something that isn't happening.

    It's like asking me to produce a flyer that shows there is no sale going on right now at the store. Or proof that I didn't eat maple glazed salmon this week. No organisation has ever said "women should have abortions to improve the economy.."
    Americans need to keep their guns so they can protect themselves from gun violence just like Nancy Lanza did. And like Chris Kyle did. And like Gabby Giffords did. And like Tom Clements did. And like Michael Piemonte. And Joseph Wilcox.

  17. #67
    johaninsc
    Guest

    Re: Researcher: Economic Impact of Abortion in U.S. Since 1970 - $35 to $70 Trillion

    Quote Originally Posted by MikeyLove View Post
    You still did not give resources to back up your statements.
    you're joking...right?

  18. #68
    JockBoy87
    Guest

    Re: Researcher: Economic Impact of Abortion in U.S. Since 1970 - $35 to $70 Trillion

    I'm sorry, I've been thinking about what could be done with $70 trillion dollars other than run the country's abortions for 40 years.

  19. #69
    MikeyLove
    Guest

    Re: Researcher: Economic Impact of Abortion in U.S. Since 1970 - $35 to $70 Trillion

    Quote Originally Posted by JockBoy87 View Post
    I'm sorry, I've been thinking about what could be done with $70 trillion dollars other than run the country's abortions for 40 years.
    With $70 trillion, the USA could have gotten the country almost permanently out of serious debt, and the two wars paid in full before Obama came into Office, and the likes. We may have never lost those millions of Jobs, etc. Nation's debts would have been in the black, too.

  20. #70
    Execuvette Rolyo85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Boystown, Chicago
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    8,930

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Researcher: Economic Impact of Abortion in U.S. Since 1970 - $35 to $70 Trillion

    It would be Heaven on Earth. If only. Women. Would stop. Having. Abortions ;_;
    That we are capable only of being what we are, remains our unforgivable sin.
    - Gene Wolfe

  21. #71
    GiancarloC
    Guest

    Re: Researcher: Economic Impact of Abortion in U.S. Since 1970 - $35 to $70 Trillion

    Quote Originally Posted by MikeyLove View Post
    With $70 trillion, the USA could have gotten the country almost permanently out of serious debt, and the two wars paid in full before Obama came into Office, and the likes. We may have never lost those millions of Jobs, etc. Nation's debts would have been in the black, too.
    There is no substance to that number. And those extra people wouldn't equal $70 trillion. Those numbers are erroneous at best. That number also doesn't take into account all the extra costs of having more people (including social security, health care, education, etc). This is what happens when you don't take into account all the facts.

    And we may have never lost those millions of jobs? What? That was because of entirely different matters. Not abortion. Abortion didn't cause the recession. It was because of financial abuse. The recession was going to happen one way or another regardless.

  22. #72
    MikeyLove
    Guest

    Re: Researcher: Economic Impact of Abortion in U.S. Since 1970 - $35 to $70 Trillion

    Quote Originally Posted by GiancarloC View Post
    There is no substance to that number. And those extra people wouldn't equal $70 trillion. Those numbers are erroneous at best. That number also doesn't take into account all the extra costs of having more people (including social security, health care, education, etc). This is what happens when you don't take into account all the facts.

    And we may have never lost those millions of jobs? What? That was because of entirely different matters. Not abortion. Abortion didn't cause the recession. It was because of financial abuse. The recession was going to happen one way or another regardless.
    Those are numbers that are calculated to include all those years since 1970 and time of Roe vs. Wade up to near current time. They are not calculations for a single year.

  23. #73
    GiancarloC
    Guest

    Re: Researcher: Economic Impact of Abortion in U.S. Since 1970 - $35 to $70 Trillion

    Quote Originally Posted by MikeyLove View Post
    Those are numbers that are calculated to include all those years since 1970 and time of Roe vs. Wade up to near current time. They are not calculations for a single year.
    Where did I say they were calculations for a single year?

    Those numbers are still faulty. Care to address the rest of my post?

  24. #74
    PerScientiam AdJustitiam bankside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Beware the deepity.
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Married (to a man)
    Posts
    16,824
    Blog Entries
    2

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Researcher: Economic Impact of Abortion in U.S. Since 1970 - $35 to $70 Trillion

    They are imaginary calculations that have nothing to do with economics. Bogus nonsense.
    Americans need to keep their guns so they can protect themselves from gun violence just like Nancy Lanza did. And like Chris Kyle did. And like Gabby Giffords did. And like Tom Clements did. And like Michael Piemonte. And Joseph Wilcox.

