The Sam Spade Memorial Good Post Gallery

[Higgs]

Is it a single word? I've always spelt it with a hyphen. Also, I don't think you can define terms like that.

On most issues I would be defined as "pro-choice," I suppose, but on abortion I'm not. For the same reason I'm not "pro-choice" on other things that take rights (e.g. the right to life) from people without their consent. Unlike many "pro-life" people, I am also opposed to the death penalty in all cases, and needless (i.e. most) wars, and thus I'm not being hypocritical by using that term.

The question comes down to when life begins, and thus, whether it's a question of the life of the unborn child, or the liberty of the mother. From what I can tell, if it's a life, it should obviously not be legal, but if it's not a life, it shouldn't be any more illegal than getting a haircut.

The fact is that babies have been born about halfway through typical gestation (21 weeks, 5 days is the record) and survived. It's obvious, therefore, that abortion after that date should be illegal, correct? Could you really make a case against that? (And no, I would not call it "murder." Maybe manslaughter, but punishment isn't the point, the point is saving lives. And I oppose any form of punishment for the women having the abortion, since apparently that's a thing.)

Before that point it's hard to say. The heartbeat starts at about 6 weeks, so I'd err towards that the fetus is a life from 6-21, as well. I suppose it's hard to really tell what "life" is, and starts a more philosophically-oriented debate, but isn't it simple logic to presume, if something may or may not be a life, to, uh, not kill it? Again, could anyone really make a case against that?

I'll also nitpick on the idea of "a woman being forced to raise a child she isn't ready to," because, well, adoption exists. Of course, 9 months of pregnancy is also inconvenient, but not as much as 18 years, and not as much, I would argue, of ending the life of your child (again, it all comes down to when you consider life to begin).

And as others have pointed out, the rhetoric surrounding this issue is horrid. From the "pro-choice" crowd, alleging that supporting the right to life of the unborn is, of all things, sexist, but also from the "pro-life" crowd. If you claim to be "pro-life" but oppose sex-ed and birth control, do you really want abortions to decrease, or do you just want to impose legalistic morality on people? Also, I'd wager that grouping it in with opposing marriage equality as "moral issues" or "religious issues" has scared off many people from supporting this cause, and is probably, in a sense, why it's still as legal as it is.

On a legislative front, I'm consistent with my libertarian views: simply making it illegal doesn't solve the problem, although there should be more restrictive laws (banning it nationwide from 20 weeks onward with exceptions, either nationwide or overturning Roe v. Wade so it can be done at the state level). Educate people that it's a life--in other words, win the philosophical battle. With that, and national sex-education, plus a culture of adoption and helping pregnant women and (should they choose to raise the child) mothers, there would be no need for abortion.

[Higgs]

What exactly justifies someone earning a billion dollars, anyway? Unless you don't think economics has a moral component that isn't "I've got mine, now f-ck off." In which case, I really don't know what to say, other than some cliches about how the American Cult of Individualism that sanctifies private property rights as the highest moral good is utterly corrosive to society, makes Baby Jesus cry, etc.

if there was only so much "wealth" in the world and it was impossible to make more you'd have an excellent point.

Exactly. We have an entire generation of people who grew up being taught that the economy is a piece of pie that everybody takes from; the rich got more of the pie and poor got less. That's the most ignorant analysis of free market economics ever put forward.

The reason people are justified in being billionaires is that the capital they have accumulated is only a fraction of the capital that they have generated for other people not just through jobs but also basic consumerism.

Rich people don't just sit on their money. They hire contractors and construction workers to build them huge towers and mansions, pay factory workers to build them nice cars and yachts and airplanes. There are entire industries propped up only on Forbes 500 members.

When people here statistics like "the Forbes 500 total net worth dropped 8% last year" they think they somehow won the zero-sum game of the economy. In truth, we all lost.

Great post, the socialist avatars in that thread do not understand economics.

[Higgs]

There's something sort of adorable about people who have a Hazlitt-level understanding of economics and assume that there's nothing left for them to learn. It's like a puppy with a habit of stealing your mittens: Cute for a while, but eventually it becomes irritating.

I never made that assumption, and I don't think Vcrew did either, it's just clearly wrong to look at wealth in the economy as a big slice of pie, a zero-sum game.