Please enable javascript to generate a trackback url
The Malkin angle on the punishment statement is ridiculous. A baby is a major decision, and when/if you have it seriously affects the rest of your (and it’s) life. Having a major change imposed on your life when you didn’t intend it is an obvious place to use the word punishment.
As for "abortion … reduces the cost [of citizens] to states and to the federal government."
Nowhere in the source does the word “abortion” appear, in fact she goes on to explicitly state she’s talking contraception "One of those – one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government."
And I think it’s a pretty trivial argument to make that unplanned pregnancies avoided through contraception both save a lot of money and reduces abortions.
You can have a debate about the ethics/economics of making private insurance include free contraception, but the idea that "These folks seem to consider new life a costly disease." is outrageous. [aluchko] (URL) - 2012-01-22 16:28
"Having a major change imposed on your life when you didn’t intend it is an obvious place to use the word punishment."
Others would have stopped at "consequence". A punishment is something designed to inflict suffering.
Re. Pelosi. My mistake. But Pelosi said "family planning services reduce cost …", and abortion is part of what is thought of as "family planning", and is in some ways federally funded. But aside from all that, think about this view of potential new citizens as cost centers. Isn’t it a shocking failure of government to think of potential/real new homegrown members as being a net expense? Frank - 2012-01-23 11:29
‘Others would have stopped at "consequence". A punishment is something designed to inflict suffering.’
A punishment is a negative consequence, you’re doing a lot of psychoanalysis based on what I feel is some shakey linguistic analysis.
‘Re. Pelosi. My mistake. But Pelosi said "family planning services reduce cost …", and abortion is part of what is thought of as "family planning", and is in some ways federally funded.’
But she later mentioned she was talking contraception specifically. And the support for abortion is only indirect (funding organizations to do X means those organizations are better able to offer abortions). I see no reason to believe she was talking about funding abortions, and funding contraception is probably the best way to reduce abortions.
"But aside from all that, think about this view of potential new citizens as cost centers. Isn’t it a shocking failure of government to think of potential/real new homegrown members as being a net expense?"
Well considering the US Dept they probably are ;)
But consider that it’s teens with a poor socio-economic status who are most likely to get pregnant. When this happens the teen’s chance of getting a post-secondary education (or even high school diploma) decreases, the child gets a lower quality of care and thus grows up to be a less successful individual, there’s less likely to be a stable father, a lot more social services are going to be used, etc.
It seems obvious that a girl getting intentionally pregnant at 26, as opposed to 16, is a lot better both for them, and for society as a whole, both economically and in well being. What’s wrong with stating the obvious? [aluchko] (URL) - 2012-01-23 14:53
“Isn’t it a shocking failure of government to think of potential/real new homegrown members as being a net expense?”
Well considering the US [Debt] they probably are ;)”
That’s too absurd even for a smiley. People who built/supported such an economic misbalance should be ashamed of themselves.
“It seems obvious that a girl getting intentionally pregnant at 26, as opposed to 16, is a lot better both for them, and for society as a whole, both economically and in well being. What’s wrong with stating the obvious?”
See, that’s far from obvious. “For society as a whole …” assumes away any sort of inherent value and potential to the unplanned baby, and ignores the possibility of adoption. This assumption is of the same cloth as the “costly disease” idea. Frank - 2012-01-23 16:31
"That’s too absurd even for a smiley. People who built/supported such an economic misbalance should be ashamed of themselves."
Perhaps, but that’s another likely lengthier topic :)
‘See, that’s far from obvious. “For society as a whole …” assumes away any sort of inherent value and potential to the unplanned baby, and ignores the possibility of adoption. This assumption is of the same cloth as the “costly disease” idea.’
The supply of people willing to adopt is limited, and even if these kids do get adopted they will to some extent be displacing other, less desirable children, who end up in inferior homes or in foster homes.
Besides, your argument hinges on the idea that every child is a net benefit for all involved, in that case why do you have only two children? Even if you still intend to have more you could have easily fathered dozens of children before them assuming you found a willing partner.
People obviously want to be able to control the number of children they have, and I tend to trust their judgment that they’re doing the right thing for themselves and the child. [aluchko] (URL) - 2012-01-23 17:32
“Besides, your argument hinges on the idea that every child is a net benefit for all involved,”
Not so, that’s a false dichotomy. I took the easier road and merely denoted the polar opposite view as anti-human balderdash. :-) Frank - 2012-01-23 18:10