Attention Democrats: People Have Value. Even Poor Black People.

 

Over at National Review, Dominic Pino examines Janet Yellen’s rationalization of abortion from an economic perspective.  Remarkably, Ms. Yellen said the following to Sen. Tim Scott:

…one aspect of a satisfying life is being able to feel that you have the financial resources to raise a child, that the children you bring into the world are wanted and that you have the ability to take care of them. In many cases abortions are of teenage women, particularly low-income and often black, who aren’t in a position to be able to care for children…

As you might imagine, Sen. Scott was unpersuaded by this argument:  “I’ll just simply say that as a guy raised by a black woman in abject poverty, I’m thankful to be here as a United States Senator,” Scott told Yellen.

Mr. Pino goes on to eloquently explain the roots of this perspective of modern leftists:

More fundamentally, Yellen’s view of human beings is incorrect: She views them as macroeconomic liabilities rather than macroeconomic assets. In her view, they take up space, consume resources, and impose burdens on those who care for them. And of course, they do those things. But they don’t just do those things. They also come up with new ideas, produce resources, and care for other people. On balance, they are assets, not liabilities.

This is a point that progressives have failed to understand for years. From the eugenics proponents of the early 20th century to the environmentalists of today, progressives have never believed that human beings are, as economist Julian Simon called them, the ultimate resource. They’re forever stuck in the zero-sum world of Malthus, where people are problematic mouths to feed, instead of the positive-sum world we actually live in, where people are a creative force to invest in.

I often hear leftists rationalize their support of abortion by saying, “Look, I’m just being practical here.  We’ve got to deal with realities, right?”

Mr. Pino explains why leftists’ economic arguments are even more absurd than their ethical rationalizations.  No, killing babies does not make sense.  Even if the mother is going through financial difficulties at the time of her pregnancy.  Even if the mother is black.  Even then, Ms. Yellen.

People have value.  They have value from an ethical and spiritual perspective.  We’re all God’s children, for Heaven’s sake.

But even if you don’t believe that, surely you can see that they also have economic value.  Perhaps you might think they are limited economic value today.  But what about some years from now?  Could it be that they might improve themselves someday?  People can do that, you know.  Even if they are black and poor, Ms. Yellen.  Even those people.

I’m struggling to get past the elitism and racism oozing from Ms. Yellen’s statement about poor black mothers like Sen. Scott’s Mom (pictured above).  But even if I could get past that, I would point out to Ms. Yellen, “People have value, you idiot.  Even poor black people, you racist snob.  Who on earth are YOU to suggest that some people should be killed because they are currently of insufficient economic value?  You’re a government bureaucrat, for Pete’s sake.  What is your economic value to society?  Should we vote you out of office, or take you out back and shoot you?  Are you listening to what you’re saying?  Do you want ME deciding if your life is worth living?  Do you want anybody deciding that, other than yourself?  Do your words make sense to you?  Honestly?

Every rationalization for abortion sounds absurd to me.

But some of them sound like pure evil.

I can’t believe Democrats are saying stuff like this out loud.  To a black man, no less.  In public.  On national TV.  Oh my God.

They can’t recognize evil, even when they say it themselves.

But at least they are helping others recognize evil.  Make evil this obvious, and anyone can see it.  Anyone who has eyes to see.


Just writing about Ms. Yellen’s statement makes me feel unclean.  I feel like I need a long hot bath.  And all I did was copy and paste it.  She said it out loud.  In public.

How do these people sleep at night?

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 168 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Henry Castaigne Member
    Henry Castaigne
    @HenryCastaigne

    Cassandro (View Comment):

    Dr. Bastiat (View Comment):

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):
    many people won’t live lives of celibacy or chastity.

    …until they get married…

    They pretty much used to, before the Pill and abortion.

    It was sort of that way for devout Christians. Not so much for many others. In Roman times, prostitutes and conquered women were fair game. The child was often left on the side of a hill to hopefully be adopted by Fae or minor Nymphs. Infanticide was nearly universally used in Arabia against black slaves and female infanticide was not uncommon in Asia and is still used in some of the poorer parts of Asia that can’t afford abortion.

    In general in pagan societies, the women in your tribe were sacred and had to be protected. But outside women were free to rape because they weren’t really people. Christianity and Buddhism changed that idea. In fact, it was common for pagans to brag about impregnating multiple girls. 

    I think Christianity overcorrected for these flaws. In particular, Christians became anti-gay. Gays seem pretty neutral compared to Dr. Bastiat improving the human race or men abandoning their progeny. 

    • #151
  2. MiMac Thatcher
    MiMac
    @MiMac

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):
    And it’s pretty hard to argue that sodomizing someone is “love” (willing the good of the other, even at your own expense).

    Sodomy prevents abortion Western Chauvinist. Pick a hill.

