Chelsea Clinton: ‘Roe’ Helped Add ‘Three and a Half Trillion Dollars to Our Economy’
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Abortion has been an important economic stimulus ever since it was legalized by the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision, Chelsea Clinton claimed at a "Rise Up for Roe" event on Saturday.
At the event promoting opposition to President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, the former First Daughter of President Bill Clinton credited legalized abortion for helping add trillions of dollars to the U.S economy because women who had abortions were more inclined to enter the labor force:
"Whether you fundamentally care about reproductive rights and access right, because these are not the same thing, if you care about social justice or economic justice, agency – you have to care about this.
"It is not a disconnected fact – to address this t-shirt of 1973 – that American women entering the labor force from 1973 to 2009 added three and a half trillion dollars to our economy. Right?
"The net, new entrance of women – that is not disconnected from the fact that Roe became the law of the land in January of 1973."
Thus, no matter what other things Americans may care about, everyone should appreciate the economic value of legalized abortion, Clinton said:
"So, I think, whatever it is that people say they care about, I think that you can connect to this issue.
"Of course, I would hope that they would care about our equal rights and dignity to make our own choices – but, if that is not sufficiently persuasive, hopefully, come some of these other arguments that you’ve expressed so beautifully, will be."
Tags
Who is online
63 visitors
So abortion is really just about economic stimulus?
Kinda like Food Stamps.
"The net, new entrance of women – that is not disconnected from the fact that Roe became the law of the land in January of 1973."
Thank goodness for Abortions, or "Women" would have never been able to become a force in business.
How do women with kids do it ?
Just proves that gal is as brainless as her mother!
Dude get rid of that picture of her.
I can't stand looking at that ugly horse faced ignorant bitch.
I look a lot like Tom Cruise, guess that means he is my dad.
What about this one?
That is a lot of plastic surgery to make her look that presentable.
No, it's about individual choice and rights. but economics is one factor to consider in that choice.
Is she an idiot or a monster? Maybe both?
I missed this very first comment of yours where you say again what you now claim you never said.
Which makes the 3rd time you said something that you deny saying.
Roe's working as designed! More Money and, as Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, it controls population in groups we don't want to have too much of.
Win Win for abortion supporters, and it's no use crying over spilled human brains.
I would like to see the stats available on this claim, yet it is astonishing, I am unable to find any (could be asking the wrong question) .... if anyone knows where I can find this information I would appreciate a link …. thanks
I did find this old study - I do not think I buy into the results, but they are interesting..
Abortion tied to sharp decline in women's mental health
By Ryan Jaslow CBS News September 1, 2011
.
Study Finds Abortion Doesn't Lead to Depression
.
Having an abortion does not put women at increased risk of depression, study finds
By Susan Perry | 06/01/18
.
Abortion does not cause depression, new study finds
Groups that claim abortion leads to mental illness are misleading people, experts say
by Maggie Fox / May.30.2018
Find any information on the claim made by Chelsea?
If you notice I passed on old research that I thought was interesting .. did not agree with it - just passed it along - I really do not care if a woman becomes depressed after an abortion, I think it is a waste of time and money to study... once a woman decides to end a pregnancy. it is up to her to deal with what happens next.. if one listens to Chelsea Clinton the woman is more inclined to get a job after having an abortion .. can that be verified?
That's usually what I try to do - seek out outdated and bogus info, post it, then take no responsibility for posting crap.
You could be correct .. abortion (even mental health) should be private issue between doctor and patient ……. I made an error in judgment by posting an old article on the subject (I just thought it was interesting) .. now the point I wanted verified is buried under the defense of whether abortion impacts mental health... and what a 'bad' person I am for not being concerned about what happens after an abortion is performed
I neither condemn nor condone - to each their own. Leave my guns alone, I leave abortion alone .. seems simple enough to me.
Yet I do want to know how anyone can make a claim that a women, having had an abortion is more inclined to enter the work force … I say it is a BS claim...
I am sure it is easy to find studies that argue both sides. I think a lot of it has to do with if the mother has guilt about it or not and that is something neither study took into consideration. I don't see how they could. It is a question of individual morality.
We need the full article or source for those cherry-picked quotes on which this article is completely based. Even those quotes...disconnected from one another and very likely not in the order in which they were made--are suggestive at least that Ms. Clinton wasn't trying to limit her comment just to the issue of abortion but to reproductive autonomy and choice in general--namely contraception. Until the full transcript of her remarks are made available by the seeder, this article is just another manufactured and deceptive rightwing hit job (and may well be confirmed as one if those remarks are made available).
This link has the whole video of the entire statement on it. Enjoy.
google it
Charles Cooke nails it here:
he problem with this argument, obviously, is that it is entirely unresponsive to the debate over abortion, which is not economic in nature, but moral. If unborn children are not living human beings — and if, therefore, it doesn’t matter if they are aborted — then obviously one will be in favor of abortion, especially if it leads to salutary economic news. If, by contrast, unborn children are living human beings — and if, therefore, aborting them is tantamount to murder — then the utilitarian argument is flatly irrelevant. Saying “but look at the effects of killing unborn children on GDP!” to a person who believes that unborn children are living human beings is futile. In no moral universe are they going to make that trade.
