"Millions of abortions will cause a shortage in cheap labor", says Republican Senator

E-Z-B

E-Z-B

CAGiversary!
:applause: You gotta hand it to the republican leaders - just when you think they couldn't sink any lower, here they go equating women as breeders who provide cheap labor.

50th District Senator Nancy Schaefer, who serves on the economic development committee, mentioned jobs, industry and tourism as issues needing attention. She said we need to “make Georgia a destination.”

Commenting on illegal immigration, Schaefer said 50 million abortions have been performed in this country, causing a shortage of cheap American labor. “We could have used those people,” she said.

http://www.thehartwellsun.com/articles/2006/03/01/news/news05.txt

nancy.jpg


Nevermind that an increase in unwanted children will result in more tax dollars diverted to child welfare and criminal justice systems. Again, look no further than Freakonomics.

Georgia as a destination? Yeah, right. Not with quacks like this running the state.

EDIT: That should've been "Representative", not Senator. Can't seem to figure out how to change the title now...
 
Well, if we abort all the black babies, then crime will go down; just ask Bill Bennett.

But if we abort all the white babies, then we're undercutting the service sector?

As long as we're thinking that pragmatically, why don't we shackle our inmates to prep tables around the country, makin' my motherfuckin' Egg McMuffin? There's no person, 'merican or 'messican, that can work cheaper than an inmate.
 
"Nevermind that an increase in unwanted children will result in more tax dollars diverted to child welfare and criminal justice systems"

Is there such a thing as an 'unwanted child'? I'm sure there are hundreds, if not thousands, of families/people waiting in line to be able to adopt. And, of course, there are hundreds of places to buy condoms or other devices to prevent that 'unwanted child'.
And you're right. A major factor relating to abortion rates, crime rates and poverty is poor family structure. "80 percent of women who had abortions in the U.S. were unmarried"
In some cases conservative values are the answer: a two-parent family, who respects education and hard work and having a steady job, is the surest way to prevent poverty or crime. Not to mention, many of those families would never even put the words 'unwanted' and 'child' together.

I thought her estimate of 50 million abortions sounded high, but it turns it out it's not all that high: "it's estimated that ...more than 43 million abortions have been performed in the U.S. since 1973" Of course, since it says "more than 43 million" but not "44 million", we can assume it's still less than 44 million, which means '50 million' is overstating it by at least 13%.
Personally, i think that's still too high a figure, given that "About 13,000 abortions each year are attributed to rape and incest—representing 1 percent of all abortions." [by "too high" I mean "higher than desirable", not "higher than actuality"].
http://www.family.org/cforum/fosi/bioethics/facts/a0027730.cfm
That's a sad indictment of the typical American's ability to plan, prevent, delay gratification, etc.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Well, if we abort all the black babies, then crime will go down; just ask Bill Bennett.[/quote]

Oh I remember that. When he was being sarcastic to prove a point? Taking people out of context is usually the only way liberals ever sound good, it's not like their ideas ever do anything for them.

As far as Schaefer goes, you were right the first time E-Z-B, she's a state Senator. The comment seems a little spun though, when you abort children you're always hurting our economy. Just because she's blunt about killing babies = killing labor doesn't mean she's no good. I'd like to see more unequivocal politicans who don't beat around the bush about their stance.

I sure as hell wouldn't vote for her though.
 
He wasn't being sarcastic. He was trying to debunk Freakonomics.

BENNETT: All right, well, I mean, I just don't know. I would not argue for the pro-life position based on this, because you don't know. I mean, it cuts both -- you know, one of the arguments in this book Freakonomics that they make is that the declining crime rate, you know, they deal with this hypothesis, that one of the reasons crime is down is that abortion is up. Well --

CALLER: Well, I don't think that statistic is accurate.

BENNETT: Well, I don't think it is either, I don't think it is either, because first of all, there is just too much that you don't know. But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.

You can listen to it here: http://mediamatters.org/items/200509280006
 
[quote name='dtcarson']Is there such a thing as an 'unwanted child'? I'm sure there are hundreds, if not thousands, of families/people waiting in line to be able to adopt.[/quote]

Such a trite question to ask - once you factor in race, age, expense, and suitability of foster parents, these waiting list numbers dissolve fast.

