These are reasons why Kamala needs to win and Trump needs to lose 2024 elections, 3 main points

Author: Best.Korea

Posts

Total: 91
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,649
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Savant
I concede that making abortion legal would reduce crime rates, but have you considered making all crimes legal?
The link I found talks of non-abortion crimes reduced. It doesnt matter if label "crime" is there or not.

Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,992
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Best.Korea
Yes, this is how we won the Vietnam war.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,649
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Yes, this is how we won the Vietnam war
You cant win any war if you refuse to fight it. Now, Ukraine fights instead of US military.
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 1,999
3
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
3
7
6
-->
@Best.Korea
It doesnt matter if label "crime" is there or not.
It does because if you don't call them crimes, no crimes are committed.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,649
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Savant
It does because if you don't call them crimes, no crimes are committed.
The actions commited are same irrelevant if you call them crimes or not. It just changes label, not action.

Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,992
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Savant
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,649
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Contrary to your troll belief, the criminal actions reduced in study werent simply legalized. Actions were reduced, not renamed.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,992
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Best.Korea
Google it. It's freely verifiable.

And calling opposing views "troll views" just undermines your thin facade of good faith debating.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,649
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Google it.
Its your argument. I showed you the study. Homicide rates, property crimes reduced by 40%. Now is your turn.
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,611
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Best.Korea
Yes, Donohue and Levitt (2001) presented evidence that the legalization of abortion in the early 1970s played an important role in the crime drop of the 1990s.
They said that:  We estimate that overall crime fell 17.5% from 1998 to 2014 due to legalized abortion— a decline of 1% per year. From 1991 to 2014, the violent and property crime rates each fell by 50%. Legalized abortion is estimated to have reduced violent crime by 47% and property crime by 33% over this period, and thus can explain most of the observed crime decline.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,992
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@FLRW
We could probably reduce the debt, poverty, income inequality, global warming, and crime by simply expanding abortion to include all welfare recipients.

Margaret Sanger and Pol Pot would be so proud.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,649
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@FLRW
I swear, you and me are the smartest people on this site. Our weapon is science and painful facts!

One such fact is that abortion rates also reduced after abortion was legalized. So whats point of ban?
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,611
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Best.Korea
Yes, in undocumented women, unintended pregnancies were significantly more frequent and accounted for 75% compared to 21% in the control group. Sixty-one percent of the undocumented migrants were unaware of emergency contraception (Levonorgestrel) compared to 9% among the control group. Moreover, 79% of the undocumented women with unintended pregnancies did not use any (48%) or used unreliable (31%) contraceptive measures, such as condoms, retraction, or the temperature method. Reasons for absence of contraception among undocumented migrants were: infrequent intercourse (25%), believed that they were infertile (18%), and stopped contraception (run out of pills, side effects, lack of money) (12%). Other less frequent reasons were: "didn't think about it", "latent wish of pregnancy but planned for later", "lack of knowledge about contraceptive methods", and "presumed sterility of the partner". Undocumented migrants declared their pregnancies as unintended 73.2% of the time when asked during the first and 78.8% during the second and third trimesters .
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,992
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@FLRW
@PolPotwasright
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,649
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Margaret Sanger and Pol Pot would be so proud
Unborn arent equal to born people. Whats next? Masturbation is murder? Sperm is person? Contraception should be illegal?

Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,992
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Best.Korea
Unborn arent equal to born people. 

According to Margaret Sanger, some unborn are worth far more than other unborn.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,992
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was a controversial figure whose advocacy for birth control was intertwined with her views on eugenics and social engineering. Sanger believed that by controlling reproduction, society could reduce crime and poverty, arguing that some unborn children were inherently more valuable than others. She supported the idea that society should encourage the reproduction of those deemed "fit" while discouraging or even preventing the reproduction of those she considered "unfit," such as the poor, disabled, and certain racial and ethnic groups. This perspective was deeply rooted in a belief that limiting the birth of "undesirable" populations would lead to a decrease in crime and social ills.

Sanger's emphasis on reducing crime through selective reproduction is an unfortunate troubling side of her legacy. She believed that by controlling who was allowed to have children, society could weed out those who statistically would become burdensome or criminal. Her advocacy for eugenic policies aimed at improving the genetic quality of the population was based on the assumption that certain groups were more likely to produce offspring who would contribute to crime and social disorder. This belief led her to promote birth control as a tool for social control, particularly targeting those she viewed as contributing to the degradation of society, marketing the policy as "empowering women."