  25. #75
    MikeyLove
    Guest

    Re: Researcher: Economic Impact of Abortion in U.S. Since 1970 - $35 to $70 Trillion

    Quote Originally Posted by bankside View Post
    They are imaginary calculations that have nothing to do with economics. Bogus nonsense.
    Prove it that it is so.

  26. #76
    On the Prowl beetle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Munich / Germany
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    52

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Researcher: Economic Impact of Abortion in U.S. Since 1970 - $35 to $70 Trillion

    yeah no...

    is it this time again we weight up human rights against economic impact?
    can't believe you were once just like anyone else
    then you grew and became like the devil himself

  27. #77
    On the Prowl beetle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Munich / Germany
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    52

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Researcher: Economic Impact of Abortion in U.S. Since 1970 - $35 to $70 Trillion

    Quote Originally Posted by MikeyLove View Post
    Prove it that it is so.
    That's like "proof that god doesn't exist" or "proof that alternative medicine doesn't work"

    it's your claim, you have to proof.
    and when your proof is sh*t, in the meaning of "ignoring all elementary knowledge of statistics and science", than, well....where is my 4th grade math book?
    can't believe you were once just like anyone else
    then you grew and became like the devil himself

  28. #78
    GiancarloC
    Guest

    Re: Researcher: Economic Impact of Abortion in U.S. Since 1970 - $35 to $70 Trillion

    Quote Originally Posted by MikeyLove View Post
    Prove it that it is so.
    Prove your numbers carry weight by providing a non-biased, objective source.

  29. #79
    Slut Tengilethos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Germany
    Orientation
    Gay
    Posts
    260

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Researcher: Economic Impact of Abortion in U.S. Since 1970 - $35 to $70 Trillion

    No economic argument could ever convince me of the merits of abortion if I thought that every abortion is basically murder.

    No economic argument could ever convince me that abortion is bad if I see abortion as a fundamental womens right to decide over their own body a an absolutely necessary tool to overcome (latent) patriarchy. (And at the same time think that a cluster of cells only becomes a human being at a certain later date, which is admittedly rather arbitrary.)

  30. #80
    veni, vidi, reliqui
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    33,645

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Researcher: Economic Impact of Abortion in U.S. Since 1970 - $35 to $70 Trillion

    Quote Originally Posted by MikeyLove View Post
    Prove it that it is so.
    Sorry.

    You can't use the old fashioned catholic church approach here.

    It is up to the person putting forward the hypothesis to prove that it is so.

    So far, there are numerous challenges to the figure quoted...let alone the notion that rampant over reproduction by humans leads to great wealth. One only has to visit countries around the world with high birth rates to knock this pin down.

    No. It is up to you now, to prove the figure by laying out the methodology for the calculations in a scientific way.

    ....and at the end of the day, it is a morally bankrupt view of the world to think that anyone would be convinced that the best reason not to abort would be economics.

    Abortion is a subject where those on either side of the argument will not reach any middle ground, unlike the Church's attempts at finding clinical justification for tubal ligation or 'natural' ways of birth control. If you are someone who believes that humanity begins at conception, there will be no way of even reconciling first trimester abortions.

    If you are someone who believes that a foetus is not human until the point of unassisted viability outside the womb...then you will never see the side of those who really believe that every sperm (including those spilt by Onan) is sacred.

    There is no winning this argument.

  31. #81

    Re: Researcher: Economic Impact of Abortion in U.S. Since 1970 - $35 to $70 Trillion

    I most Western countries, the European population is declining, i.e. being aborted, and being replaced by immigrants, who, in the nature of things, come from dysfunctional cultures. No it is not race and please do not derail the discussion with racist allegations. Any discussion of the economic impact of abortion must take into account that most of the new people, being poorly educated, will be poorly paid and will need to be supported by society in welfare and social programs.

  32. #82
    veni, vidi, reliqui
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    33,645

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Researcher: Economic Impact of Abortion in U.S. Since 1970 - $35 to $70 Trillion

    ^ People can get more information on Benvolio's position here.

    http://www.stormfront.org/forum/

  33. #83
    JockBoy87
    Guest

    Re: Researcher: Economic Impact of Abortion in U.S. Since 1970 - $35 to $70 Trillion

    Quote Originally Posted by Benvolio View Post
    I most Western countries, the European population is declining, i.e. being aborted, and being replaced by immigrants, who, in the nature of things, come from dysfunctional cultures. No it is not race and please do not derail the discussion with racist allegations. Any discussion of the economic impact of abortion must take into account that most of the new people, being poorly educated, will be poorly paid and will need to be supported by society in welfare and social programs.
    I swear you just can't make this stuff up.

