November 4, 2006
BIG MONEY VS BABIES?:
Measure to notify parents of minors' abortion edges ahead (Barbara Feder Ostrov, 11/04/06, San Jose Mercury News)
Just as they did with a nearly identical measure last year, Californians until recently were expected to narrowly shoot down Proposition 85, a ballot measure requiring parental notification of a minor's abortion.
But days before Tuesday's election, the tide may be turning in the measure's favor, with a Field Poll released Thursday showing potential voters supporting it by a 3 percent margin. [...]
Planned Parenthood affiliates, Hollywood types and Silicon Valley moguls are pouring last-minute money into the No on 85 campaign, raising nearly $350,000 in three days last week. In contrast, the largely anti-abortion supporters of Proposition 85 raised $82,000 in the same period. [...]
The measure has largely been financed by San Diego newspaper publisher James Holman and winemaker and former legislator Don Sebastiani. Better-funded opponents, led by Planned Parenthood, include mainstream health groups such as the California Medical Association and the California Primary Care Association.
That'd make some heads explode.
Posted by Orrin Judd at November 4, 2006 5:49 PM
Right. The SS gold tooth industry has been heard from.
I am still looking for sources--books, articles, anything--on the economic impact of the Kindermord in terms of the substituiton of immigrants, who are in their peak productive years, for children, who must be nurtured at great expense before they can begin producing economically.
Immigration operates as an expropriation of capital from the sending to the receiving country. Work in our economy is being done by millions whose unproductive infancy and childhood were paid for elsewhere, while we ourselves have saved the expense of child care for all those babies tossed in the dumpsters.
When I find references on this subject, I shall be sure to share them; if anyone knows of any we all would appreciate hearing about it.
Except that we reproduce at replacement ourselves and find jobs for our kids and theirs. We can take all the immigrants who want to come and have kids too.
Something doesn't add up here.
Just throw some roughly estimated figures out, say, 45 million babies murdered and 33 million immigrants welcomed into a full employment economy. Tell me there has not been a substantial accretion of capital as outlined in my original comment.
Go ahead, laugh at Jerry Fallwell for referring to God's judgement. Venial economic sin is one thing, economic premeditated murder is another.
If killing your own babies and importing adults was good for your economy the rest of the West wouldn't be dying.
oj. The difference is in the rest of the world, immigrants come for the welfare benefits, not to work.
Mrs Erp, I would argue that point. I think that people who dream and work hard are the ones who immigrate. The welfare benifits are coupled with work restrictions(minimum wage, unions, etc.). This makes it hard for the new citizen to get a job(legally). Your new goverment tells you to go on welfare until you can find a job. What would you do?
No, they go for economic opportunity--Europe just has none to offer even its own young.
Lou has a point; it's absurd that economic statistics treat building a factory as investment, and raising a child as consumption. (Understandable that the legal system treats it so, but still wrong from a purely macroeconomic standpoint.)
Now, I still think the children are a wise investment (again, even from the limititations of a purely macroeconomic perspective), but the immigrants are good, too; just the sort of efficient reallocation of capital beloved of free-market economists.
Except that because children are capital not having them is literally anti-capitalist.