The implications of Sanger's beliefs are still relevant today, especially in discussions about reproductive rights, social justice, and crime prevention. While she is often celebrated for her role in expanding access to contraception, the smartest people on DART will at least question the motivations behind her work. Sanger's legacy is a reminder of how efforts to reduce crime and improve society were tainted by her underlying prejudices and biases. Her belief that some unborn lives were worth more than others, based on their statistical potential to contribute to or detract from social order, raises ethical questions about the basis for the value of human life and the dangers of using reproductive control as a means of shaping society according to discriminatory ideals and junk racial science.

Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,649
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Greyparrot
According to Margaret Sanger, some unborn are worth far more than other unborn
The goal is to create quality life for born people. Also, women arent your baby factories. Women are persons.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,992
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Best.Korea
Also, women arent your baby factories. Women are persons.
Women are also not "abortion factories" either. Forcing women to get abortions so they can make more corporate bread to live is evil too.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,992
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10

Corporate oligarchies have a vested interest in maintaining and increasing female productivity within the workforce. To achieve this, they often promote policies and practices that enable women to prioritize their careers, with abortion access being one such tool. By supporting reproductive rights, including the option to terminate a pregnancy, corporations ensure that women are not hindered by unplanned pregnancies, which could disrupt their work and reduce their availability for labor. This aligns with the broader corporate goal of maximizing productivity and minimizing disruptions in the workforce.

The promotion of abortion by corporate oligarchies is often framed as empowering women to make choices about their bodies and careers. However, beneath this veneer of empowerment lies a more pragmatic concern: the economic benefits of having a stable, uninterrupted workforce. By advocating for reproductive rights, corporations attract and retain female employees, offering them the freedom to focus on their professional development without the potential setback of an unplanned pregnancy. This approach not only boosts female productivity but also enhances the company’s overall efficiency and profitability.

Moreover, the emphasis on abortion as a means to maintain female productivity can lead to a subtle pressure on women to prioritize their careers over personal choices, including motherhood. In a corporate culture that values continuous work output and career advancement, women may feel compelled to delay or forego having children to align with the expectations of their employers. This dynamic reveals how corporate interests shape societal norms and personal decisions, promoting abortion as a way to ensure that women remain fully engaged in the workforce, ultimately serving the goals of corporate oligarchies rather than the individual needs of women.

Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,649
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Can I attach myself to you, steal your food and endanger your life while you carry me around?

Forcing women to get abortions
I am rather certain that its woman's choice in most cases, but you dont believe women can choose.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,992
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Best.Korea
Women can't have a free choice to not have sex any more than they can refuse to choose corporate food. It's instinctual.

The only thing they can choose is to have a hysterectomy with Oophorectomy since they can't normally choose to stop ovulating and choose to stop hormone production.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,649
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Women can't choose to not have sex
They can, but its unhealthy and painful. Do you think women exist to give birth and make sandwiches?

Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,992
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Best.Korea
Making sandwiches is definitely a painful choice.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,649
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Greyparrot
The only thing they can choose is to have a hysterectomy
So you would force women have surgery to never be able to get pregnant again, to have sex?
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,992
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Best.Korea
Her body her choice. If she doesn't want the evolutionary hormones that compel her to be a baby factory, she can choose to remove that trigger.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,649
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Her body her choice. If she doesn't want the evolutionary hormones that compel her to be a baby factory, she can choose to remove that trigger.
Sounds to me you are the one choosing for her, since you want to dictate what choices she has.

Guess you dont believe woman owns her body and you want to make lives of born people worse.
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 1,999
3
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
3
7
6
-->
@Best.Korea
It just changes label, not action.
Yeah, that's what crimes are. Things labeled as crimes.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,649
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Savant
The actions commited are same irrelevant of what you call them. It doesnt change the argument related to non-abortion crimes.
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 1,999
3
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
3
7
6
-->
@Best.Korea
So if you want to reduce those other things, regardless of whether they are called crimes, it might be reasonable for people to also want to reduce abortion.