[quote name='dtcarson']And, of course, there are hundreds of places to buy condoms or other devices to prevent that 'unwanted child'.[/quote]

When Walmart wouldn't carry the Plan B until forced to by a lawsuit, and pharmacists can deny birth control medication to women on a whim, this is unfortunately not as true as it used to be.

At least this lady is being honest - you'll never hear most Repubicans leaders, Catholic leaders, Muslim leaders, etc, being as honest and candid.
 
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']Oh I remember that. When he was being sarcastic to prove a point?[/QUOTE]

Yes, he was being sarcastic; it is crystal clear evidence of his latent racism, however, that he was the one who, without any prior mention, singled out black babies as potential criminals.
 
No, but it's still pretty true. Hell, go into a gas station and buy condoms. Plan ahead. Educate yourself. And I think Walmart being forced to carry *anything* by lawsuit is wrong.

When the full quote is shown

" if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky."

I don't see the problem. One thing many people on this board don't realize is that you can 'understand' the logic of an argument, and restate that argument, without espousing it or agreeing with it.
Could you vastly decrease crime rates by aborting every black baby? Well sure. Since as we hear quite often, the majority of prisoners are black, and since you generally don't get in prison unless you've been convicted of a crime, if they're all aborted, it's highly unlikely they'll be in prison. Take it a bit farther, and say abort *all* babies. Crime, overpopulation, resource hogging, lots of problems would be solved. Of course, lots *more* problems would occur [not least of which would be no young workers to fund the abortion/Ponzi scheme known as Social Security], but taking just those couple of facts, he's certainly right. Correct, that is, not morally "right". Which he then goes to clarify with this part of the quote, that rarely makes the sound bite "That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do".

It's funny how members of the free-thinking left get so up in arms about someone's alleged 'racism'. Even if Bennett is a closet or open racist, which I'm not necessarily stipulating, Who cares? Let me rephrase: Who cares, *as long as he does not act upon that racism*. If someone is sexist, racist, homophobic, intolerant of other opinions, but that *does not affect his actions*, I don't care. It's a free country, and people are allowed to think whatever they want, even if it's wrong. Is today's left following in the footsteps of George Orwell, and wanting to outlaw thought? Actually, the answer is yes--vis the preponderance of 'hate crime' laws, where an intentional crime is somehow made worse by the things the perpetator was thinking.
And technically what he was espousing, if that paragraph is his actual belief, was stereotyping, not actual racism. Racism implies the feeling that one race is superior or inferior to another. Stereotyping generalizes based on a fact or set of facts. Racism is wrong, stereotyping is sometimes a valid and meaningful way to attempt to predict trend or likelihoods.
 
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']Oh I remember that. When he was being sarcastic to prove a point? Taking people out of context is usually the only way liberals ever sound good, it's not like their ideas ever do anything for them. [/QUOTE]


So is there an acceptable context for what he said? No, didnt think so.

By the by Ace you do know pretty much all your responses are based on quote editing?

If Bennet wanted to go the Reductio route all he had to say was "All babies" but nope he had to bring race into it.

Meanwhile the source he claimed to have been paraphrasing (Freakonomics) said the complete opposite.
 
He wasn't trying to 'debunk' Freakonomics, he was trying to argue that you shouldn't necessarily follow the path that Freakonomics takes you down.
" they deal with this hypothesis, that one of the reasons crime is down is that abortion is up"
If that hypothesis is correct, and the only goal was to decrease crime, why, increase abortions. Yes, he did specify black babies; it's possible race was discussed in the earlier part of Bennett's discussion, or the increased likelihood of minorities committing crimes.
 
[quote name='dtcarson']He wasn't trying to 'debunk' Freakonomics, he was trying to argue that you shouldn't necessarily follow the path that Freakonomics takes you down.[/QUOTE]

I know. Bennet said the Freakonomics author brought up the Abortion and Race to Crime link, apparently only to debunk it.

So while Bennet said
"they deal with this hypothesis, that one of the reasons crime is down is that abortion is up"
Click to expand...
what he should have said was "they deal with this hypothesis, that one of the reasons crime is down is that abortion is up only to completely discredit it."
 
[quote name='Msut77']When did the Joker have a sex change?[/QUOTE]

Haha, I was just about to post something about that picture along the same lines!
 
In some cases conservative values are the answer: a two-parent family, who respects education and hard work and having a steady job, is the surest way to prevent poverty or crime. Not to mention, many of those families would never even put the words 'unwanted' and 'child' together.
Click to expand...

