|
|
Post by hugobolso1 on Aug 17, 2018 13:33:33 GMT
Chelsea Clinton has some thoughts about the economic consequences of Roe v. Wade: “Whether you fundamentally care about reproductive rights and access right, because these are not the same thing, if you care about social justice or economic justice, agency — you have to care about this. “It is not a disconnected fact — to address this t-shirt of 1973 — that American women entering the labor force from 1973 to 2009 added three and a half trillion dollars to our economy. Right? “The net, new entrance of women — that is not disconnected from the fact that Roe became the law of the land in January of 1973.” “So, I think, whatever it is that people say they care about, I think that you can connect to this issue. COMMENTS “Of course, I would hope that they would care about our equal rights and dignity to make our own choices – but, if that is not sufficiently persuasive, hopefully, come some of these other arguments that you’ve expressed so beautifully, will be.” The problem with this argument, obviously, is that it is entirely unresponsive to the debate over abortion, which is not economic in nature, but moral. If unborn children are not living human beings — and if, therefore, it doesn’t matter if they are aborted — then obviously one will be in favor of abortion, especially if it leads to salutary economic news. If, by contrast, unborn children are living human beings — and if, therefore, aborting them is tantamount to murder — then the utilitarian argument is flatly irrelevant. Saying “but look at the effects of killing unborn children on GDP!” to a person who believes that unborn children are living human beings is futile. In no moral universe are they going to make that trade. And nor, for that matter, would the person making the case. Presumably Chelsea Clinton believes it is wrong to murder human beings ex utero. If so, she knows how she’d react to someone saying, “Whether you fundamentally care about murder or not, you should be able to connect with the fact that killing one in ten Los Angelenos will ease the traffic and reduce the Medicaid rolls.” And if Clinton doesn’t know that — if, in other words, she holds the hyper-utilitarian view that abortion is murder but it’s worth it for an additional three-and-a-half trillion dollars — well, then she’s a monster. www.nationalreview.com/corner/chelsea-clinton-makes-a-terrible-argument-for-abortion/ |
|
|
|
Post by hugobolso1 on Aug 17, 2018 13:34:02 GMT
Idiot of the year 2018
|
|
|
|
Post by hugobolso1 on Aug 17, 2018 13:36:10 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Martin Stett on Aug 17, 2018 15:58:13 GMT
Yeeeeeah, she's not even arguing the actual argument here. I love the comparison to "killing one in ten Los Angelinos will lower traffic congestion" -- put that way, her arguments make a lot of sense, and I'll proudly support her if she makes that part of her platform.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Aug 18, 2018 11:34:50 GMT
So basically the economic benefits to abortion are the cherry on top of the women-having-autonomy-over-their-own-freaking-bodies sundae.
I'm ok with that.
|
|
|
|
Post by hugobolso1 on Aug 20, 2018 12:50:32 GMT
So basically the economic benefits to abortion are the cherry on top of the women-having-autonomy-over-their-own-freaking-bodies sundae. I'm ok with that. I'm not. |
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Aug 20, 2018 19:25:42 GMT
So basically the economic benefits to abortion are the cherry on top of the women-having-autonomy-over-their-own-freaking-bodies sundae. I'm ok with that. I'm not. I don't care. |
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,669 
Likes: 2,107
|
Post by cherry68 on Aug 20, 2018 20:32:15 GMT
In 1973, Vietnam War came to an end.
We can say that economy improved because of that.
Anyway, women are totally entitled to avoid having children. There's something called CONTRACEPTION. Abortion should be really marginal for extreme cases.
|
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Aug 20, 2018 21:40:30 GMT
I'm not one to completely dismiss objections to abortion due to the issue being so morally serious and I am pretty conflicted about the pure ethics of it myself.
The fundamental thing here is when you're going to say autonomous life begins. The only answer I can think of for that is "I don't know". You could hypothesize and make arguments about it, but ultimately I think it falls into the realm of opinion.
Meanwhile, it's pretty much impossible to argue that overturning Roe v. Wade would be a complete disaster, pragmatically speaking. Even though it would still be legal in most the country, just the South and some Western farm states banning it would cause a lot of social problems. On issues like this where the moral element is murky I'm usually for deferring to the pragmatic side of the issue. So, no, it's not the same thing as killing a bunch of children or adults to pursue some kind of material end.