And nor, for that matter, would the person making the case. Presumably Chelsea Clinton believes it is wrong to murder human beings ex utero . If so, she knows how she’d react to someone saying, “Whether you fundamentally care about murder or not, you should be able to connect with the fact that killing one in ten Los Angelenos will ease the traffic and reduce the Medicaid rolls.” And if Clinton doesn’t know that — if, in other words, she holds the hyper-utilitarian view that abortion is murder but it’s worth it for an additional three-and-a-half trillion dollars — well, then she’s a monster
The national review is a far right wing opinion site... It's like using the bible to prove the existence of 'God', it's pointless.
Quality rebuttal there.
Deleted
Thanks!
How come the responsibility of the women not go get impregnated with an unwanted child in the first place is never part of the conversation? Because that would insinuate some level of personal responsibility?
What gives you the personal right to tell someone else what they can do with their own bodies? You are not paying for someone else's abortions, so that argument is out the door, (and even if you were helping pay for abortions, trump spends 100 million taxpayer dollars a year on golf but I hear no complaining about that).
So do tell, why do you think you should personally be able to tell a woman what choices she can make regarding her own health care?
I am not telling anyone what to do with their own bodies. I just think they should take responsibilities for their choices. I know many of you on the left abhor that concept.
There word responsibility any and every iteration has been removed from the dictionaries of the left. They have no concept of what that means.
Electing to have an abortion is taking responsibility. Besides, most women cite contraceptive failure as the reason for having an abortion. So clearly they were being "responsible." But that's otherwise irrelevant to abortion itself. A woman is free to chose to have an abortion regardless of the reasons, which are hers alone.
Real responsibility would be to take precautions to prevent the unwanted pregnancy in the first place, instead of using abortion as a contraceptive. In the event of contraceptive failure that is a different story although I would like to know where you are getting "the majority of abortions are due to failed contraceptives". It seems if that is the case all the contraceptive manufacturers are lying.
Most women cite contraceptive failure as the reason for seeking an abortion. So clearly they were being "responsible." And if abortion is used as a contraceptive, then what difference does it make what type of contraceptive they use, be it a pill, condom, or abortion? And who are you to determine what "real responsibility" is anyway?
See previous statement. And why is it different? They still need/want an abortion in such instances.
Guttmacher Institute.
Not at all. Contraceptives are not 100% effective and their manufacturers even make that disclaimer.
Are you going to answer my question or not?
Lol how come the responsibility of men not go get women impregnated with an unwanted child in the first place is never part of the conversation?
Thank you.
You're very welcome. I find the double standard displayed by some to be too much sometimes
Touche! Good point! Although the man doesn't have any say over abortion, he certainly shares in the responsibility.
Nope he doesn't
Yes he does
Why does the right insist they are for a smaller, less intrusive government and are all for more personal freedoms, then turn around and scream that they want the government to manage women's vagina's?
Why does the left claim they are for human and rights and then turn around and scream they want tax payer dollars to murder humans?
1) They aren't wanting to murder humans. Nice try.
2) Epic fail. You couldn't answer my question.
Thanks for playing Sean.
They aren't wanting to murder humans.
Of course they are. Do you really not get that's why people oppose abortion?
You couldn't answer my question.
Of course I can. It's because they oppose the killing of innocent humans. How do you not get this yet? You really should try to read and UNDERSTAND this:
e problem with this argument, obviously, is that it is entirely unresponsive to the debate over abortion, which is not economic in nature, but moral. If unborn children are not living human beings — and if, therefore, it doesn’t matter if they are aborted — then obviously one will be in favor of abortion, especially if it leads to salutary economic news. If, by contrast, unborn children are living human beings — and if, therefore, aborting them is tantamount to murder — then the utilitarian argument is flatly irrelevant. Saying “but look at the effects of killing unborn children on GDP!” to a person who believes that unborn children are living human beings is futile. In no moral universe are they going to make that trade.
And nor, for that matter, would the person making the case. Presumably Chelsea Clinton believes it is wrong to murder human beings ex utero. If so, she knows how she’d react to someone saying, “Whether you fundamentally care about murder or not, you should be able to connect with the fact that killing one in ten Los Angelenos will ease the traffic and reduce the Medicaid rolls.” And if Clinton doesn’t know that — if, in other words, she holds the hyper-utilitarian view that abortion is murder but it’s worth it for an additional three-and-a-half trillion dollars — well, then she’s a monster.
If you understand the author's point (regardless of whether you agree) you'd realize how stupid and juvenile your little argument is.
Abortion isn't murder and no humans are murdered in an abortion. Morality is irrelevant to the legality and right to abortion. It is also subjective. You can be opposed to abortion on "moral" grounds, but you have no right to impose that morality onto others or have it legislated. It is also no one else's business whom has an abortion or why.
You cannot legislate morals. Want to try again?
That's your opinion. That's all. Others believe differently. Open your mind.
orality is irrelevant to the legality
So you believe morals have nothing to do with the law. If a majority pass a law saying it's okay to steal from charities, you'd have no basis to object. Because it's the law.
n on "moral" grounds, but you have no right to impose that morality onto others or have it legislated
Laws are the impositions of morals. Slavery is now illegal because abolitionists imposed their morality. Pretending they aren't intertwined is bizarre.
