Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
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
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.
You have a weird definition of “loving”….
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.
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.
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.
@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.
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.
Damn straight. /see what I did there?
Roger.
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.
Better.