    So does abstinence/chastity. I choose better moral choices for everyone. Authentic love.

    I think sodomy is more loving and happier than abstinence and chastity. So G-d makes everyone sexual and punishes us for it. Lucifer sounds nicer.

    You have a weird definition of “loving”….

    • #152
  3. MiMac Thatcher
    MiMac
    @MiMac

    Nanocelt TheContrarian (View Comment):

    @ mimac In stating that Eugenics wasn’t a major basis for the research leading to the discovery of DNA you are historically incorrect. I would suggest you read the book The Molecular Vision of Life by Lily Kay. This is an extensive description of the underlying Eugenics agenda, funded mostly by the Rockefeller Foundation, and mostly at Cal Tech, that led to the discovery of the structure of DNA. It is a horrendous history. The kind of misconception among physicians and medical researchers that you demonstrate is the result of an intentional white-washing of history. Just as Richard Hofstadter in his magisterial book, Anti-Intellectualism in American Life has a field day discussing the Scopes Trial, but completely ignores the almost contemporaneous and very odious Buck v. Bell case that opened the floodgates of forced sterilization perpetrated by the nation’s elites.

    When I was an undergraduate taking Genetics, the contributions of the polymath R. A. Fisher (including his supposed demonstration that Mendel fudged his data, which, fortunately I had the mathematical skills to recognize that the Geneticist teaching the course didn’t know what he was talking about, just parroting the standard line–and that claim was later debunked) were idolized, but it was never mentioned that Fisher was a truly vile Eugenicist.

    When I was in Med School (basic science years) we were of course taught of Pauling’s discovery of the hemoglobin chain alpha helical structure, and his discovery of the molecular defect causing sickle trait and sickle cell disease. But his “yellow star” proposal was never discussed nor were his vile Eugenicist attitudes. He communicated those same attitudes to James Watson, his acolyte, whom he sent to England to work on Nucleic acids. Watson continued to voice those eugenics perspectives throughout his career, until, as director of the infamous Cold Spring Harbor lab, the institute that housed the Eugenics Records Office under Harry Laughlin, those statements became too numerous and vile that even his like minded colleagues couldn’t let them continue and he was retired.

    No one ever mentioned during the Human Genome Project, that the second in command, Alan Guttmacher, was an avid Eugenicist and an admirer of Francis Galton (His book, Hereditary Genius, a completely racist tract, originated the Eugenics movement). I sat through a lecture, a plenary session lecture, no less, that Alan Guttmacher gave to the Endocrine Society in 2012, wherein he flashed a first slide paying homage to Francis Galton to a Houston Convention Center ballroom audience of pre-eminent scientists and physicians from around the world. There was nary a stir from that august assembly. Sort of like an approving attention at a pain management conference featuring the great contributions of Dr. Mengele. That experience was a gut=punch to me. I about fell off my chair. An Endocrinologist under whom I trained, and next to whom I was sitting, told me to shut up when I asked her if she recognized the name of Francis Galton.

    Again, highly tendentious view- certainly some people have looked to science to advance eugenics, but claiming that DNA research was primarily motivated by eugenics is untrue. There were many reasons and eugenics wasn’t a dominant one.

    • #153
  4. Henry Castaigne Member
    Henry Castaigne
    @HenryCastaigne

    MiMac (View Comment):

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):
    And it’s pretty hard to argue that sodomizing someone is “love” (willing the good of the other, even at your own expense).

    Sodomy prevents abortion Western Chauvinist. Pick a hill.

    So does abstinence/chastity. I choose better moral choices for everyone. Authentic love.

    I think sodomy is more loving and happier than abstinence and chastity. So G-d makes everyone sexual and punishes us for it. Lucifer sounds nicer.

    You have a weird definition of “loving”….

    Nope. Pretty normal for America. According to a May 10-14 Gallup poll, only 38% of U.S. adults say it is wrong for a man and a woman to have sexual relations before marriage, while 60% disagree.

    According to a Pew poll, 54% of Republican say homosexuality should be accepted. You can find it weird but for once I’m in the majority. 

     

    • #154
  5. Annefy Member
    Annefy
    @Annefy

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):
    And it’s pretty hard to argue that sodomizing someone is “love” (willing the good of the other, even at your own expense).

    Sodomy prevents abortion Western Chauvinist. Pick a hill.

    So does abstinence/chastity. I choose better moral choices for everyone. Authentic love.

    I think sodomy is more loving and happier than abstinence and chastity. So G-d makes everyone sexual and punishes us for it. Lucifer sounds nicer.

    You have a weird definition of “loving”….

    Nope. Pretty normal for America. According to a May 10-14 Gallup poll, only 38% of U.S. adults say it is wrong for a man and a woman to have sexual relations before marriage, while 60% disagree.