    Keep it rolling Benvolio, you're doing a good job speaking for conservatism.

  34. #84

    Re: Researcher: Economic Impact of Abortion in U.S. Since 1970 - $35 to $70 Trillion

    A "cluster of cells" as you call it is not a cold. It's new life growing. The woman and man who joined together to make it were not dumb -- they knew what they were doing.

    A woman or man has control over their body to seek treatment for an ailment -- but treating a new human being as property of a woman is not correct -- if it were so, that woman would have to the right to also kill the baby after it was born.

    The sad part about what I just said is that there are people who publicly say that the mother should also have that right.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/wi...life-movement/

    As a human being you must respect human life.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tengilethos View Post
    No economic argument could ever convince me of the merits of abortion if I thought that every abortion is basically murder.

    No economic argument could ever convince me that abortion is bad if I see abortion as a fundamental womens right to decide over their own body a an absolutely necessary tool to overcome (latent) patriarchy. (And at the same time think that a cluster of cells only becomes a human being at a certain later date, which is admittedly rather arbitrary.)

  35. #85
    JockBoy87
    Guest

    Re: Researcher: Economic Impact of Abortion in U.S. Since 1970 - $35 to $70 Trillion

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Springer View Post
    A "cluster of cells" as you call it is not a cold. It's new life growing.
    The main argument seems to be that a "cluster of cells" even if it is considered a human being, cannot sustain itself, and therefore is terminable.

    Besides abortion, can you think of another example of life we terminate?

    What about people on life support who will never be able to be independent again? We let them go, don't we? So it seems that anything that cannot support itself is game.

  36. #86
    MikeyLove
    Guest

    Re: Researcher: Economic Impact of Abortion in U.S. Since 1970 - $35 to $70 Trillion

    Quote Originally Posted by Benvolio View Post
    I most Western countries, the European population is declining, i.e. being aborted, and being replaced by immigrants, who, in the nature of things, come from dysfunctional cultures. No it is not race and please do not derail the discussion with racist allegations. Any discussion of the economic impact of abortion must take into account that most of the new people, being poorly educated, will be poorly paid and will need to be supported by society in welfare and social programs.
    We can see that the Western World is aging, and that many are at or above retirement age. Abortion eliminated the needed population that was supposed to replace the aging work-force. Now, WHO is going to be paying the taxes that pays into everyone's retirement, Social Security, and the likes...especially when the Wealthy do not pay their fair share in Taxes?. America has already wiped out an entire generation of potential Workers/tax payers since Roe vs. Wade.

  37. #87
    Execuvette Rolyo85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Boystown, Chicago
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    8,930

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Researcher: Economic Impact of Abortion in U.S. Since 1970 - $35 to $70 Trillion

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Springer View Post
    The woman and man who joined together to make it were not dumb -- they knew what they were doing.
    Are you kidding me? Over 50% of pregnancies worldwide are unplanned. Because American teenagers aren't taught anything in sex-ed classes but "abstinence" (as if that's an option), they have no clue how to protect themselves and go into it with "I don't need protection, it's not gonna happen on the first time" mentality. Seriously, Jack, defend your anti-woman position all you want, but at least don't go into it from the position that somehow all pregnancies are planned, and then those fickle Jezebels just change their mind and decide to flush it out...
    That we are capable only of being what we are, remains our unforgivable sin.
    - Gene Wolfe

  38. #88
    Execuvette Rolyo85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Boystown, Chicago
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    8,930

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Researcher: Economic Impact of Abortion in U.S. Since 1970 - $35 to $70 Trillion

    There can be no consensus here, and these endless arguments lead nowhere. A religious point of view is unacceptable to me, and my morals are unacceptable to the religious hypocrites (I am sure all of you masturbate), so why keep going?
    That we are capable only of being what we are, remains our unforgivable sin.
    - Gene Wolfe

  39. #89

    Re: Researcher: Economic Impact of Abortion in U.S. Since 1970 - $35 to $70 Trillion