It is also no one else's business whom has an abortion or why.
Except for the human being killed. Some of us believe the government has an interest protecting innocent life.
Not opinion, but just simple fact, unlike yours. And morality is subjective and cannot be legislated. Also a fact. Slavers illegal because of the civil War and the 13th Amendment. So your straw man argument fails spectacularly.
and the 13th Amendment.
Are you seriously denying opposition to slavery was moral? do you think the 13th Amendment just spontaneously appeared as if by magic? I can't believe anyone is that unfamilliar with the abolitionist movement.
But its' good to know that if all the conspiracy mongers are correct and we wake up tomorrow and find out that our government really is controlled by white supremacists who pass a new amendment legalizing slavery, you'll be right there to defend them. What objection could you possibly have to slavery once it's legalized? Sure, maybe you might not want to own slaves yourself, but you'd have no right to impose your moral objections to legal slavery on others. After all it's legal and you apparently don't think for yourself but let others define right and wrong for you.
Your nonsensical rant aside, people could oppose slavery on moral grounds just as easily as some could use morality to support it. The same is true of any other issue. Hence, morality is subjective. Therefore, it cannot be legislated. Otherwise , whose "morality" do we go by? Fortunately, laws are based more on respect to individual rights and freedoms, along with the general good and welfare of society. Abortion is no exception.
ople could oppose slavery on moral grounds just as easily as some could use morality to support it
Of course. But you said morals have no place in discussing the legality of a behavior. So if slavery was legal, you'd have no basis to object, because your objection would be moral, not legal.
Hence, morality is subjective.Therefore, it cannot be legislated.
Of course it is, and of course it can be. Laws are morality legislated. This is basic stuff. Stealing is wrong morally so we have laws against stealing. Murder is wrong morally, so we have laws against murder. Slavery is illegal. Abortion isn't. Those are moral choices made law.
Otherwise , whose "morality" do we go by?
Those with the power to impose them either democratically or by force of arms. Slavery was legal until those who found it immoral had the power to end it. Is this really a surprise?
My moral views regarding slavery or any other issue are irrelevant where the law is concerned. As I said, laws are based on individual rights or concerns or for the welfare of society. They may coincide with certain morals, but that does not make them morally based.
Right. So if slavery was legal, you'd support it. Or pedophilia. You've surrendered your personal sense of right and wrong to what others dictate to you. I'm glad you admit it.
aws are based on individual rights or concerns or for the welfare of society.
Since the Constitution defines our rights, you can't object if the right to own slaves or any other noxious "right" is created by the Courts or through the Amendment process. I can't imagine surrendering my opposition to slavery simply because the government told me the right to own slaves exists, but if it works for you, so be it.
Although the last bit is funny. You claim morals have no place and then turn around and say laws can be made for the "welfare of society" which is so vague as to be meaningless. That's straight out of Dictatorship 101. Any and every law you possibly imagine can be justified under that rubric. Abortion should be legal for the welfare of society, Abortion should be illegal for the welfare of society. Works either way. It's just a more dishonest way of imposing one's morals by hiding it behind "what's good for society, " rhetoric.
Clearly you didn't understand what I said. Perhaps you should reread it, more slowly this time.
Since the Amendment process already prohibited slavery, your argument is moot. Although, it's rather odd that you complain about rights being created by the courts (not that is what the courts are doing), as if rights are a bad thing.
See my first statement.
It seems straightforward to me. Not my problem if you don't get it.
Now that's funny.
The same can be said of laws based on morality.
Making abortion illegal negatively affects the welfare of society, namely women's rights. Looks like it doesn't work the way you think.
Whose morals are being imposed exactly?
Do you understand how hypotheticals work? If you have principles rather than ad hoc rationalizations, you could apply your principles to hypothetical situation. It's telling you can't do that..
Do you know the Constitution can be amended to allow slavery? Booze was prohibited too, until it wasn't. I hope you understand the Constitution can always be changed and what rights are recognized today, might not be tomorrow.
Since you profess that morality is irrelevant to the legality of a policy, you still have failed to state any basis to object to slavery if it was legalized by the Amendment process. At least no honest reasons. Same thing with abortion. If an amendment passes tomorrow granting legal protection to fetuses, you have no basis to object because the law would be clear and your objections to outlawing abortion are moral (it's not fair to women).
Not my problem if you don't get it.
But it's your problem if you actually believe it. Because if you don't understand that your personal opinions about what constitutes "what's good for the general welfare" are just your subjective moral opinions about what's "good" you really lack basic self awareness. Can you be that blind that you don't recognize you are just promoting your own opinions? You are obviously just imposing your moral judgment that outlawing abortion negatively affects women rights. But now that you made bizarre and irrational claims about morality not informing our legal system, you can't say it.
Not to mention your argument is still internally inconsistent, because our rights come from the Constitution and if it's amended to say the right to an abortion doesn't exist, then the right to an abortion doesn't legally exist. So again, you would have no legal justification to advocate for a woman't right to an abortion, since it obviously wouldn't exist. Your entire argument for abortion would then be moral in nature.