The argument she was making wasn't that bad, she just didn't express it very well.
|
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,555 
Likes: 1,388
|
Post by Film Socialism on Aug 25, 2018 17:13:53 GMT
lmao @ the virtue signaling conservacucks who pretend like every war we've gone into (which cost actual human lives) wasn't for pure economic purposes
fuck the clintons any day of the week sideways, but not for shit like this
|
|
urbanpatrician
Based
"I just wanna go back, back to 1999. back to hit me baby one more time" - Charli XCX
Posts: 4,819
Likes: 2,351
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Aug 25, 2018 22:56:17 GMT
lmao @ the virtue signaling conservacucks who pretend like every war we've gone into (which cost actual human lives) wasn't for pure economic purposes fuck the clintons any day of the week sideways, but not for shit like this No doubt that wars are for economic purposes, and I'm not saying Chelsea's viewpoint is necessarily wrong, though I would like to see how her theory actually works. I agree with your argument and where you're coming from though. However I think, like many people, she has the same problem of thinking of herself first and foremost. "Once my ass is out of the womb, I no longer care about the ones who aren't out of the womb yet." Since I'm in my Ahnuld/Terminator mood, all of us could've been terminated (HA!) at one point, and that type of MeFirst attitude is exactly why. Though, I don't wanna open up this can of worms, and I really don't want people to think I'm trying to argue the issue of abortion. I'm just interpreting how I see her come off, and many other people. C'est tout. |
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,555
Likes: 1,388
|
Post by Film Socialism on Aug 25, 2018 23:54:18 GMT
lmao @ the virtue signaling conservacucks who pretend like every war we've gone into (which cost actual human lives) wasn't for pure economic purposes fuck the clintons any day of the week sideways, but not for shit like this No doubt that wars are for economic purposes, and I'm not saying Chelsea's viewpoint is necessarily wrong, though I would like to see how her theory actually works. I agree with your argument and where you're coming from though. However I think, like many people, she has the same problem of thinking of herself first and foremost. "Once my ass is out of the womb, I no longer care about the ones who aren't out of the womb yet." Since I'm in my Ahnuld/Terminator mood, all of us could've been terminated (HA!) at one point, and that type of MeFirst attitude is exactly why. Though, I don't wanna open up this can of worms, and I really don't want people to think I'm trying to argue the issue of abortion. I'm just interpreting how I see her come off, and many other people. C'est tout. well in the past few months i realized i'm actually an antinatalist so i'm okay with everyone being terminated (although not executed - there's a difference mom). i have no idea how the economics of abortion work but it's pretty ironic a clinton would talk about that as a good thing (no idea if it's true or not, just seems like some shit they would pull). i would respond to some more stuff but, like you, i don't wanna open a can of worms. |
|
|
|
Post by hugobolso1 on Aug 26, 2018 3:45:10 GMT
I'm not one to completely dismiss objections to abortion due to the issue being so morally serious and I am pretty conflicted about the pure ethics of it myself. The fundamental thing here is when you're going to say autonomous life begins. The only answer I can think of for that is "I don't know". You could hypothesize and make arguments about it, but ultimately I think it falls into the realm of opinion. Meanwhile, it's pretty much impossible to argue that overturning Roe v. Wade would be a complete disaster, pragmatically speaking. Even though it would still be legal in most the country, just the South and some Western farm states banning it would cause a lot of social problems. On issues like this where the moral element is murky I'm usually for deferring to the pragmatic side of the issue. So, no, it's not the same thing as killing a bunch of children or adults to pursue some kind of material end. The argument she was making wasn't that bad, she just didn't express it very well. According to biology and law books starte whith the conception. When the sperm met the ovum (around 2 to 3 days after intercourse) or between 12 and 30 hours later when the zygote is form. The rest is like when a litle child on a bycicle is knocked donwn by a car. If the driver is poor, he killed a child. If he is rich is just a collision between two vehicles.- |
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,555
Likes: 1,388
|
Post by Film Socialism on Aug 26, 2018 4:01:33 GMT
I'm not one to completely dismiss objections to abortion due to the issue being so morally serious and I am pretty conflicted about the pure ethics of it myself. The fundamental thing here is when you're going to say autonomous life begins. The only answer I can think of for that is "I don't know". You could hypothesize and make arguments about it, but ultimately I think it falls into the realm of opinion. Meanwhile, it's pretty much impossible to argue that overturning Roe v. Wade would be a complete disaster, pragmatically speaking. Even though it would still be legal in most the country, just the South and some Western farm states banning it would cause a lot of social problems. On issues like this where the moral element is murky I'm usually for deferring to the pragmatic side of the issue. So, no, it's not the same thing as killing a bunch of children or adults to pursue some kind of material end. The argument she was making wasn't that bad, she just didn't express it very well. According to biology and law books starte whith the conception. When the sperm met the ovum (around 2 to 3 days after intercourse) or between 12 and 30 hours later when the zygote is form. The rest is like when a litle child on a bycicle is knocked donwn by a car. If the driver is poor, he killed a child. If he is rich is just a collision between two vehicles.- can i get a fort nite burbger |
|
