Abortion and Crime.

[Phoenix44]

Bowling for Columbine explores the reasons behind the high rate of gun violence in the US, as opposed to, let's say, Canada, where there are far more guns in the hands of the average individual. Some possibilities include fear, paranoia, alienation, and a culture of violence.

 

[Ray]

Just out of curiosity, what would folks imagine would be Christ's comments on the ethics of a society that allows hundreds of thousands of the mentally ill and the sick to wander around homeless?

As opposed to what He said about it during his mortality? Did the mentally ill and sick wander around homeless at that time? His comments were to you and me: to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the widow and orphan, etc.

So far as I know, He didn't recommend that the gov't tax people to take care of the poor.

In its way, our treatment of the poor is as violent as any shotgun killing. And yes, bleeding-heart liberal here--I think that decency, not to mention selfish self-interest, demand that we make sure that poor children and those who cannot help themselves be fed, clothed, housed, and educated.

But no. Because we need more toys.

Yes, we should.

 

[modarnis]

Just out of curiosity, what would folks imagine would be Christ's comments on the ethics of a society that allows hundreds of thousands of the mentally ill and the sick to wander around homeless?

In its way, our treatment of the poor is as violent as any shotgun killing. And yes, bleeding-heart liberal here--I think that decency, not to mention selfish self-interest, demand that we make sure that poor children and those who cannot help themselves be fed, clothed, housed, and educated.

But no. Because we need more toys.

But wasn't it the bleeding hearts that caused us to de-institutionalize the mentally ill in the early to mid 70's. Non secure community based programs were designed to relieve stigma and mainstream the mentally ill into communities. Of course non secure also means they leave and become homeless

 

[PeachMonkey]

But wasn't it the bleeding hearts that caused us to de-institutionalize the mentally ill in the early to mid 70's. Non secure community based programs were designed to relieve stigma and mainstream the mentally ill into communities. Of course non secure also means they leave and become homeless

Spoken like someone who knows very little about state mental institutions and the history of mental treatment. If you think they were somehow better off in asylums, you've never visited one, studied one, or spent time in one.

The burst of the mentally ill into homelessness actually came during the Reagan Administration's massive stripping of funding for treatment for the mentally ill.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

But wasn't it the bleeding hearts that caused us to de-institutionalize the mentally ill in the early to mid 70's. Non secure community based programs were designed to relieve stigma and mainstream the mentally ill into communities. Of course non secure also means they leave and become homeless

In 1968 there were fourteen hospitals in California serving the mentally ill, and four institutions for the developmentally disabled. The Lanterman Petris Short Act allowed for thousands of those patients to be reintegrated into the community. Patients were no longer necessarily placed in involuntary confinement.

The California legislature's intention was for money to follow the patients to the community so they could receive treatement there while going through reintegration. The intent was "to encourage the full use of all existing agencies, professional personnel and public funds to accomplish these objectives and to prevent duplication of services and unnecessary expenditures."

Thanks to a veto by then Governor Ronald Reagan, the money never got to the communities. He crippled the LPA.

The problem is that the chronically severely mentally ill and handicapped don't have the capacity to fend for themselves or make responsible decisions as to their own treatment. If given medication they often don't take it due to their paranoia or because of the medication's side effects. Lacking institutions for treatment, they live on the streets or in jail, occasionally spending time in psych ward of hospitals before they're turned back out on the streets.

As to the question of whether Jesus endorsed taxes to support the poor, he didn't directly. However; he admonished his followers to pay their taxes in Matthew, chapter 22. As for charity in spirit he said this in Matthew, chapter 25:

"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'"




Regards,


Steve

 

[shesulsa]

Thanks to a veto by then Governor Ronald Reagan, the money never got to the communities. He crippled the LPA.

Indeed he did, right along with driving the surplus that was left in office before he took over right into the ground and putting the state in debt.

As to the question of whether Jesus endorsed taxes to support the poor, he didn't directly. However; he admonished his followers to pay their taxes in Matthew, chapter 22. As for charity in spirit he said this in Matthew, chapter 25:

"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'"

Fine quote - needs to be quoted more. How about this one:

"He looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury; and he saw a poor widow put in two copper coins. And he said, "Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all of them; for they all contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty put in all the living that she had." - Luke 21:1-4

 

[hardheadjarhead]

What doesn't lead to sex?