But if you really want a to live in a society where the laws bear no relationship to morality and are premised strictly on promoting the general welfare., you missed your chance. That ode to utilitarianism, the Nazi state, is dead and gone. Because that's where your principles lead, if you have them.
Let me know when you can do better than mere hypotheticals.
Except you're the one playing with hypothetical situations.
Do you know how difficult the process is to amend the constitution? Given today's socio-political climate, it's probably even more so.
Individual rights. I already mentioned that.
Still have nothing better than hypotheticals, h?
I generally don't go by belief.
I have made no opinion about what actually constitutes good for general welfare. Only that it determines legislation.
It's not my moral opinion. It's simple fact. outlawing abortion means women lose their right to choose regarding their own well being and lose some of their autonomy. That is simple fact.
Except the SCOTUS has affirmed the right to n abortion exists under the Constitution.
Once again, you have nothing but hypotheticals.
Now you're really grasping at straws here.
Why would I want to? Perhaps you are unfamillar with higher education, but that's how beliefs are explored and tested. Th whole point of a hypothetical is to explore whether you are arguing from principle or not. Since you've made it clear your supposed principles only apply in the narrow circumstances that they align with your morals, it's clear you are not.
u know how difficult the process is to amend the constitution? Given today's socio-political climate, it's probably even more so.
Who cares? The realty, of course, is it only takes 5 judges now to "amend" the Constitution. Moreover, as anyone with a perfunctory knowledge of history will tell you, things change. The socio political environment of 2050 will be vastly different than today's, that's a given.
I generally don't go by belief
It's obvious you just advocate your own beliefs. Shame you can't be honest and admit that, rather than ducking and diving.
e made no opinion about what actually constitutes good for general welfare. Only that it determines legislation.
That's funny. Elected officials implementing their subjective personal beliefs determine legislation. That's it.
It's simple fact. outlawing abortion means women lose their right to choose
But then that right doesn't exist. I'm surprised you don't get that, and the fetus's right to life would be legally recognized. That's just a fact and belief has nothing to do with it.
cept the SCOTUS has affirmed the right to n abortion exists under the Constitution.
Until it doesn't...Or an amendment passes. Things change, the future is not known to anyone, so you probably should learn to deal with surprises. Your inability to grasp the possibility
of alternate outcomes is breath taking in it's simplistic naivete. I can't say I've encountered it an adult before.
Once again, you have nothing but hypotheticals.
Because you can't handle them. If you had a consistent set of principles that apply in different circumstances, you would't be so scared of them.
Nonsense, every woman has an inherent right to determine the course of her reproductive years.
Of course they are. Do you really bot understand that?
Not according to him. Rights only exist if the Courts says they do.
Claiming a right is inherent is taking a moral position and that's not allowed in his world.
To have some credibility perhaps.
Clearly you don't understand what I said.
Clearly you do not understand how the amendment process works for the Constitution.
Specify precisely what "beliefs" I advocated or have!
Implementing legislation is still about the general welfare and rights and can also be challenged.
The SCOTUS disagrees with you.
It seems you're factually bankrupt, as a fetus does not have rights, and for good reason.
Not likely to happen, as rights have never been rescinded once recognized. I guess some things don't change.
That's too funny and quite a grasp at straws now.
The courts recognize what rights we have when there is a question about it.
Are you suggesting women do not have an inherent right to their own choices or autonomy, especially where abortion is concerned?
A simple hypothetical has caused your brain to cease up. Talk about not having any credibility.
learly you do not understand how the amendment process works for the Constitution.
Did the Court follow the Amendment process to discover a right to abortion? Surely you know the Supreme Court can overturn that ruling and remove that right with 5 votes, don't you? I hope you at least understand that.
he SCOTUS disagrees with you.
Your mind is an a pretzel again. You can't fathom things change. How sad.
pt, as a fetus does not have rights, and for good reason.
Watch out! this is going to cause your brain to stop functioning again. IF 5 justices say a fetus does have rights, than a fetus has legally recognized rights! Then the right to an abortion wouldn't exist again.
Things change. What's true today isn't necessarily true tomorrow. Look at what the moral push for gay marriage has changed in less than 20 years. I'm amazed an adult has so much trouble dealing with the concept of change.
he courts recognize what rights we have when there is a question about it.
And if they say the fetus has a right not to have a scalpel stuck in his brain, than the fetus has that right.
Are you suggesting women do not have an inherent right to their own choices or autonomy, especially where abortion is concerned?
Wait. Now you are claiming that inherent rights exist regardless of what the Supreme Court says. Because if you are, just admit I'm right and end the charade.
Hardly. Your hypotehticals are pretty much irrelevant.
The court interpreted the Constitution to include the right to an abortion exists. That is their responsibility. They effectively struck down unnecessary bans against abortion. Therefore, abortion is permissible.
You can't fathom that you're wrong and that you have to rely on 'what-if's.' Yeah, sad indeed.
Transparent attacks seem to be all you're capable of at this point.
More what-if's I see. Rather funny too considering states that have tried to legislate fetal rights have always been struck down.
