3 ms·

This is an uncomfortable and divisive topic, and as such, shrouds rationality. For instance, if you believe that the subject of this matter is morally wrong, th

by jl2718 3y ago

This is an uncomfortable and divisive topic, and as such, shrouds rationality. For instance, if you believe that the subject of this matter is morally wrong, then you should rationally also be able to fully accept evidence that your particular beliefs lead to a negative outcome. If you are both arguing about the outcome of your beliefs, and unwilling to change them with evidence, then you’re either holding a rationally delusional belief, or engaging in deception to trick rational thinkers into adopting your morals. Let’s just be honest about why you are arguing for or against an analytical result. I’m not saying that their study conclusions are correct; I’m just saying that acceptance or rejection of the claim should not be related to moral beliefs. It is, in my understanding of most religions, a pillar of faith to accept negative outcomes in adherence to scripture. It is easier, I think, to accept the self-flagellation form of this edict, than to accept burden onto others, and in this case, a wide social effect that seems incongruent with the aspirations of the faith itself. If they are right, are you wrong? That’s your burden. I want to be clear that I am not taking a universal stance on the topic nor the analysis, nor religion. My personal experiences related to these topics are moderately severe, and it would probably not be productive to bring that here.

jbm 3y ago
It seems disingenuous to start off a comment admitting that something is a complex subject and then doing a long-winded vaguebook-style one-sided criticism; it's not convincing at all. Crime will be going up regardless of any statistical effect abortion had because of the far greater impacts of climate change and the ensuing impoverishment of the population.
- af3d 3y ago
  Wait, did I read that right? Are you actually suggesting that climate change is the cause of rising crime rates? If so, please explain, because I would honestly like to know how you reached that conclusion.
  - warkdarrior 3y ago
    There you go: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab6b37 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab6b37 "The temperature-aggression hypothesis posits that individuals experiencing physiological heat stress are more likely to read personal interactions as aggressive than individuals not experiencing heat stress with subtle shifts toward more violent responses, accordingly."
  - jbm 3y ago
    Yes you did, this is not a novel idea and I was referring to the near future, not the present (although some inflation is indoubedly caused by climate change) Over the medium term, climate change will result in more failed crops, which will then result in increased food insecurity which will lead to increased crime.
golergka 3y ago
> you should rationally also be able to fully accept evidence that your particular beliefs lead to a negative outcome. If you are both arguing about the outcome of your beliefs, and unwilling to change them with evidence, then you’re either holding a rationally delusional belief, or engaging in deception to trick rational thinkers into adopting your morals. That's a very utilitarian point of view, and most people are demonstrably not utilitarian. The point of moral beliefs is not necessarily to lead to better overall outcomes on average for everybody.
pmarreck 3y ago
Well, if you accept as a given (for the sake of argument) that permitting rampant abortion tangibly reduces crime, then there are different conclusions that you can draw. For example, if you believe that very few people are "born bad" (which I don't believe is a challenging assertion... Psychopathy exists and all that, but even that can be steered into productive ends), then incarcerations are a failure of the system to steer those with troubled or unwanted beginnings into productive lives regardless. The anti-abortion people, instead of fighting abortion, should be pushing for better support of young people who grew up in troubled or unwanted environments. Then and only then, once that is in place, can the restriction of abortion commence IMHO without resulting in more societal harm. Unfortunately, the same people pushing to ban abortion are the people who would stand in the way of social supports like this, trying to have their cake and eat it too, because it costs money. Or perhaps because they, uncharacteristically unempathetically and dehumanizingly, see people as falling into only 2 camps, "hardworking Americans" and "criminals" Lastly, both incarceration and child rehabilitation should be judged based on recidivism, and new ideas should be attempted if that number is inadequate, and at least in the US, they're not.
- Georgelemental 3y ago
  > The anti-abortion people, instead of fighting abortion, should be pushing for better support of young people who grew up in troubled or unwanted environments. Can we not advocate for two things at once?
  - paulryanrogers 3y ago
    Republicans in the US view abortion and social safety nets as problems to be solved at the same time. Paraphrasing my experience being indoctrinated: those nets are costly and only those worthless others use them anyway.
  - xenospn 3y ago
    I have not seen or heard a single conservative politician come out in support of single mothers, early childhood healthcare, or even free school lunches. So yes, it appears the people in power are unable to advocate for both.

by jl2718 3y ago

jbm 3y ago

It seems disingenuous to start off a comment admitting that something is a complex subject and then doing a long-winded vaguebook-style one-sided criticism; it's not convincing at all. Crime will be going up regardless of any statistical effect abortion had because of the far greater impacts of climate change and the ensuing impoverishment of the population.

af3d 3y ago
Wait, did I read that right? Are you actually suggesting that climate change is the cause of rising crime rates? If so, please explain, because I would honestly like to know how you reached that conclusion.
- warkdarrior 3y ago
  There you go: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab6b37 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab6b37 "The temperature-aggression hypothesis posits that individuals experiencing physiological heat stress are more likely to read personal interactions as aggressive than individuals not experiencing heat stress with subtle shifts toward more violent responses, accordingly."
- jbm 3y ago
  Yes you did, this is not a novel idea and I was referring to the near future, not the present (although some inflation is indoubedly caused by climate change) Over the medium term, climate change will result in more failed crops, which will then result in increased food insecurity which will lead to increased crime.

golergka 3y ago

> you should rationally also be able to fully accept evidence that your particular beliefs lead to a negative outcome. If you are both arguing about the outcome of your beliefs, and unwilling to change them with evidence, then you’re either holding a rationally delusional belief, or engaging in deception to trick rational thinkers into adopting your morals. That's a very utilitarian point of view, and most people are demonstrably not utilitarian. The point of moral beliefs is not necessarily to lead to better overall outcomes on average for everybody.

pmarreck 3y ago

Well, if you accept as a given (for the sake of argument) that permitting rampant abortion tangibly reduces crime, then there are different conclusions that you can draw. For example, if you believe that very few people are "born bad" (which I don't believe is a challenging assertion... Psychopathy exists and all that, but even that can be steered into productive ends), then incarcerations are a failure of the system to steer those with troubled or unwanted beginnings into productive lives regardless. The anti-abortion people, instead of fighting abortion, should be pushing for better support of young people who grew up in troubled or unwanted environments. Then and only then, once that is in place, can the restriction of abortion commence IMHO without resulting in more societal harm. Unfortunately, the same people pushing to ban abortion are the people who would stand in the way of social supports like this, trying to have their cake and eat it too, because it costs money. Or perhaps because they, uncharacteristically unempathetically and dehumanizingly, see people as falling into only 2 camps, "hardworking Americans" and "criminals" Lastly, both incarceration and child rehabilitation should be judged based on recidivism, and new ideas should be attempted if that number is inadequate, and at least in the US, they're not.

Georgelemental 3y ago
> The anti-abortion people, instead of fighting abortion, should be pushing for better support of young people who grew up in troubled or unwanted environments. Can we not advocate for two things at once?
- paulryanrogers 3y ago
  Republicans in the US view abortion and social safety nets as problems to be solved at the same time. Paraphrasing my experience being indoctrinated: those nets are costly and only those worthless others use them anyway.
- xenospn 3y ago
  I have not seen or heard a single conservative politician come out in support of single mothers, early childhood healthcare, or even free school lunches. So yes, it appears the people in power are unable to advocate for both.