    Quote Originally Posted by Rolyo85 View Post
    Are you kidding me? Over 50% of pregnancies worldwide are unplanned. Because American teenagers aren't taught anything in sex-ed classes but "abstinence" (as if that's an option), they have no clue how to protect themselves and go into it with "I don't need protection, it's not gonna happen on the first time" mentality. Seriously, Jack, defend your anti-woman position all you want, but at least don't go into it from the position that somehow all pregnancies are planned, and then those fickle Jezebels just change their mind and decide to flush it out...
    You're telling me that people who have sex don't know where babies come from?

    or

  40. #90
    Execuvette Rolyo85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Boystown, Chicago
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    8,930

    Code of Conduct
    First of all yes, many don't. Second - no, I'm saying that many go into it without suspecting they might end up getting pregnant. Or with the girl thinking the guy is using a condom when he isn't. Or with the guy thinking there's no risk if he shoots outside. Or thinking it just won't happen "this one time". Seriously, do you live under a rock?
    That we are capable only of being what we are, remains our unforgivable sin.
    - Gene Wolfe

  41. #91
    GiancarloC
    Guest

    Re: Researcher: Economic Impact of Abortion in U.S. Since 1970 - $35 to $70 Trillion

    Quote Originally Posted by MikeyLove View Post
    We can see that the Western World is aging, and that many are at or above retirement age. Abortion eliminated the needed population that was supposed to replace the aging work-force. Now, WHO is going to be paying the taxes that pays into everyone's retirement, Social Security, and the likes...especially when the Wealthy do not pay their fair share in Taxes?. America has already wiped out an entire generation of potential Workers/tax payers since Roe vs. Wade.
    No. Abortion did not "eliminate the needed population". Abortion isn't as common as you may think... and it certainly won't be cutting the population growth rate like you are claiming it is. America didn't wipe out anything. This country has grown population wise significantly. And to think immigrants won't be able to do well... well people said the same thing about the Irish and Italians when they came here.

    Benvolio is mistaken with his argument... he criticizes immigrants but he's criticizing the wrong people. And then he makes a xenophobic allegation that Latinos and other immigrants come from dysfunctional cultures. Has he visited these countries rich with heritage and a strong drive for transparent democratic governance? There is NOTHING dysfunctional about these countries.

    I am very insulted and I am an immigrant. I do not come from a dysfunctional culture, rather a vibrant one. I have taken this up in the Ask the Mods section. I am fed up.

  42. #92
    veni, vidi, reliqui
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    33,645

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Researcher: Economic Impact of Abortion in U.S. Since 1970 - $35 to $70 Trillion

    Quote Originally Posted by MikeyLove View Post
    We can see that the Western World is aging, and that many are at or above retirement age. Abortion eliminated the needed population that was supposed to replace the aging work-force. Now, WHO is going to be paying the taxes that pays into everyone's retirement, Social Security, and the likes...especially when the Wealthy do not pay their fair share in Taxes?. America has already wiped out an entire generation of potential Workers/tax payers since Roe vs. Wade.

    You are dodging now. You've been told that it is up to you to prove the hypothesis stated in the article, complete with methodologies for calculating the supposed costs of abortion.

    And just bear in mind that according to your logic, every sperm wasted is equal in impact to abortion. The jizz you clean up off your boyfriend, the stuff in the condom or down the throat, either straight or homo is directly responsible for the collapse of civilization.


    Except we know that isn't true.

    What we do know to be true is that rampant unchecked growth in the human population will be the end of humanity. Period. Full stop. Overpopulation and stripping the planet to serve only one species is unsustainable.

    Humans are destined to be replaced and we are likely the only species that is fully cognizant of just what it takes to annihilate our own species utterly.

    And it isn't abortion.

    It is more likely to be influenza or war.

  43. #93
    Sex God Mariatenebre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Gender
    Transexual Female
    Orientation
    Straight
    Posts
    971

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Researcher: Economic Impact of Abortion in U.S. Since 1970 - $35 to $70 Trillion