Great. When it happens, let me know. So far, it hasn't changed in over 40 years.
The push for SSM was based on marriage rights. Morality is irrelevant to that. I've noticed those opposed to marriage equality cited "moral" objections as a reason. Hmph, some "morality."
I'm sure you'll let me know when that happens. I'll wait.
That is not what I said. The SCOTUS had to determine women had an inherent right to their autonomy. Now, are you going to answer my question?
When you're right about something, I'll let you know. So far, you're not.
Instead of your constant ducking and repeating your opinion over and over, answer this simple question:
Does the right to an abortion exist if either the Constitution is amended to ban abortion or the Supreme Court simply says it doesn't?
Bit I do want to bask in this...
he push for SSM was based on marriage rights. Morality is irrelevant to that.
This is perfect. Just like the decades long crusade to end slavery didn't rely on moral arguments. It's hilarious anyone who paid attention to that movement could possibly say that.
Well said Sean. Great comments across the thread.
I have done neither.
The right to an abortion exists because the Constitution was interpreted to conclude it exists, as bans against it were unconstitutional.
The fight for marriage equality was based on marriage rights. There was no logical or legal reason to deny marriage equality. As I said, many people opposed marriage equality based on "moral" grounds. I suppose that's why marriage equality opponents lost almost unanimously in the courts.
Not even a little.
So the right to an abortion exists only because the Constitution was interpreted to conclude it exists?
I'm glad you don't pretend it's based on anything like reasoning or facts.
Exactly at what point does a "Fetus" become "human"?
Bad question.
"Fetus" is a stage of gestation. It is applicable to any higher animal species.
"Human" is a species. The word is applicable to any tissue from a human. Sperm and eggs are human. Nail clippings are human.
A much better question is "What defines a 'person' , and at what point does a developing human become a person?"
The right to an abortion exists because states passed laws effectively saying it doesn't exist and was not allowed, effectively denying women their autonomy and self determination, especially with regards to their personal and private choices with respect to their bodies and/or health. Such laws were struck down as unconstitutional, effectively meaning the right does in fact exist and denying that right is unconstitutional.
What bob said!
Why can't you answer a simple question? It's obvious why you won't but I'll keep asking anyway.
Does the right to an abortion exist if the Supreme Court says it doesn't?
Yest or No?
E.A Wow wow wow --- " Nail Clippings " if unobstructed GROW to be Fully Formed HUMANS ,, who would have known THAT !!!!
Removed
It's amazing how proud the abortion cheerleaders are of their ignorance. To openly admit you can't differentiate between nails, or a sperm and a unique life.
Amazing.
E.A that reminds me so Blaringly " Ignorance is Bliss "!!!
How many Scientist will give BOTH arms to find a way to " Make a " Nail Clippings " Become a Full Human being " :-)
See Parthenogenesis and its pitfalls :-)
I already answered your question. Perhaps you weren't paying attention. Or you simply didn't like the response.
Apparently you have a definition of "human" that has nothing to do with any conventional definition.
Why am I not surprised?
I see so you would like to be able to kill it until it takes it's first breath. Got it. How Humane of you. If you claim you are NOT a murderer then tell me when it has rights of it's own.
So you would like to be able to kill it until it takes it's first breath? How humane of you. Bob's answer was a BS cop out. When does it have rights of it's own EXACTLY? Why won't liberals answer this question? If you don't define when it becomes murder you advocate murder.
How come every time I have this debate with a liberal and I say OK I agree you should be able to kill a fetus but not a baby so lets agree on when it becomes a baby they go silent or will give some roundabout BS answer so they can keep that goalpost moving? How come every time it comes time to put a date on when abortion stops and murder begins the debate stops?
Self-awareness, which is one of the essential elements of becoming a person, does not happen until several months after birth.
Can you explain what your "last limit" is and why? Or is your argumentation on this topic limited to attacking those who disagree with you?
Where did I say that exactly? Or are you just making things up at this point?
Spare me your sarcastic appeal to emotion.
Bob's answer was factually correct.
Birth!
I'm not a liberal, but what does that have to do with anything? You seem rather hung up on liberal vs. conservative (not to mention emotional), which shows a bias and damages your own credibility.
"Murder" is already legally defined.
To whom are you referring?
It becomes a baby at birth. Before birth, it's a fetus. Simple fact.
There has been a date on when abortion are not permitted. Elective abortions are generally not allowed past the point of viability. Afterwards, it's allowed in cases of medical necessity.
Birth!
Why do they always forget this?
That is decided law....Roe vs Wade
Because, if you noticed, the more emotional their arguments become, the more they forget or ignore actual facts or relevant information.
Indeed. And that has only been reaffirmed and reinforced over time.
They take everything to an extreme
Although I don't agree with it, I give you props for admitting you are OK with killing it until it takes it's first breath. Most don't have the balls.
Specify precisely where I said that! Or are you misquoting me, which is as good as lying!
What the law is and what many people on the left want to change the law to are two different things. Gordy straight up said he thinks you should be able to kill it until it breaths on it's own.
Yep, kind of an all or none approach, with little attention to the details or circumstances.
It isn't just the left that want to change the current law.
