So? Oh heinous sin of expressing one's opinion. What exactly do you find offensive about it? She didn't say we should be keeping them as slaves. There's also a lot of scary, thinly-veiled eugenics preaching from the Left about all those people who shouldn't be having kids at all.

To answer your question, no, I hadn't heard it. Did you have an opinion about it?

Well, it's a pretty similar argument for aborting those babies on the eugenics front. Some lefties don't want mouths to feed because they forsee a future where there is no need for cheap local labour, apparently she wants them born, fed and kept poorly educated so that the cheap labour market can continue.

I can't say I see much value in either argument. Whilst on the one hand I agree that some parents shouldn't have kids, I don't think anyone is qualified to make that judgement, least of all government officials. And to force the continuation of impoverished children simply so that someone can keep the grass cut at the golf links is morally reprehensible, because if she expects aborted babies to become cheap labour she obviously doesn't expect them to get a good education.

On all counts it's fairly appalling.

I think she's also off base about who gets the most abortions in the US. The people who stock our nation with cheap labor can't afford to have them at the rate that people who would be sending their kids to ivy league schools do.

If the statement was made, it's beyond an awful statement.

It was a dumb thing to say, but emotions run high on both sides of the abortion issue, often clouding logic and judgement, and both sides are quick to cherry-pick such quotes and use them as weapons.

" If the statement was made, it's beyond an awful statement."

Why? Would you say it is any worse than all the people who claim we need more abortion availability so that we won't have all this welfare burden? Which is more racist and elitist, saying that we need more low-wage labor, or saying that we don't want to pay for foodstamps for all these kids?

At least one makes an assumption that they will eventually work for society. I've seen numerous pro-abortion folks make the point that abortion reduces crime. I've seen them say that abortion reduces the burden in health care costs because we can "catch" handicaps before they happen.

No, I don't think the pro-abortion side has any moral high ground in this debate.

No, I don't think the pro-abortion side has any moral high ground in this debate

That's true enough. But the anti-abortion side doesn't really have much moral high ground. What with needing caddies, harrassing/attacking abortion doctors/clinics/patients, and of course the horrendously false pseudo-religious nature many ascribe to their own anti-abortion stance it's rare to find someone on either side who genuinely just wants to help.

cactoblasta: I can see it that way, sure, but can you understand that from their point of view, that storefront clinic is murdering people for hire?

If there were a storefront in your neighborhood where people could take their kids to be killed, would you think a little obstruction and harrassment would be warrented? No, you don't see abortion and killing children as the same thing, but put yourself in the shoes of someone who does. If anything, I think we should be surprised there hasn't been more violence.

Every single abortion, to a pro-life advocate, ends with the death of an unborn child. If you were sitting there, facing the realization that 1.3 million children were being killed for convenience in your society every year, one in 4 pregnancies in your own country, I believe you'd be apt to do anything you could to stop it.

If you can morally equate the two sides, I respect your opinion. I can't share it, though.

If you can morally equate the two sides, I respect your opinion. I can't share it, though.

Sure. I can morally equate the two sides. But then again, from my perspective the anti-abortion people who hold their position because they think the unborn are human are little different to the greenies who believe all animals are human. Everything ends up being relative if you look at it too long.

"Everything ends up being relative if you look at it too long."

But a human fetus is still human. A better comparison would be people who thought slavery was okay because africans weren't really people, or those who thought the world would be a better place if we didn't have all those unwanted Jews burdening society.

Again, not saying you feel that way or equating your beliefs to those, but for people who believe abortion is the ending of a human life those examples are equivalent. Given that, can you really expect them not to go to extremes? ONe side protects a esoteric "right", the other faces 1.3 million state-sanctioned and often state-funded murders a year.

Until people can really feel what someone that perceives it that way feels, they won't be able to understand the situation with abortion.

But a human fetus is still human.

I don't agree. A fetus is part of the mother, in my opinion, right up to the point its umbilical cord is removed. It's no more human than an individual kidney. It may possess unique DNA, but bacteria in the mouth and gut aren't considered human and they don't even have DNA. Of course, that's just my opinion. I wouldn't dream of making such opinion law without the support of at least 51% of the population.

Neither slavery nor genocide is even remotely comparable. Neither involve the removal of one kind of living tissue from another. I was raised Catholic, so I understand the religious side to some anti-abortion arguments. I just think that any god who would be so cruel as to condemn those who have yet to be born to Hell simply because they die unbaptised is not a god worth worshipping. So I conveniently ignore that element of the organised faith and let pragmatics rule my opinion on abortion.

Given that, can you really expect them not to go to extremes? ONe side protects a esoteric "right", the other faces 1.3 million state-sanctioned and often state-funded murders a year.

I'll show them exactly the same level of tolerance I show the animal liberationists. As long as they obey the law and don't make a nuisance of themselves a minority can profess whatever views they like, including the belief that a fetus is as human as you or I. However as soon as they start harming others protected by the law the tolerance will end. They can prosletyse as well if they like, and if they can persuade a majority to support them then the law can be changed.

But anarchy will rule if minorities are allowed to do what they like just because I can see their side of the argument. Tolerance should not extend to the breaking of majority law. Otherwise we may as well drop the whole notion of democracy and shift to tyranny so we don't have to make our own difficult choices.

No matter how you look at it, this was a shitty thing to say. I do not believe in abortion. I also do not believe that we need illegal immigrants to do the jobs Americans won't do.
The trouble is, this kind of thinking and logic is becoming way too common and troubling.