    Quote Originally Posted by MikeyLove View Post
    I would encourage them not to change the rules, as they would be violating Free Speech. Killing a Child in the Womb, I would say is on par with a woman killing her children by drowning them in a bathtub. Murder is Murder no matter how you look at it. What is that word when someone tries to scratch a word out because it is offensive to a few? I may be Gay, but I am adamenately Pro-Life all the way. You would want to strip away my opinion just because of the word "Murder"? That would be a bad move. With this kind of action, you would be on par with the stupid crazy Republicans/Tea Party.
    Except it is not a child. How many times do I have to tell you pro lifers that there are stages of development in the womb. A fetus/embryo/cluster of cells is not a person and as about as much sentience, personhood and intelligence as a jar of paste. In fact any given animal as more sentience etc then said pre life forms and I dont see pro lifers runnin out to be vegetarians. You think that as soon as conception happens that there is a sentient person in the room with you and that is not the case. Again you pro lifers are basing your ideas on your primative religion instead of science. When in reality your god practiced not even abortion but outright infaticide in the Bible.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Springer View Post
    A "cluster of cells" as you call it is not a cold. It's new life growing. The woman and man who joined together to make it were not dumb -- they knew what they were doing.

    A woman or man has control over their body to seek treatment for an ailment -- but treating a new human being as property of a woman is not correct -- if it were so, that woman would have to the right to also kill the baby after it was born.

    The sad part about what I just said is that there are people who publicly say that the mother should also have that right.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/wi...life-movement/

    As a human being you must respect human life.
    A cluster of cells is a living organism but it is not an actual sentient life. It is a potential life that the mother can choose to terminate when she pleases before it becomes an actual life because potential and pre life forms do not deserve respect only actual ones do. It is sentience, intellience and personhood that determines what life is and these potential life forms have none of these things and only gain them later in the womb before that they are merely potential lives or pre lives. They are not sentient human lives worthy of respect. Which as I mentioned before any given animal has more sentience, personhood and intelligence then these clusters of cells and I don't see pro lifers running out to be vegetarians. Again personhood and sentience are how we determine life. Until said creature has these things it is not a life and unlike what you pro lifers say a sentient life is not formed at the moment of conception.
    Last edited by Mariatenebre; October 1st, 2012 at 01:55 PM.

  44. #94
    of the 99%
    Just_Believe18's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    9,213

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Researcher: Economic Impact of Abortion in U.S. Since 1970 - $35 to $70 Trillion

    Quote Originally Posted by MikeyLove View Post
    We can see that the Western World is aging, and that many are at or above retirement age. Abortion eliminated the needed population that was supposed to replace the aging work-force. Now, WHO is going to be paying the taxes that pays into everyone's retirement, Social Security, and the likes...especially when the Wealthy do not pay their fair share in Taxes?. America has already wiped out an entire generation of potential Workers/tax payers since Roe vs. Wade.
    Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

    Western civilization by nature declines in population. The reduction of families is not because women are having abortions. It's called family planning. My parents only had two kids. My mom didn't go, "whoops!" and have three abortions. If you want to encourage child raising, then you provide more tax, health, and education incentives to encourage couples to have more children. When the economic recession hit, so did the U.S. birth rate.

    Developing and third world countries have higher birth rates because of systemic poverty, a lack of education, and oppressive gender dynamics.
    #439th oldest member on JUB.

  45. #95
    JUB Addict vulgar_newcomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    St. Petersburg
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    2,794

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Researcher: Economic Impact of Abortion in U.S. Since 1970 - $35 to $70 Trillion

    What of the cost in suffering and botched back alley abortions had they not been legal, or doesn't that count? Along with the human cost physically and emotionally there certainly is a high economic cost.

    If abortions were illegal in the states or certain states it wouldn't be the well off young woman who would stuffer the consequence. They would travel to a Country where they would be legal, Daddy would make sure of that if her account couldn't cover the fees. Of course it will be the low income and poor who don't have the resources to do this. They will be birthing babies or going to the local dumpster abortionist risking great mortal or lifetime disability.
    No one wants those babies after they are born it seems.

    Many of the same people that are against any form of abortion are also against any sort of public aid to adults and children that will require assistance once brought into this world. Once the baby cries care is on on going until death, or does it matter after that? Some people I hear can live well into their 80's or beyond, even from poor neighborhoods.

    Mikey Love a good flick to watch on this for several good points, its excellent WW II era "Cider House Rules" from 1999 where the story takes place in a orphanage

    It offers several points of view pro and con, but it opens your eyes, however I know some think they talk for God or he to them and knows what is best, yet they haven't a desire to help out with all these people. Either with volunteer work, funds, or education to avoid the mostly preventable situation of a abortion. On this point it matters not if you are female or male.
    The church cannot handle the cost of this, and why should it? Oh the Catholic Church come out with some good bullshit how they think Ryans budget plans are barbaric and cruel to the poor and elderly but that and a lit match burn out quickly.