Specify where or admit you're lying!
If this does not mean you are OK with it being killed up until it takes it's first breath then what exactly does it mean?
I'm pretty sure that's not what he said. You have to show proof that he did or else you're not telling the truth and lying got somebody in trouble the other day
See 10.1.52
That's not what that means. Try using a little more logic and whole lot less emotion when debating this issue, otherwise you become tiresome and boring
He said it doesn't have rights until birth. Can you explain the difference? I asked him too let's see what he comes up with.
If you are sure "it doesn't have rights until birth" is different than being OK with aborting it until it takes it's first breath then please explain how it is different....and please explain what YOU think he means.
What kind of rights do you want it to have before it's born?
Use your head! Anybody that is doing third trimester abortions that are medically unnecesary (Gosnell ring a bell?), are committing a crime. Gordy knows that because Gordy uses his brain and thinks logically, whereas you are running strictly Pure D Emotion.
And if you know of anybody that are performing these kinds of "abortions" you'd better call the authorities or you're an accessory.
Where in my post did I say I thought a fetus should be killed up until it takes a breath? Your question was "When does it have rights of it's own EXACTLY," to which the correct answer I gave is birth. No where did I say anything about killing a fetus until it takes a breath. So you either have no idea what you're talking about and completely misunderstanding me, or you're lying. Which is it?
Which is factually correct.
When a fetus has rights vs when it can be aborted are two entirely different things. Abortions past the point of viability are already not allowed. Your error is that you equate the two.
IMPASSE
I am misunderstanding you please explain how "it doesn't have rights until birth" is different than being OK with aborting it until birth?
You are making as big of assumption as I am on what he means. He said it doesn't have rights until birth and that is COMPLETELY different than what you are talking about. YOU are saying it has rights when it reaches an age of surviving outside of the womb (which I agree with) but that is NOT ANYWHERE EVEN CLOSE to what Gordy is saying.
That much is obvious.
I already did.
The difference is, Trout understands what I mean.
It means a fetus does not have rights until birth. I can't make it any clearer than that. It seems you're looking too deep into something that is not there.
You have explained nothing. Give me a simple yes or no answer. Does the baby have rights when it is able to live outside the womb on it's own or after birth? They are two very different things that you seem to refuse to distinguish the difference between. If you are saying it does not have rights until birth then you are obviously OK with someone killing a child that could be delivered prematurely and live, because that child still happens to be in the womb
You can answer it this way too. Is it OK to kill it up until it comes out of the womb of natural means?. I am asking for a simple distinction that you refuse to answer. WHY?
If you claim what you say is different that what you mean I guess there is no point in continuing the debate as my crystal ball is currently in the shop
Yes, I did. Your inability or refusal to understand or accept my explanation is your problem, not mine.
I gave you my answer. So don't try to corral a simplistic response that you find appealing.
The difference is birth. Before birth, the unborn does not have rights. That is simple legal fact. But elective abortions are also generally not allowed past the point of viability. At birth, it has rights. See the difference yet? What you fail to distinguish is the difference between when a fetus has rights and when it is permissible to be aborted.
See previous statement. I made the distinction. Consider yourself answered.
I said what I mean. I can't make it any simpler for you.
I guess that means you're simply incapable of comprehending what I mean.
Hey now were getting somewhere, now just explain what the difference between "before birth" and "before it's first breath" is.....Looks like I didn't really put words in your mouth at all doesn't it?
I understand your take completely. It is OK to kill it until it is born. Third trimester is OK. In labor? Hurry up and kill it before it comes out on it's own!
I already did. I'm not going to keep repeating myself.
Yeah, you did.
Clearly you don't understand! Not surprising either. Best to wait for your crystal ball to come back from the shop before you attempt to engage in a discussion further.
Resorting to factually incorrect and probable emotionally based statements only makes you look foolish.
No you didn't, you avoided it.
Does the right to an abortion exist if the Supreme Court says it doesn't?
Yest or No?
You keep avoiding the subject for obvious reasons. You won't give a yes or no answer to pointed questions. Are you that ashamed of your own opinion on the subject? If the mother is in labor it isn't born and abortion is still OK in your opinion right?
Yes, I did answer it. It seems anything more complicated than a simplistic yes/no to a baseless hypothetical is too complicated for you.
How about answering it by saying what you actually mean instead of a generalized response and "trout giggles knows what I mean". You don't have the balls to clarify your position..or any examples of your position.Sean hit the nail on the head!
Not at all. I explained everything to you already. You don't seem to understand anything other than 'yes/no."
Not at all. But I've provided actual facts.
No, it isn't. I already explained why. Not to mention your statement is an absurdity too.
I already did and I thought I was quite clear too. And yes, trout did know what I meant. you clearly do not.
You lack the comprehension to understand (or accept) what I said. At this point, it seems you just want to argue.
Does the right to an abortion exist if the Supreme Court says it doesn't?
Yest or No
You keep pedaling the "i already explained it" crap that no one is buying. It is obvious you don't have the balls to clarify your position. It doesn't have rights until it is born but you can't abort it if you are in labor? You are contradicting YOURSELF for crying out loud and won't clarify because it might make you look bad. Again, Sean hit the nail on the head.
