Jonathan Gruber Argued Abortion is an Economic Benefit

Maybe if the politicians would get economies stable, the "economics" of abortion would be moot.

Lots of ways to look at this problem.

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck
a reply to: xuenchen
Here's a read for you. Unfortunatley, it is non-partisan.
Freakonomics

Pretty good article.

Perception counts.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
We don't need the government making sure we don't suffer with "emotional impacts" in our lives.

I never even remotely came close to saying that. I simply stated that, although he told the truth that it's economically beneficial for society, it's also emotionally a negative for many.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

You just highlighted what is wrong with the article. Like I said, emotional appeal fallacy. Tug at the readers' heartstrings to get them riled up so they make poor decisions about what is being discussed instead of listening to hard data (which, ironically, is what Gruber was discussing). Standard pro-life tactic...

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic


Yea its hyperbolic alright. Jacking out of its place the "cost" in $ terms to an equivalent level to pacify a culture that kills it own progeny and elevates the economic rewards above life itself. A generation of psychopaths.

a reply to: FlyersFan

I am not denying that people aren't emotionally invested in this topic, but that is all the more reason to try to decouple your emotions from the issue. Emotional appeals are how bad laws are created. They are backed up with non-science and feel good rhetoric then when the laws are implemented, all it does is create hardship and problems. See: Probibition, gambling, prostitution, War on drugs, firearms, etc.

Give me ONE case where making an emotional appeal worked out for the better for society and maybe I will entertain such opinions, but I currently cannot think of any.

a reply to: Logarock

A generation of psychopaths.

LOL! You act as if abortion is new phenomena! It's been practiced since time immemorial and it has almost always been about economics.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Logarock

All to save one more child? You do know that even with abortion being legal, that infant mortality rates are at an all time low. That means that before the modern age, more infants were dying than they are today. Meaning that even with abortion, more babies are living than ever before. So if society crashes and burns, expect the infant mortality rate to go back up. This means more babies end up dying overall. It helps to consider the cause and effect of your statements before saying them, though I understand the appeal of letting your emotions dictate your decisions. It's easier that way, less thinking involved.

Well it cant be expected from some to consider any normal human appeal or natural empathy to be considered anything other that than emotional gas. Its all clutter to the burnt out conscience. The cold blooded rational rises in this void, devoid of humanity, embracing the "rational".

a reply to: Logarock

To this I say the same thing I just said to FlyersFan:

Emotional appeals are how bad laws are created. They are backed up with non-science and feel good rhetoric then when the laws are implemented, all it does is create hardship and problems. See: Probibition, gambling, prostitution, War on drugs, firearms, etc.

Give me ONE case where making an emotional appeal worked out for the better for society and maybe I will entertain such opinions, but I currently cannot think of any.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Logarock

A generation of psychopaths.

LOL! You act as if abortion is new phenomena! It's been practiced since time immemorial and it has almost always been about economics.

Anyone that could listen to Heretics economic treatise as a cultural directive to embrace abortion without having to urge to duck or chringe.....is a psychopath.

a reply to: Logarock

Says you. Anyone who forces a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term, while safe and legal abortions are available, is a psychopath!

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Logarock

To this I say the same thing I just said to FlyersFan:

Emotional appeals are how bad laws are created. They are backed up with non-science and feel good rhetoric then when the laws are implemented, all it does is create hardship and problems. See: Probibition, gambling, prostitution, War on drugs, firearms, etc.

Give me ONE case where making an emotional appeal worked out for the better for society and maybe I will entertain such opinions, but I currently cannot think of any.

These issues you name here piled all together cant measure up to the magnitude of the abortion issue. A normal person would expect emotion to have a place here.

originally posted by: FlyersFan
I never even remotely came close to saying that.

Oh, I know... My post wasn't arguing with you, simply commenting on the statements you made. Sorry for any misunderstanding.

It's true.

What your link proves is that black people have more abortions than whites... That doesn't prove that the cause is genocide. In our society today, many black people are poor and have limited access to the education and help they need to prevent pregnancy, and they are less able to afford to raise children, so the natural result is that they have more abortions. Just because more black people have abortions, that doesn't mean that there's some sort of organized systematic destruction of the race at work.

When discussing abortion, Margaret Sanger is NOT irrelevant.

Her racist views are irrelevant to abortion today. Planned Parenthood is FAR removed from her and does not practice eugenics or genocide. Bringing her up is usually an attempt to imply that Planned Parenthood is somehow related to eugenics or black genocide and it's not true.

Pro abortion people may want it to be, but it's not.

"Pro-abortion"??? You would stoop so low?

The targeting of black Americans for abortion and the fact that this fits into Margaret Sangers eugenics plan is something important to remember.

What "targeting" of black Americans for abortion? That has not been shown to be true.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Logarock

Says you. Anyone who forces a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term, while safe and legal abortions are available, is a psychopath!

Safe for who? Maybe someone should have sucked your brains out or given you a brine bath.

a reply to: Logarock

Maybe someone should have sucked your brains out or given you a brine bath.

Now who's acting the psychopath?

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Logarock

Maybe someone should have sucked your brains out or given you a brine bath.

Now who's acting the psychopath?

Just trying to get down on your level, demonstrate the absurdity.

It would be fiscally sound to kill everyone over 65.

It would be fiscally sound to kill the mentally ill and the very sick.

Money isn't everthing...