Well, that's like saying peace is the cure for war. I mean sure, it works. But its merely idealism if you think you can put that into practice. But, unlike attempting to institute peace, many of the ones to increase 2 family households may make it worse. In child raising it's not whether there's a stay at home parent, the negative occurs when the parents are not satisfied (ie. a stay at home mom who wants to work is more harmful than a fulfilled working mom). In families it's not just whether there are two parents either. Sure, two parents are good. But if they don't get along and aren't happy, a divorce is better for the children. A good marriage is better than an amicable divorce, but a bad marriage is worse than an amicable divorce.
 
Funny thing is, it used to be 'put in practice', at least to a greater extent than now. There are lots of factors affecting it, not limited to: the rise of feminism, the idea of a 'no fault' divorce, the lack of respect for marriage, the lack of committment to and understanding of marriage, the prevalence of marriage for 'love' which is a relatively new concept, the increased egoism [people are in a marriage for *them*, not for the other person or the unit], desire for instant gratification, inability to plan ahead and work for future outcomes [a marriage isn't perfect all the time, and does require work--too many people give up after one fight or whatever], etc.
Statistically speaking, a child raised in a two-parent household is less likely to commit crimes or be a lot less well-off than his parents.
Does that mean *every* two-parent household is better than *any* single-parent household? No, I never said that. I'd certainly rather a child be raised by some of the single moms I know than by, say, a marriage between Michael Jackson and Susan Smith, or an abusive dad and drugusing mom, for example. Of course, I think lots of those 'failed marriages' should never have happened in the first place, but that's a whole other story.
A stay at home mom who wants to work is not necessarily more 'harmful' than a fulfilled working mom. It depends on how 'adult' that mom is; adults often have to do things they don't necessarily want to do, because it's the 'right' thing to do. If the stay at home mom stays at home complaining to her child about how Daddy is a throwback and wants her barefoot and pregnant, and talks about resenting the world or whatever, then yes, that can definitely skew the child's perception of the outside world, though I don't know if that's definitely harmful [the badmouthing of the father is, however]. If she resents Daddy and takes that out on him or the child, then yes, that's bad as well. If she approaches it like "Sometimes we do things we don't necessarily want to do, but we do them anyway" that's a good, adult way [although my phrasing is off--that implies she doesn't want to be with the child, which is a *bad* thing for the child to hear]. The whiny "I don't get what I want", or the lack of constant "'satisfaction", is a sign of a child, not an adult, and is equally harmful to the child.
How do I put this into practice? I honestly don't know. As a libertarian, I'm generally against lots of 'social engineering' type laws, and I am quite hesitant of the "Won't somebody think of the children?!?" argument, but this is one case where there is a definite link. Ultimately, I'll admit, I'm selfish. My main goal is that I want my child/children to benefit and succeed, so the best thing I can do is show him that while marriage and hard work isn't easy, working on it is worth it, and show him, not just tell him, what I think it means to be a good person, a good father, and a good husband.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Well, that's like saying peace is the cure for war. I mean sure, it works. But its merely idealism if you think you can put that into practice.[/quote]

Not to go off-topic, but in modern America from day 1 we are teaching kids to respect war. Noone is really teaching them about peace, so it's no wonder that we've continually been in war since the end of WWII.
 
[quote name='dtcarson']NCould you vastly decrease crime rates by aborting every black baby? Well sure. Since as we hear quite often, the majority of prisoners are black, and since you generally don't get in prison unless you've been convicted of a crime, if they're all aborted, it's highly unlikely they'll be in prison.[/QUOTE]

You're not working backwards far enough; there are too many leaps that you're making here, IMO. If you go directly from "who commits crime" to "who is in prison," you're ignoring a great deal of the bureacratic aspect of the CJ system. Basically, you're ignoring factors such as (1) where police are concentrated (greater in poor urban areas, which tend to be a vast majority black population, than in other areas, poor or not, where the population is more white, (2) racial profiling, which is a proven fact to this day (and frequently defended on the basis of "blacks commit more crime," from which that myth is falsely reinforced when more blacks are arrested because more blacks are monitored), (3) who gets arrested (this is more factor 2.5 than 3, as who gets arrested is related to who gets monitored), (4) who goes to prison (which involves corollary arguments about the racism of the CJ system, considering that the sentence for possession of 5 grams of crack - 10 years - can only be attained by possessing 500 grams of powder cocaine; what this argues is that, if we agree on racial differences in who uses *what kind* of drugs, an unfair assault on black drug users, and drug dealers).