    According to a Pew poll, 54% of Republican say homosexuality should be accepted. You can find it weird but for once I’m in the majority.

    I only took a few classes on the subject, but if memory serves, there’s a difference between “normal” and “average”. Like … a really big difference. Just because a majority agrees, does not make something “normal”. It just means the majority agrees.

    I could do a poll tomorrow where the majority agrees that young people should be able to change their sex, up to and including debilitating drugs and surgery.

    Still not “normal”.

    PS I just googled “normal” and it appears that the definition has changed: the usual, average, or typical state or condition.

    But on the other hand, maybe not: a person who is conventional or healthy.

    • #155
  6. MiMac Thatcher
    MiMac
    @MiMac

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):
    And it’s pretty hard to argue that sodomizing someone is “love” (willing the good of the other, even at your own expense).

    Sodomy prevents abortion Western Chauvinist. Pick a hill.

    So does abstinence/chastity. I choose better moral choices for everyone. Authentic love.

    I think sodomy is more loving and happier than abstinence and chastity. So G-d makes everyone sexual and punishes us for it. Lucifer sounds nicer.

    You have a weird definition of “loving”….

    Nope. Pretty normal for America. According to a May 10-14 Gallup poll, only 38% of U.S. adults say it is wrong for a man and a woman to have sexual relations before marriage, while 60% disagree.

    According to a Pew poll, 54% of Republican say homosexuality should be accepted. You can find it weird but for once I’m in the majority.

    nothing about gay marriage involved in my response- you said sodomy is more loving and happier than abstinence and chastity- you are confusing (and equating) sex acts with loving & happiness

    • #156
  7. Henry Castaigne Member
    Henry Castaigne
    @HenryCastaigne

    MiMac (View Comment):

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):
    And it’s pretty hard to argue that sodomizing someone is “love” (willing the good of the other, even at your own expense).

    Sodomy prevents abortion Western Chauvinist. Pick a hill.

    So does abstinence/chastity. I choose better moral choices for everyone. Authentic love.

    I think sodomy is more loving and happier than abstinence and chastity. So G-d makes everyone sexual and punishes us for it. Lucifer sounds nicer.

    You have a weird definition of “loving”….

    Nope. Pretty normal for America. According to a May 10-14 Gallup poll, only 38% of U.S. adults say it is wrong for a man and a woman to have sexual relations before marriage, while 60% disagree.

    According to a Pew poll, 54% of Republican say homosexuality should be accepted. You can find it weird but for once I’m in the majority.

    nothing about gay marriage involved in my response- you said sodomy is more loving and happier than abstinence and chastity- you are confusing (and equating) sex acts with loving & happiness

    I suspect that the vast majority of married gays aren’t celibate. 

    • #157
  8. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):
    And it’s pretty hard to argue that sodomizing someone is “love” (willing the good of the other, even at your own expense).

    Sodomy prevents abortion Western Chauvinist. Pick a hill.

    So does abstinence/chastity. I choose better moral choices for everyone. Authentic love.

    I think sodomy is more loving and happier than abstinence and chastity. So G-d makes everyone sexual and punishes us for it. Lucifer sounds nicer.

    You have a weird definition of “loving”….

    Nope. Pretty normal for America. According to a May 10-14 Gallup poll, only 38% of U.S. adults say it is wrong for a man and a woman to have sexual relations before marriage, while 60% disagree.

    According to a Pew poll, 54% of Republican say homosexuality should be accepted. You can find it weird but for once I’m in the majority.

    nothing about gay marriage involved in my response- you said sodomy is more loving and happier than abstinence and chastity- you are confusing (and equating) sex acts with loving & happiness

    I suspect that the vast majority of married gays aren’t celibate.

    Akshully, celibate means unmarried, so I agree. Gays aren’t married unless they’re married to someone of the opposite sex. Of course, I try not to define people by their sexual inclinations, so I don’t even think they’re gay!

    They’re probably not chaste for the most part either.

    • #158
  9. Nanocelt TheContrarian Member
    Nanocelt TheContrarian
    @NanoceltTheContrarian

    @mimac

    You continue to say Eugenics wasn’t a significant reason for the discovery of DNA. Again, historically incorrect. Read the reference I provided:  Lily Kay, The Molecular Vision of Life.

    To paraphrase Reagan:  It isn’t that you don’t know a lot. It’s that at least some of what you know is wrong. 

    • #159
  10. Cassandro Coolidge
    Cassandro
    @Flicker

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):
    And it’s pretty hard to argue that sodomizing someone is “love” (willing the good of the other, even at your own expense).

    Sodomy prevents abortion Western Chauvinist. Pick a hill.

    So does abstinence/chastity. I choose better moral choices for everyone. Authentic love.

    I think sodomy is more loving and happier than abstinence and chastity. So G-d makes everyone sexual and punishes us for it. Lucifer sounds nicer.

