Ed Brayton has a real howler:
New Planned Parenthood motto:
Nice way to tip-toe around a holocaust.
Getting rid of Planned Parenthood would significantly increase the number of unwanted pregnancies (studies have found that PP helps prevent more than 500,000 abortions a year)...Wow. Planned Parenthood dispenses contraceptives (especially to poor minority women), so it's really saving lives! There's fewer little (black) babies to abort!
New Planned Parenthood motto:
"Prevent 'em now or kill 'em later."Too bad the Nazi doctors didn't think of this defense at the Nuremberg trials: "Hey we gave the Jews contraceptives and we sterilized a lot of them, so think of how many lives we saved!"
Nice way to tip-toe around a holocaust.
Steve12 here....
ReplyDeleteReally? How many Nazis are there? It's really sort of silly.
Maybe people just disagree with you. Maybe that doesn't make them all like Hitler....
People bemoan the state of the country and the call people they don't agree with Nazis...good grief.
Steve:
DeleteLet me put the question this way:
Is preventing the conception of people you plan to kill "saving lives"?
Steve12 here...
ReplyDeleteWhat does that have to do with my comment re: your over-use of Nazi comparisons?
"Is preventing the conception of people you plan to kill "saving lives"?"
Semantics. It will certainly result in less unwanted pregnancies and therefor abortions. Calling that saving lives...think of it as you like.
Being against contraception is unjustifiable and mostly, I believe, about enforcing one's beliefs that people (said women) should not be engaging in sex outside of some social institution.
And that impulse probably has biological roots in men wanting clear reproductive prerogatives, but who knows why people have so much trouble minding their own business?
Steve-0:
DeleteRegarding contraception, two questions:
1) Would you say the sexual health and well-being of our society has improved or worsened since the Pill (1960)?
2) What happens to a civilization that has less than 2.0 children per couple?
The first is a judgement, the second is elementary math.
The ultimate outcome of contraception is this:
In the US, we will learn to speak Spanish.
In Europe, they will learn to speak Arabic.
The Pill is a human insecticide. Praise Allah.
"1) Would you say the sexual health and well-being of our society has improved or worsened since the Pill (1960)?"
DeleteBetter in almost all respect. It has given women power over their own reproduction. It has resulted in better equality for women, although there are still some significant inequities. It means that they don't have to risk pregnancy every time her husband wants to have sex. It has slowed the progression of osteoporosis in older women.
Right. The Sexual Revolution can claim less osteoporosis as a victory.
DeleteThe results of the Sexual Revolution:
AIDS
Massive increases in:
STD's
Abortion
Unwed pregnancy
single parent families
Teen pregnancy
rape
child molestation
declining marriage rates
skyrocketing divorce
skyrocketing infidelity
side effects of contraceptives--strokes, dvt's, infertility
sexualization of culture
objectification of women
pervasive pornography
bacchanal on college campuses
The "liberation of women" has some benefits, obviously, but it has caused:
a labor glut which has lowered wages
the need for both parents working
marginalization of black men due to the labor glut
enormous stress on working wives and mothers
children relegated to day care, etc because both parents have to work
but at least there's less osteoporosis.
Yup. None of those existed before the pill. Lets examine them:
DeleteAIDS: arrived long after the sexual revolution.
STDs: yup. None of that before the sixties. Except that it was prevalent long before that. Churchill's father died of Syphilis.
Abortion: non-existent before the pill. Pull your head out of the sand.
Unwed pregnancy: Are you serious? How many shotgun weddings were there? How many girls went to live with their "aunts" for about seven months?
And so on.
And are you seriously blaming lower wages and the labor glut (which doesn't exist) on allowing women to work? Are you married?
[And are you seriously blaming lower wages and the labor glut (which doesn't exist) on allowing women to work?]
DeleteWhen you open the labor market to half the population, you radically increase labor supply. Wages stagnate and marginal workers (poorly educated black men) are pushed out.
Do you honestly think that opening the labor market to 100 millio n new people didn't affect the labor market?
That's one of the important points Beale has made, and he's right.
There's a lot to cheer about women's progress. But there are consequences that we never talk about, and we should.
But you won't talk about it, Billy, or about the radical increase in social pathology caused by the Sexual Revolution.