There is ample survey data (and when it comes to self-reporting on deviance/crime, I understand the data is shaky; however, there is little evidence that there are racial differences in the *amount* that people either overstate or understate their criminal history) that show no difference in terms of race and criminal propensity. That is, if you ask 100 whites and 100 blacks if they did crime X over the past (1/2/3) years, the same percentage in each group will answer "yes." The same can be said of self-report data of frequency ("How many times in the past year did you commit crime X?").

There is severe overrepresentation of blacks in our prisons. If you ignore a great number of mitigating factors, then perhaps you can falsely come to the sincere conclusion that blacks commit more crime. I don't think you stated that with any malice, but I wanted to point out that although that's a common myth, it's still a myth.

[quote name='dtcarson']Statistically speaking, a child raised in a two-parent household is less likely to commit crimes or be a lot less well-off than his parents.[/quote]

Again, you're finding an association that's pretty weak, when not considering other factors. If you ignore the class-based differences in who are likely to be single-parents, that's a pretty big mistake. Poor and working-class people commit more crimes (again, that's crime in the sense of getting caught and put on record for it; I have a great deal of hesitation in saying that middle-class and upper children commit less crime), and poor and working-class people are more likely to be in single-parent households. The argument you're making is spurious.
 
[quote name='dtcarson']Funny thing is, it used to be 'put in practice', at least to a greater extent than now. There are lots of factors affecting it, not limited to: the rise of feminism, the idea of a 'no fault' divorce, [/quote]

Because it was really so much better back then. There were many problems with the way it was, just because they had lower divorce rates doesn't mean the end result was beneficial.

And if people don't want to be married you're not helping anyone. An unhappy marriage is not good for children. And lying to get a divorce (which happened a lot) may result in punishing someone who didn't do anything.

Does that mean *every* two-parent household is better than *any* single-parent household? No, I never said that. I'd certainly rather a child be raised by some of the single moms I know than by, say, a marriage between Michael Jackson and Susan Smith, or an abusive dad and drugusing mom, for example. Of course, I think lots of those 'failed marriages' should never have happened in the first place, but that's a whole other story.
Click to expand...

Well, if you want an extreme example...


A stay at home mom who wants to work is not necessarily more 'harmful' than a fulfilled working mom. It depends on how 'adult' that mom is; adults often have to do things they don't necessarily want to do, because it's the 'right' thing to do. If the stay at home mom stays at home complaining to her child about how Daddy is a throwback and wants her barefoot and pregnant, and talks about resenting the world or whatever, then yes, that can definitely skew the child's perception of the outside world, though I don't know if that's definitely harmful [the badmouthing of the father is, however]. If she resents Daddy and takes that out on him or the child, then yes, that's bad as well. If she approaches it like "Sometimes we do things we don't necessarily want to do, but we do them anyway" that's a good, adult way [although my phrasing is off--that implies she doesn't want to be with the child, which is a *bad* thing for the child to hear]. The whiny "I don't get what I want", or the lack of constant "'satisfaction", is a sign of a child, not an adult, and is equally harmful to the child.
Click to expand...

No, satisfaction, stress etc. all effect quality of care. It's not being whiny or not being an adult. 2 parents working or 1 parent staying home does not result in any developmental difference statistically in and of itself, the difference comes in when stress and other factors are considered, because that effects the quality of the relationship with both the child and the partner.

The whole point with kids is quality relationships. And, in personal experience, I've even known multiple families that "stayed together for the kid" (including my fathers parents), those haven't had good results for the kids.

I also remember a study done that showed that working mothers actually spent more time interacting with their children than stay at home moms, though I can't find it at the moment though.

How do I put this into practice? I honestly don't know. As a libertarian, I'm generally against lots of 'social engineering' type laws, and I am quite hesitant of the "Won't somebody think of the children?!?" argument, but this is one case where there is a definite link. Ultimately, I'll admit, I'm selfish. My main goal is that I want my child/children to benefit and succeed, so the best thing I can do is show him that while marriage and hard work isn't easy, working on it is worth it, and show him, not just tell him, what I think it means to be a good person, a good father, and a good husband.
Click to expand...

Just make sure your goal actually is backed up by evidence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top