  46. #96

    Re: Researcher: Economic Impact of Abortion in U.S. Since 1970 - $35 to $70 Trillion

    Quote Originally Posted by JockBoy87 View Post
    I swear you just can't make this stuff up.

    Keep it rolling Benvolio, you're doing a good job speaking for conservatism.
    If their cultures were not dysfunctional, they would not be so desperate to come here in hoards. Their economies and political systems are functions of culture. Why else would they come?

  47. #97
    GiancarloC
    Guest

    Re: Researcher: Economic Impact of Abortion in U.S. Since 1970 - $35 to $70 Trillion

    http://www.pewhispanic.org/2012/04/2...-perhaps-less/

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...DdT_story.html'

    A four-decade tidal wave of Mexican immigration to the United States has receded, causing a historic shift in migration patterns as more Mexicans appear to be leaving the United States for Mexico than the other way around, according to a report from the Pew Hispanic Center.
    Hoards of immigrants? Really? Immigration has stalled and in fact started to reverse. People are leaving this country.

    Their cultures aren't dysfunctional. The American culture is more dysfunctional in my opinion. And Mexico has actually had a pretty stable economy despite violence in the country (fueled by American drug demand). And in other Latin American countries, economic growth has been quite strong (like in Brazil, Argentina, Colombia).

  48. #98
    JockBoy87
    Guest

    Re: Researcher: Economic Impact of Abortion in U.S. Since 1970 - $35 to $70 Trillion

    Quote Originally Posted by Benvolio View Post
    If their cultures were not dysfunctional, they would not be so desperate to come here in hoards. Their economies and political systems are functions of culture. Why else would they come?
    You conflate human capital with culture, and that's American exceptionalism in a nutshell.

  49. #99

    Re: Researcher: Economic Impact of Abortion in U.S. Since 1970 - $35 to $70 Trillion

    Quote Originally Posted by JockBoy87 View Post
    You conflate human capital with culture, and that's American exceptionalism in a nutshell.
    No. American culture has encouraged innovative thinking, free enterprise, democracy, individual responsibility, and unwillingness to accept governmental corruption. Not all cultures ancourage innovation. Many countries tolerate governmental corruption which is destructive of free enterprise and democracy. Many cultures find it hard to accept democracy or to maintain it for long.
    Notice that the other WASP countries have similar cultures, economies and political systems: UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand. It is not a coincidence. Many countries have great masses of "human capital" but remain stagnant third world countries.

  50. #100
    JUB Addict FirmaFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    1,065

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Researcher: Economic Impact of Abortion in U.S. Since 1970 - $35 to $70 Trillion

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Springer View Post
    A "cluster of cells" as you call it is not a cold. It's new life growing. The woman and man who joined together to make it were not dumb -- they knew what they were doing.

    A woman or man has control over their body to seek treatment for an ailment -- but treating a new human being as property of a woman is not correct -- if it were so, that woman would have to the right to also kill the baby after it was born.
    Giving women the option to terminate the pregnancy is not "treating a new human being as property of a woman". What it is doing it allowing a woman the right to decide what her body is to be used for. If a woman chooses to not use her body to sustain the life of a fetus inside her, she has every right to remove that from her body. There is no other instance in which it has been argued that a person sacrifice their bodily autonomy for the life of another is required.

    The sad part about what I just said is that there are people who publicly say that the mother should also have that right.
    Yep, and they are as misguided as those who say it should not be allowed for a woman to have the right to decide if her body is to be used to sustain the development of a child.

    As a human being you must respect human life.
    Projecting the qualifier of "human life" onto a zygote or fetus, and then misguidedly protecting that "life" at the expense of an adult woman's bodily autonomy is not "respecting human life".

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | About JustUsBoys.com | Site Map | RSS | Webmasters | Advertise | Link to JUB | Report A Bug on this Page

Visit our sister sites: Broke Straight Boys | CollegeDudes.com | CollegeBoyPhysicals.com | RocketTube
All models appearing on JustUsBoys.com were over 18 at the time of photography. The records for sexually explicit images required by U.S. 2257 are kept by the
individual producers of the images. The location of the records is available by clicking the Custodian of Records link at the bottom of each gallery page.
© 2012 JustUsBoys.com. The JustUsBoys.com name and logo are registered trademarks. Labeled with ICRA and RTA. Member of ASACP and The Free Speech Coalition.