Gee, Ray...you're obviously not married.

The question for me is WHAT DOES lead to sex. I once bought Richard Posner's "Sex and Reason" after having dyslexically reading it as "Reasons to Have Sex," and hoping thereby to give it to my wife as justification for a horizontal weekend. Imagine my embarrassment when I realized the error.

Still a good book...and one that is on topic here. As a society we have to look at sex and economics. What is best, economically, for any portion of society when it comes to such matters? For the devout, it may be abstinence, the pay-off being the pleasure of God, rather than the pleasure of the self. I don't deny them that. The rest of us (and clearly I am in this group) might choose something more libertine.

In that (and I submit inevitable) event how can we best meet our responsibilities to ourselves, our family, and our society? Birth control (not abortion, but contraception) gives us the power to decide when and where the child will be born--if at all. The poor family thus maintained enjoys greater economic freedom from having been relieved of the burden of an infant (or infants). Society benefits from this through less taxes, reduced crime, less guilt and the attendant friction between the right and left that always arises from the issues of poverty.

Disadvantages? Look at a very cold analysis of one social scientist who observed that the poor serve specific purposes. Without them certain institutions and a service sector set up for them would suffer...we'd have less cops, fewer psych wards and drug rehab clinics, social service organizations and charitable organizations. Emergency rooms might have less staffing. We'd have less "help" for those who require gardening and maid service. We'd lose a scapegoat for societal ills...always necessary for blame-fixing, witch-hunting, and posturing from a position of superiority. For some of us it wouldn't be as fun if there weren't another side to the tracks or a "wrong side of town," to which we could point and mock.


Regards,


Steve

 

[stephen]

Freakonomics was a great read. Brought back memories for me. I was one of Prof. Levitt's students in an undergraduate economics class. Great professor and very interesting material. Much more interesting than econometrics and the like.

His class covered a few of the studies in the book, such as the crack selling steet gang and the abortion studies in great detail. Then, and it seems now, his main point seemed to be the confusion between causation and correlation. And also, since this was an economics class, how to undertake studies that can tell the difference. Economics suffers from the problem of study design. You can't just go and tell a city to hire 50% more police and see what happens, or give a country 50% less oil reserves and see the effect on the economy. You have to tease studies from available data. Much like he used the pre-election police hiring data. I remember he also talked about using the weather data in the week post-9/11 to examine the effect of jets on the atmosphere.

Cool guy, smart prof.

/steve

 

[Ray]

Gee, Ray...you're obviously not married.

Ah, but I am married. I've been married since 1976 and it only gets better.

...As a society we have to look at sex and economics. What is best, economically, for any portion of society when it comes to such matters?...

In that (and I submit inevitable) event how can we best meet our responsibilities to ourselves, our family, and our society? Birth control (not abortion, but contraception) gives us the power to decide when and where the child will be born--if at all....

I wholeheartedly agree that we have responsibility and I'm glad to see that your definition of 'birth control' parallels mine (prevention of pregnancy, not abortion).

I am concerned that a poor family must choose greater prosperity by deciding to have fewer children (I know it's a poor paraphrase of what you said). Even though some may say that the world population is too great and quantities of births must be controlled, I know that a small population will not remove class distinctions and barriers. We will still have the poor and underclass even if fewer people share the resources of the planet. Because we're not out for each other's good, we're out for ourselves (in general, not to say anyone in particular) so we hoard and we gather and we don't give.

You'd think that if poor people reduced the number of children they gave birth to, then poorness would be bred out of the human race.

So many real problems and so few real solutions.


[/QUOTE]

 

[Tgace]

Maybe we should sterilize them all. :shrug:

 

[Ray]

Maybe we should sterilize them all. :shrug:

I hope that's not in response to my post. I didn't mean that poor people shouldn't have kids, thereby eliminating poor people - I meant that, we would still have poor people even if they did reduce the number of children.

 

[Tgace]

No..not at you at all Ray. Just reinforcing your point.

 

[Ray]

No..not at you at all Ray. Just reinforcing your point.

Good, thanks for clearing that up. I'd hate it if people thought that of me...

 

[Tgace]

If you believe that an unborn fetus is a human life, this whole topic smells like an "ultimate soultion" to me....