Gary Becker created a helpful equation in predicting crime. It takes into account the value of the crime (and probability of success) and balances it against the risk aversion of the individual times the chance of getting catch and the likely punishment. Obviously, it's not flawless, because people are irrational at times.
In the modern world, children are made to be an expense, not an asset. Additionally, taking care of a child carries a lot of non-monetary costs (e.g. lost of leisure time).
Plugging that into the equation, I can understand why abortion laws are unhelpful. Why shouldn't fallen people pursue abortions? The punishments are usually nominal.
Abortion providers rake in the cash, and at what risk? If you want to successfully reduce abortions, the punishments must be likely and severe. Granted, some people will be irrational and/or risk-tolerant. Some will over-value the benefit of an abortion or undervalue the punishment and the chance of getting caught. I don't expect to see a complete end to abortions in our country. That's not realistic at all. I'd like to see a serious drop ( 95%).
Neil wrote: Even *if* the South had the right to secede, which stands upon a disputable matter of vocabulary in the Articles of Confederation & the Constitution Preamble, they still had no good reason to secede before Lincoln even took office.
The Constitution does talk about a more perfect union, for sure, but interpreting that to mean that someone doesn't need to expressly volunteer away their ability to leave the Union would be a very, very liberal construction. I, for one, wouldn't want to stand on that foundation. The AOC do talk about a "perpetual Union," but I think the proper rendering of that clause would mean that the AOC don't need to be renewed. This is just my personal observation, but, in all other areas of contract (corporate or individual), substantive rights are not surrendered without clear intent.
Otherwise, I take no issue with anything else you wrote thereafter.
Edited Addition: I might add, corporations are perpetual too, but that doesn't lock owners into the corporation for life.
Neil wrote: Rubbish; Alan Guelzo, a prominent Lincoln scholar, refutes that nonsense: www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/02/abraham-lincoln-was-not-the-father-of-big-government Mike, Lincoln was right: âPlainly, the central idea of secession, is the essence of anarchy.â
Neil, I'll listen to Alan Guelzo in the next few days. I'm not against having my mind changed.
I don't like the Lincoln quote you put up. He probably didn't want to be associated with the decreased size of the U.S. Contracts are contracts, and words are words. It doesn't matter how people "feel" about secession. Sophistry isn't an adequate alternative for contract formation. If an entity voluntarily enters into a larger entity, and never gives up the right to leave, well... tough luck. I know people don't appreciate the idea, but let's not get liberal with our handling of law. This isn't just an important mindset for the laws of men, but also with respect to how we handle the Law of God. Giving up an important right requires some kind of clear intent, that's universally true for all human contracts.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Well, Mike of NY., I suggest that you read some of the articles that my URLs point to, as I would also point out the one I just put up in the thread, "GOP Establishment Blames Tea Party for Election Failures" The Mad Hatter Tea Party group will no doubt lead to the election of another Democratic President, with the title Madame President. President Obama doesn't have to give a hoot if he is toxic to a fraction of the Republicans, Samâs Club Republicans Vs. the Tea Party, the Mad Hatter's Tea Party is toxic to the rest of us. Republicans are going to have to make up their minds are they going after social issues (though note: The Inadequacy of Moralism ) or economic issues, they might be able to win on one platform or the other, but I really doubt both, that is just too much for the electorate to swallow.
Oh Jim, shall we make victims out of the entire nation?
Jim Lincoln wrote: A Hispanic Canadian? What's this he finally found an area nutty enough to accept his crackpot ideas? Actually, Nebraska has imported carpet-baggers to be politicians, I'm not sure why Republicans had to import one from New Orleans to be my Congressional delegate. He is certainly a loyal son of the Romish Church (Oh, by the way I'm thoroughly against the Romish Church, remember, The Perils of Popery. So, any rabid supporter of the Romish Church, is guaranteed a vote against him from me--Hispanic or not.
"33 For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine; and ye say, He hath a devil.
34The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners!"
More importantly, Mr. "Street-Preacher," God (i.e. Jesus) gave the Jews the law, the same law he lived under and obeyed:
"24 And if the way be too long for thee, so that thou art not able to carry it; or if the place be too far from thee, which the LORD thy God shall choose to set his name there, when the LORD thy God hath blessed thee: 25 Then shalt thou turn it into money, and bind up the money in thine hand, and shalt go unto the place which the LORD thy God shall choose : 26 And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after , for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth : and thou shalt eat there before the LORD thy God, and thou shalt rejoice , thou, and thine household" Deu 14:24-26
Now, was the LORD telling the Israelites to sin? Would he have them sin before His FACE?!
Mark 7:13: "Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do
Caps Lock is not a substitute for Bible verses. Frankly, you couldn't prove that Christ (who was without sin), never drank wine. Newsflash people, they didn't have refrigeration back then. Welchs grape juice isn't a realistic beverage option in the 1st century A.D. Plus, no one has bothered to refute Oliver's excellent 10:37 A.M. post.
Also, I recommend not using Wikipedia or any open-source encyclopedia for controversial topics. These internet encyclopedias are a battle ground. Better to do your own, slow study. Usually, you'll find that there is oh so much more involved that what is represented by a few online editors.
(1) Romish cosmology was influnenced primarily by Greek cosmology in this flat earth issue.
(2) Christianity (if that's what you want to call the Romish church) being wrong once doesn't guarantee Xtianity being wrong again. That's a logical fallacy. Besides, that was an observation of the present universe not a guess about the past.