Yes, unless they also take away the right to take ExLax to relive constipation and taking aspirin for a headachy
I already did. Clearly you're incapable of comprehending.
That's correct.
I did clarify. But once again, you fail to understand the distinction. perhaps if you understood the law, you might understand my statements.
Not even a little.
I already answered. Now you're just repeating yourself.
Of course you didn't. If you did, you would just say yes or no. Your inability to answer speaks volumes.
So let's see how you dodge it dodge it this time:
Does the right to an abortion exist if the Supreme Court says it doesn't?
Yest or No
Your inability or refusal to understand or accept my response speak volumes about you!
Pretty weak dodge. Let's try again:
Does the right to an abortion exist if the Supreme Court says it doesn't?
Yes or No
Keep repeating yourself all you want. My response was given and will not change!
As long as you keep ducking the question, I'll keep asking. Sad you can't answer honestly. Instead, you resort to the tactics a five year old would find embarrassingly juvenile.
Does the right to an abortion exist if the Supreme Court says it doesn't?
Yes or No
And I'll keep referring you to my previous replies.
Sad you can't accept my answer.
You mean like repeating the same question over and over again? Kind of like an online version of "are we there yet?"
But you haven't answered it. And you know it. And that why's you continue to refuse to do so.
Look at all the time and energy you've wasted to avoid providing a simple yes or no answer. Rather than provide a simple answer you post reply after desperate reply. I know you have a compulsive need to have the last word, but this too much fun to stop. So I'll keep asking.
Does the right to an abortion exist if the Supreme Court says it doesn't?
Yes or No
Yeah, about in the way that me simply showing up for work "helps" add trillions of dollars to the economy. I'm helping!
It probably IS connected, but who knows by how much? Chelsea makes it sound like it's the main driving force. It seems likely to me that there were other factors driving the increase of women in the workforce.
The percentage of the workforce that was female was on a pretty steady increase dating to the 1940s, but that rate of change did increase some in the 1970s.
The biggest factor in the increase was probably not abortion, but rather a declining economy, which forced women to work who might otherwise have remained at home.
It was also the beginning of affirmative action programs both in government employment and the private sector.
Also, beginning in 1970 in California, states began allowing for no-fault divorce, which (surprise!) increased the divorce rate and compelled more women to have to support themselves.
And there was some government intervention, too. The Equal Pay Act of 1963, the Civil Rights Act of 64, Title IX, and more all helped women into the workforce.
That sounds optimistic. Abortion rates have been tapering off for years with no obvious impact on the economy one way or the other. And while an abortion might add women to the workforce, it also deprives the economy of about half a million new workers every year.
And a little over half of U.S. mothers are working anyway - an increase from the 70s when it was closer to 1/3. They manage to work and have children.
I think Chelsea is probably overstating abortion's positive impact on the economy, but since she didn't cite to any authority, it's hard to know what she's talking about, really.
What is the economic COSTS for present and Future that those Abortions Cost, and lets not forget the Medical Genetic Factors, if unaware of them, make an effort to learn!
Are you seriously trying to pass off that pic as real? Or are you simply trying to spead pro-life propaganda in an obvious attempt at an appeal to emotion, which is as good as lying!
Not trying to pass anything off. Posting the bloody mess was too much. This serves its purpose... as in the womb a fetus will look similar to this at some point in the gestation. Is that a clump of cells at that point in time?
Then why post it?
No more so than menses.
And that is? The only purpose it can serve is misinformation and misrepresentation and/or an appeal to emotion.
Yeah, in the 3rd trimester.
Yes. We're all just a clump of cells. But more specifically, at that point in time, it's a fetus.
It's a baby. Calling it a fetus the entire time it's in the womb is playing semantics. Worse yet it trivializes the life it is. Early pregnancy I'll agree with you. When it has fully developed limbs and other features calling it a lump of cells is dishonest.
It is well before the third trimester that it looks like that. Hell they have saved kids born prematurely at 24-28 weeks now. I refuse to believe something only qualifies as a human depending on which side of the vagina is on. It's the extremist rhetoric on the left constantly calling it a lump of cells and saying someone should be allowed to have an elective abortion at 39 weeks if they decide they don't want the kid that turned me off from the left on this issue
Exactly. That's why people who actually look into the subject have a larger vocabulary. The minimum is zygote-embryo-fetus, but gestation has been divided much more finely than that if you wish.
There's this thing called Google... try it.
deleted For all others, it becomes a baby at birth.
No, it's not.
Calling it a fetus is exactly what it is. Look it up!
Spare us the appeal to emotion.
The difference between early and later stages of pregnancy is the differentiation of cells. Still just cells though.
So you go by how it look then?
Medical science is great, isn't it?
The great thin about facts is they are true whether you want to believe it or not.
I don't know of anyone calling for abortions at 39 weeks. So your sweeping and erroneous generalization only shows how weak your argument really is.
Yes people have called for abortions at 39 weeks. Even on here and sites past it was pretty established that was the belief. To be clear I'm talking specifically elective abortions. Abortions due to medical reasons is a different situation.
