The Roe Effect

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Annie, Apr 14, 2005.

  1. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Just heading off to bed and had to read one more thing, thought this interesting, links at site:

    http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/

     
  2. Avatar4321
    Online

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,576
    Thanks Received:
    8,171
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,219
    How about we just have a campaign to get married and stay married?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    Cmon dude !!---that takes effort !!!
     
  4. Falk
    Offline

    Falk Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    15
    Thanks Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1
    I read the initial post over and over again, trying to find out what was so interesting about it. I mean, using statistic this way don't impress me a whole lot. But, my eyes kept falling on the line about how many additional childeren would have been born below the poverty line. And that is really interesting, beacause i have only heard that kind of statistics beeing published regarding countries in the third world.

    In the final statement a opinion is stated:
    "A national campaign against unwed teen pregnancy would make more sense."

    I guess "unwed" is the key word here? Fascinating how one can use the word poverty line and conclude that more weddings would make more sense.

    I'm slowly starting to open my eyes. And I don't like what I see.
    /Falk
     
  5. KarlMarx
    Offline

    KarlMarx Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2004
    Messages:
    3,231
    Thanks Received:
    490
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    ...
    Ratings:
    +491
    agreed..... but that would require that people change their attitudes
     
  6. musicman
    Offline

    musicman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Messages:
    5,171
    Thanks Received:
    533
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +533



    Try opening them a little faster and a lot wider, there, Falk. Did you read the first two paragraphs at all? Maybe you did, but just didn't like them.

    The point of the piece is that the study smells funny - kind of like a lot of flowery language being used to mask some rather malodorous truths about Roe vs. Wade, blue states, and birth rates. "See how we're IMPROVING?" Never mind the deadly path to those rosy new numbers.

    Fewer babies are being born into poverty - almost certainly because they're being killed off. That's a good thing?

    Fewer unwed teen pregnancies would be an indication that America is trying to pull itself out of the moral sewer in which it has wallowed for the last thirty years. That's a bad thing?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. Gem
    Offline

    Gem BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2004
    Messages:
    2,080
    Thanks Received:
    782
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +782
    Falk Wrote:
    Not quite sure what you find so fascinating about it. A large number of the single people living below the poverty level, i.e. single mothers, would be lifted out of that status by marrying someone who has a full-time job and sharing assets with them.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    I kind of think of the Roe effect as the liberal equivalent of group suicide. For the poor, it's sanctioned genocide, heck it's easier to kill than to educate. :dunno:

    I don't much like what I see either.
     
  9. Falk
    Offline

    Falk Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    15
    Thanks Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1
    NO!
    Well, poverty is the lack of sharing resources - I agree, but you marry someone you love. Society as a whole can "share assets".

    Thinking of it, I don't even understand what you mean. Should everyone with a full-time job just get to marry an unemployed?
     
  10. musicman
    Offline

    musicman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Messages:
    5,171
    Thanks Received:
    533
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +533


    Ah, yes - to each according to his need; from each according to his ability. That sounds so nice!
     

Share This Page