    You have a weird definition of “loving”….

    Nope. Pretty normal for America. According to a May 10-14 Gallup poll, only 38% of U.S. adults say it is wrong for a man and a woman to have sexual relations before marriage, while 60% disagree.

    According to a Pew poll, 54% of Republican say homosexuality should be accepted. You can find it weird but for once I’m in the majority.

    nothing about gay marriage involved in my response- you said sodomy is more loving and happier than abstinence and chastity- you are confusing (and equating) sex acts with loving & happiness

    I suspect that the vast majority of married gays aren’t celibate.

    Akshully, celibate means unmarried, so I agree. Gays aren’t married unless they’re married to someone of the opposite sex. Of course, I try not to define people by their sexual inclinations, so I don’t even think they’re gay!

    They’re probably not chaste for the most part either.

    When you say “gay” do you mean happy, lighthearted or ebullient?  Or homosexual.  Just nitpicking.

    • #160
  11. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Cassandro (View Comment):
    When you say “gay” do you mean happy, lighthearted or ebullient?  Or homosexual.  Just nitpicking.

    I’ll go with E) All of the above.

    • #161
  12. Cassandro Coolidge
    Cassandro
    @Flicker

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Cassandro (View Comment):
    When you say “gay” do you mean happy, lighthearted or ebullient? Or homosexual. Just nitpicking.

    I’ll go with E) All of the above.

    We miss the unequivocal use of gay to mean light-hearted, and queer to mean oddly odd, and give us our God-ordained rainbow back.

    • #162
  13. kedavis Member
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Cassandro (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Cassandro (View Comment):
    When you say “gay” do you mean happy, lighthearted or ebullient? Or homosexual. Just nitpicking.

    I’ll go with E) All of the above.

    We miss the unequivocal use of gay to mean light-hearted, and queer to mean oddly odd, and give us our God-ordained rainbow back.

    Mega-dittos.

    • #163
  14. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Cassandro (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Cassandro (View Comment):
    When you say “gay” do you mean happy, lighthearted or ebullient? Or homosexual. Just nitpicking.

    I’ll go with E) All of the above.

    We miss the unequivocal use of gay to mean light-hearted, and queer to mean oddly odd, and give us our God-ordained rainbow back.

    Damn straight. /see what I did there?

    • #164
  15. Cassandro Coolidge
    Cassandro
    @Flicker

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Cassandro (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Cassandro (View Comment):
    When you say “gay” do you mean happy, lighthearted or ebullient? Or homosexual. Just nitpicking.

    I’ll go with E) All of the above.

    We miss the unequivocal use of gay to mean light-hearted, and queer to mean oddly odd, and give us our God-ordained rainbow back.

    Damn straight. /see what I did there?

    Roger.

    • #165
  16. Taras Coolidge
    Taras
    @Taras

    Nanocelt TheContrarian (View Comment):

    @ mimac

    You continue to say Eugenics wasn’t a significant reason for the discovery of DNA. Again, historically incorrect. Read the reference I provided: Lily Kay, The Molecular Vision of Life.

    To paraphrase Reagan: It isn’t that you don’t know a lot. It’s that at least some of what you know is wrong.

    Kay’s 1993 book seems to be a leftist smear attack on the whole field of molecular biology, so I wouldn’t put too much weight on it.

    The discovery of DNA occurred in Switzerland in the 1860s, and had nothing to do with eugenics whatsoever. Scientists believed it was too simple a molecule to have any major involvement in heredity. Then a series of experiments with bacteria showed, essentially, that DNA from a dead pathogen could transform a harmless bacillus into a pathogen.

    Scientists were still not entirely convinced DNA was the molecule of heredity, but several teams were rushing to figure out its structure. Watson and Crick at the Cavendish Laboratory in Cambridge won the race.  Once the structure was known, all doubts about DNA being the material of heredity were ended.

    In any case the idea that, but for eugenics, scientists wouldn’t be interested in how heredity works is absurd.

    • #166
  17. Columbo Member
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    Cassandro (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Cassandro (View Comment):
    When you say “gay” do you mean happy, lighthearted or ebullient? Or homosexual. Just nitpicking.

    I’ll go with E) All of the above.

    We miss the unequivocal use of gay to mean light-hearted, and queer to mean oddly odd, and give us our God-ordained rainbow back.

    • #167
  18. kedavis Member
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Columbo (View Comment):

    Cassandro (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Cassandro (View Comment):
    When you say “gay” do you mean happy, lighthearted or ebullient? Or homosexual. Just nitpicking.

    I’ll go with E) All of the above.

    We miss the unequivocal use of gay to mean light-hearted, and queer to mean oddly odd, and give us our God-ordained rainbow back.

     

    Better.

    • #168
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.