Posted on 08/15/2018 2:21:08 PM PDT by ncfool
By the same logic, limiting immigration would also add trillions to the economy.
They can’t have it both ways.
Millions of lives never led added to the economy? How? In what world? Families never formed, houses never built, cars never sold. Clothes never worn. Food never eaten. Explain that to me.
Legalized abortion has decreased the pool of 18 years olds by at least 2 million per year each and every year since 1991—the year when the “aborted generation” slain in 1973 would have turned 18.
What has this done?
• Put the looming Social Security crisis on steroids. Fewer paying in. Much fewer.
• Forced a scaling back of US Troop commitments globally (some like Europe and Japan long overdue)
• Caused the higher education system to lobby successfully for more license-mandated “continuing education” to offset fer adolescent students.
I want to remember this one.
Not clear whether Chelsea is part of Bill’s gene pool.
Remember all those articles that say we and other nations are going to collapse because our birthrate has fallen so low there aren’t enough replacement workers to take care of the retired and elderly?
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.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/chelsea-clinton-makes-a-terrible-argument-for-abortion/
Give the man a seegar.
“And so what would the economic effect have been if, instead of being murdered, those lives had come to fruition?”
Not to mention what wonderful discoveries would now be available for all of mankind. Who knows, maybe the one who would have discovered the cure for all cancers was aborted.
Yes, we count abortion services and government regulation in GDP. Such things hardly make a country wealthy, however.
That bimbo couldn’t count profits at a lemonade stand, let alone perform any calculation requiring a real college degree (e.g., NOT one which she has.)
Typical Clinton, money, before people.
By her logic if we killed them all then we could pay off the debt.
Women with children actually do work. People with kids actually have to work harder and longer. Did they subtract that from what these single women contributed? This is a fudgeable number.
“Bill and Hill’s gene pool is really bad”.What does Bill have to do with this?
Really? Has she sat down and run the numbers, comparing the effect on the economy under various scenarios?
What would the effect be if abortion were never legalized, and women would have used birth control and abstinence to avoid pregnancy? What if a sizable percentage of those women would have gotten pregnant anyway, and would have had those children alive?
Legal abortion makes a few psychopathic “doctors” very rich, but the blood money is taken out of the economy where it could have been invested in something productive instead of just killing babies. On the other hand, a living baby represents a great deal of economic activity, long before the child reaches an age where he or she starts earning income.
I would like to see an actual deconstruction of Chelsea’s cold and heartless claim, in economic terms.
There are no words for this. If we had $3trillion, where is it hubble broad? In your family bank accts????????????????????????????
Unreal....
Exactly right.
Now that the economy is going in the right direction, we have more jobs that need to be filled than we have people to fill them. All the aborted babies would have helped make our economy even greater than it is now.
55 million! (last count I have seen).....the toll in terms of the economy is great but the toll in terms of the soul of our nation is greater.
A murderer much like her mom.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.