DeleteYou won't talk about them because they're not part of the Narrative, and the Narrative is all you care about, not the truth.
Confirmation of Rule #2: SJW's always double down.
DeleteI point out an obvious truth that conflicts with the Narrative-- doubling the labor pool tends to lower wages and unemploy marginal workers-- and you link me to slavery supporters because some of them may have made a similar (true) point about emancipation.
Instead of admitting the point-- of course a massive increase in the labor supply will depress wages--you stick to your Narrative and call me a racist.
Beale's book is pretty good.
Michael,
DeleteDuring World War II, women formed a vital part of the workforce, so they're perfectly capable of performing the menial unskilled tasks men were doing - and gaining skills in the process.
The way to guarantee a person's continuing employment is to have that person maintain skills necessary in the domestic market. In America, as in most developed Western countries, unskilled jobs have gone overseas to poor developing countries.
Female non-participation in the workforce won't prevent unskilled jobs, whether for Whites or Blacks, going overseas. To get the unskilled employed it's necessary to get them skilled. Or pay them a pittance employers can afford. And cut welfare so much that they have to work even if their pay is below poverty levels. Or resort to crime. No wait... that's the strategy America has adopted.
Michael obviously thinks that it is acceptable to discriminate against a segment of society if addressing the discrimination might impact the employment rate or wages. I wonder if he would change his opinion if he belonged to one of these groups.
DeleteI never said it was acceptable to discriminate against women. I merely insist that we be honest about the consequences of the social changes we celebrate.
DeleteShould we not celebrate them if there are negative consequences to those who previously benefited from the discriminations? I am really trying to understand where you stand on this.
DeleteAre you in favour of equal employment opportunities for women? Are you in favour of equal pay for equal work? Are you in favour of women in the military? the police? the fire departments?
Are you in favour of women deciding not to have children and using artificial birth control to achieve this?
Are you in favour of women being allowed to make any choice they want to about their sex life as long as it does no harm to others?
Steve12 here...
ReplyDelete1) Would you say the sexual health and well-being of our society has improved or worsened since the Pill (1960)?
A. Correlation causality
B. I'm not sure that society is worse. You need to show that society's worse, not simply make an assertion. Violence, e.g., is down by most measures - fair enough, though, you called it a judgement.
C. What was that you were saying about Islamaphobia?
D. I thought you didn't like population projections? They're OK for this, not OK for projecting deleterious environmental effects? Assumptions of any given rate of anything is just that - an assumption. Having more kids may again become common, maybe not. Need evidence and historical demographic trends, not offhand projections.
E. I like the sound of Spanish. Very romantic.
But you forget - I lean left, so I actually want bad things for my nephews, brothers, wife, mom etc. I hope order breaks down and they are miserable. I pray that people I love are in plane crashes, obviously.
So you can't really compare our responses....
Mikey, Mikey, Mikey. Shame on you. You are making the same mistake as some Liberals whom you despise, namely the the economic pie is a constant. More workers means more wealth to be divided up. Increasing the number of workers does not necessarily imply a decrease in per capita wealth.
ReplyDeleteOr perhaps you are arguing that abortion and birth control are good since the number of workers is limited?
supply and demand, willy. It's not linear, but you can't defy reality.
DeleteDouble the potential labor force, and predictable things happen.
A non-answer. Here's per capita income over the last 8 decades. Why, oh why Mikey, doesn't it falter as women entered the workforce? Why is it that twice the amount of workers can't produce twice the wealth? Are you seriously suggesting that as household wealth increases, demand doesn't follow? How many households do you know that don't want more "stuff" and that wouldn't buy more stuff if they had the money? You ain't an economist, Mikey; you're an ideologue.
Deletehttp://www.demographia.com/db-pc1929.pdf
I find the idea that encouraging women to have paid jobs lowers wages for men strange. Suppose that everyone whose name began with one of the letters A to M was prevented from working; would this result in higher wages for people with names from N to Z?
Delete"I find the idea that encouraging women to have paid jobs lowers wages for men strange. Suppose that everyone whose name began with one of the letters A to M was prevented from working; would this result in higher wages for people with names from N to Z?"
DeleteNo. But I would be pissed off that I had to continue to work while those lazy A to Ms are sitting at home collecting welfare.