by JivinJ
From the beginning of the abortion debate, those favoring abortion have pointed to the social costs of “unwanted” children who simply won’t get the attention of “wanted” ones. But there is a trade-off that has long been neglected. Abortion may eliminate “unwanted” children, but it increases out-of-wedlock births and single parenthood. Unfortunately, the social consequences of illegitimacy dominated.
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Well, Henry Morgentaler (our version of Tiller)claims to have single-handedly lowered the crime rate in Canada with his thousands of abortions and of course the $10 Million dollar profit he makes each year from his stand alone abortion clinics.
Despite there being a number of abortion clinics in Toronto, it has become a more violent city over the last 3 decades and I don’t see any lowering of poverty rates in the city either.
Uh oh…
the pesky FACTS strike again!
Toronto crime rate among lowest in country: StatsCan
Last Updated: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 | 3:55 PM ET
CBC News
The Toronto area has the second-lowest crime rate of all large urban regions in Canada, behind Quebec City, according to figures released Wednesday by Statistics Canada.
Greater Toronto had 5,020 criminal code offences in 2006 for every 100,000 people. Winnipeg, Vancouver and Edmonton recorded more than twice as many.
For violent crime, there were 738 offences, with only Ottawa and Quebec registering lower rates for their populations.
A large city or area, according to the study, was defined as having a population of 500,000 and over.
“Toronto is actually one of the safest communities in Canada,” University of Ottawa criminologist Ron Melchers told CBC News.
Contrary to popular belief, smaller cities in Western Canada have more crimes per capita, with Regina claiming the dubious distinction as Canada’s crime capital.
The capital of Saskatchewan had 12,415 criminal code offences per 100,000 of population, and 1,546 of those were considered violent.
**********************
“Toronto is a safe city. It is one of the safest cities in North America and we need to keep that in mind,” said Toronto Police spokesperson Mark Pugash.
There were 658 homicides across the country last year, a four-per-cent increase over 2004. Toronto’s murder rate lines up with the national rate, at 2.0 victims per 100,000 people. Edmonton had the highest per capita murder rate in 2005, with 4.3 people killed per 100,000.
Other Western Canadian cities including Vancouver, Saskatoon, Regina and Winnipeg also had rates above the national average. Montreal’s was lower, at 1.3 per 100,000 – the lowest it’s been since 1981.
Pugash credits community assistance for the increased number of solved crimes in the past couple of years.
“Most major categories of crime are down and that’s encouraging and it is a long-term trend. Clearly homicides are up and we are getting help from the community,” he said. “We solved more in the last number of years. We are recovering more guns that we have and that’s good news and a lot we are doing to stem the violence.”
National rates for other serious crimes including attempted murder, robbery and aggravated assault also rose last year, while non-violent crime and property offences were down six per cent.
The overall national crime rate fell by five per cent in 2005. Saskatchewan had the highest overall provincial crime rate for the year, followed by British Columbia and Manitoba. The lowest per capita rates were in Ontario and Quebec.
I read the Lott article a few days ago. Doesn’t back his assumptions up with anything does he? Changing attitudes about sex and single parenthood and the loss of legal and social penalties for illegitimacy are as or more likely to be responsible for the increases in single parenthood and out-of-wedlock births.
What of it? My daughter and her father were both born out of wedlock, and they do fine, thanks.
“But there is a trade-off that has long been neglected. Abortion may eliminate “unwanted” children, but it increases out-of-wedlock births and single parenthood. Unfortunately, the social consequences of illegitimacy dominated.”
So… despite abortion being legal in all 50 states, more women choosing to keep their babies despite their circumstances is….a bad thing? Oooookay. Why?
And fewer people getting married for no other reason other than the woman getting pregnant is bad thing? Right. Because we all know shot-gun marriages are built to last. We should definetly have more of those. Thats SUCH a good message to pass down to children too…as opposed to… I dunno, being a strong, independent, and HAPPY parent? (points at Elizabeth)
Illegitimacy? Seriously? Did I hop on the express train back to the 1940’s? Do we REALLY still want to call a child “illegitamate”? And you accuse pro choicers of hating babies??
Amanda, the point is… don’t have abortions. And if you do get pregnant, you better as hell be married. And if you’re not married, you should probably marry that guy, because we all know that babies who grow up without both a father and a mother are worse off, despite how poorly mommy and daddy get along. And if you don’t want kids, don’t have sex. Even sex with contraceptives.
Seriously, sex leads to all kinds of social consequences, one of which should be the shame of having a illegitimate child. FEEL SHAMEFUL!!!
Thanks for posting the link to Doug Kmiec’s article. Very thoughtful and interesting. THe debate between him and Garnett is fascinating.
Edyt,
What I love is that the idea that a child is never, under any circumstances a punishment is a crux of the pro life argument. In fact, several posters here jumped ALL over Barack Obama for implying they could be.
And yet calling a child born to a single parent “illegitimate”, or stating that a child is better off being raised in a loveless marriage just because their parents had sex implies EXACTLY that… that you’re being punished for your sins. I had a couple friends in high school who grew up knowing their parents were only together because they got pregant. I don’t think I’d wish that on anyone.
Amanda,
Exactly. Once you get past the “every child is a blessing” rhetoric, it all comes back to the same idea. Although, I don’t find it that odd, considering many Christians and Catholics focus on the idea of atonement. So even though you’re not calling your kid a punishment, technically, that’s just what he/she is.
Edyt and Amanda: If you don’t believe the premises that “every child is a blessing” or “a child is not punishment for the sin of the mother”, then you don’t understand the dignity of the human person and your view of consequences will not reflect those ideas. Life isn’t perfect, but no one intentionally wants to punish a child for the sins of the father, so to speak, nor do they want to punish themselves for getting pregnant. That’s a good reason to consider the adoption option.
Illegitimate is a legal term dating back to the 1500’s, rarely used anymore in casual conversation.
“stating that a child is better off being raised in a loveless marriage just because their parents had sex implies EXACTLY that… that you’re being punished for your sins.”
Who says that? It’s not a common opinion, IMO.