18 comments on “Timmy elsewhere

  1. Your ASI post is about abortion and as you point out, those on the left tend to be pro-abortion choice.

    One thing that has always puzzled me is that those on the left tend to be pro-abortion and anti-capital punishment and those on the right tend to be the other way round.

  2. Andrew: why so puzzled? It’s surely just a preference for terminating someone after an offence rather than before the opportunity to commit an offence.

  3. So let me get this right; when it’s something they like, it becomes intuitive to them that regulation will limit the activity.

    As those Amercian lefties would say: neat!

  4. “This would basically force all the clinics to become mini-hospitals,” Busby said. “They have to have hallway widths a certain length, and a janitor’s closet, male and female locker rooms, which is completely unnecessary – and a bunch of other regulations that are really not appropriate or do anything to increase the safety of one of the safest procedures in the country.”

    Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha cough splutter splurch ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha whoop gurggh chuff ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha splutter splurgle whop co-hoo-hoo-hoo ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

  5. Why are male and female locker rooms unnecessary? Don’t they accept the possibility of male staff or of male partners accompanying and supporting women through the procedure? Or, if men are barred from the premises, isn’t that discrimination?

  6. The Meissen Bison

    I suppose the puzzlement is that the argument anti-either often involves the ‘sanctity of life’.

  7. Andrew

    But not always.

    A fetus is not guilty of anything (other than upsetting the mother and/or father)

    Execution is normally (but not always) reserved for people found guilty of heinous crimes.

    Not sure where I stand here, but I see much less intellectual problem in the ‘right-wing’ position than in the ‘left-wing’ position.

    The pro-abortion argument hangs on:
    a fetus is not a human being but part of a woman’s body. Therefore she can do what she likes with it. My problem is until when? There is of course the famous doctor on trial in the States for snipping spinal cords during (and apparently) after birth. Don’t look at the pictures.

  8. Freakonomics contained a disgusting (I use the word deliberately) section showing as correlation (which of course equates with a causal link, ho ho) between increased access to abortion in the U.S. in the early ’80s and reduced crime in the late ’90s. Ergo, Abortion great.

    So
    1. Better to exterminate unborn babies from lower socio-economic backgrounds before they the commit the crime they are statistcally more likely but by no means certain to commit.
    2. And this has a slightly, oh how do we put it?, ETHNIC dimension to it.

    So let’s kill unborn black baby boys for the crime of being black baby boys!!!!! (Sorry, for the future crime they’re statistically more likely to commit).

  9. Bilbaoboy, the same argument applies to such things as self mutilation, drugs, alcohol and so on. Right to do what you want with your body also includes killing yourself.

  10. @ Ironman

    The Freakonomics authors never concluded that abortion is great, or that someone should go around doing precautionary abortions on poor black people. They just wrote about a trend that they had observed.

    I understand that there have been some good debunkings of their hypothesis (and not just from the pro-life lobby) but haven’t read them. It might be ok to criticise them for poor research and over-reaching with their conclusion, but the suggestion that they were cheerleaders for eugenics is wide of the mark.

  11. Lefties don’t like reminding that planned parenthood was founded by a racist eugenicist. And that, if it were conservatives that were in favour of abortion, the whole thing would be described as a racist genocide. But no. It’s apparently empowering to wimmins.

  12. The Thought Gang

    1. I didn’t say they were deliberately cheerleading for eugenics. No, that is just the effect of their cheerleading for abortion.

    2. And yes, they DID act as cheerleaders for abortion; see their views on Ceausescu’s Romania.

  13. @ abacab

    It’s generally regarded as a wimmins rights thing in the UK, where there is no prominent left/right divide, and no race issue. It is regarded as a wimmins rights thing in Ireland where the divide is (I think) generational as oppose to political and, again, race has bog all to do with it. I think it’s fair to conclude that the wimmins rights argument is pretty consistently applied.

    @ Ironman

    Not my recollection, but I’ll reread.

  14. The Thought Gang

    To be fair they weren’t placed side – by – side. However, I do recall it standing out as polemic in a book that said out to be the opposite of that and, for the most part, was quite successful.

  15. Ironman

    In general Levitt is about wacky results not about polemics. (And I think that holds for the abortion thing – he’s more about shocking people with his counter intuitive results than a particular dogma) However, there is some debate about the abortion result – if you google it you can find some rebuttals and rebuttals of rebuttals. I’ve not looked at it closely, but I’m inclined to take it with a pinch of salt.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.