The basis of my argument has always been there needs to be a limit on when you can have an abortion. I usually am told by liberals that "no one says you should have an abortion at 39 weeks! No one does that!"
well if no one does that then there is no issue making a law saying you can't...
Calling a third trimester baby a clump of cells at third trimester is disturbing. Do you even have kids? Why be that extreme in your opinion? Do you actually believe that? Or is it just to try and troll people? It's the exact opposite of the extreme right that says it's a baby at one week. If it weren't for extremists we would have a lot more compromises in society.
In addition. Yes I know the definitions say it's a fetus in the womb. That is just technical definitions. It still is a baby. Just as it's magma in the earth and lava once it's out... the technical name change doesn't change the nature of what it is
I replied the same to someone else but it bears repeating. I find it disturbing you and others would look at at a baby 39 weeks gestation and have no problem sticking a scalpel in its skull. Especially when in 5 minutes it could have been born and been a "person" in your eyes at that moment.
Yes, most people are familiar with the terminology. However, I refuse to trivialize a baby's life by acting like it is worthless until it passes a vagina.
You can say it's magama in the ground and lava once it speed forth. That does not change the nature of what it is. It is a baby. Yet I'm the "nutzoid" because I view it as a full life? Think about what you are saying. Imagine snapping an infants neck...that is what you are saying you are ok with because it is magically not a life until its born. I honesty wonder if some of you actually believe what you say or if you are trolling. If you are trolling why? Why not have an adult conversation about it
Oh BS! I haven't heard of any such calls. Besides, abortions would not be performed at 39 weeks. At that point, labor would either be induced or a C-section performed.
Not to worry then, as elective late term abortions are not allowed. Only in cases of medical necessity are late term abortions allowed.
The general limit is the point of viability except in cases of medical necessity.
I don't know anyone saying that. Specify where such a thing is happening!
The issue is (mostly) conservatives saying a woman can't have an abortion at the point of detection of a heartbeat, 1st trimester, before viability, ect..
We are all just organized clump of cells. It's no different than saying we're mostly bags of water, which is not untrue.
It's not opinion. it's fact. The body is composed of cells. Simple science.
I usually don't go by belief.
Funny how some people view others pointing out facts is "trolling."
Then calling it a "baby" or "child" is incorrect.
No, those are actual definitions.
Again, you're wrong. You don't get to make up your own definitions.
So a zygote/blastocyst/embryo equates to a baby in your mind?
Again, where is that happening and who is making that claim? it sounds like some pro-life propaganda, i.e. lies!
Its 'value" or not is a matter of personal opinion. It's not for you to make that determination for anyone else.
A poor analogy.
Still wrong!
The issue isn't whether it's "life." A bacterium is "life' too. Do you trivialize that?
You have some bizarre fantasies.
Not even a little. That is also a misrepresentation of what someone is saying, which is as good as lying.
We are. You're the one getting emotional and borderline irrational about it, especially when you're corrected in your misinformation.
The key word being "I". You are expressing your own personal reaction. That's fine. You are entitled to your opinion, and at least you are not expressing it as an absolute truth.
Yes, because you insist on using words incorrectly, as if by abusing the word you can somehow force reality to change.
When does a fertilized egg become a "baby" in your opinion? This is important for a couple reasons.
First, because many anti-abortion people say "as of fertilization". That is to say, they consider a two-cell zygote to be a person. This position is tenable only by recourse to something like a "soul". That is a defensible position, on the condition of being frank about it. Sadly, many anti-abortion people do not understand their own ideas well enough to argue them coherently.
Second, if the ZEF (zygote/embryo/fetus) becomes a person later in the gestation cycle, a "moment of personhood" must be defined... and personally, I have never heard a convincing argument for this.
So... it's a "baby" after birth, because that's the conventional meaning of the word "baby". If you wish to discuss the fascinating topic of "when is it a person"... I'm ready and willing! Go for it!
False
False
False, again.
Weaseling
Which is to perpetuate lies. Thanks for that admission.
I have no idea where you're getting your ideas but elective abortion at 39 weeks is illegal, and check me if I'm wrong, but I think it's illegal in all 50 states.
So when my daughter was born at 38 weeks, did I have an abortion? She was delivered via C-Section. Same with her brother. Pretty sure we didn't call those abortions on their birthdays.
Start thinking logically and leave out the emotion. Every time this subject comes up you or somebody like you brings up this whole elective abortion in the third trimester. You're not swaying the thinking people here. All you're doing is making yourself look foolish and ignorant
I never said it WAS legal. I was talking about the argument some people have made that it should be legal at anytime a woman chooses even if it is 39 weeks because it is her choice. I realize it isn't currently legal but there are some people out there that want to see i legal if someone chooses so
I have never in all my time on the internet heard someone make that argument.
You are better off arguing with what is legal or waiting until someone in the vicinity brings it up. You're creating a straw man and it's not even a very sturdy one. The first crow that lands on it is going to crush it
Funny. I hear it all the time. It's usually framed along the lines of "If I want an abortion for any reason that's between me and my doctor".
Other than that we would probably agree on other abortion stances
And if a woman wants an abortion for any reason, she can have one within limits
And I agree with that. I'm fine with any abortions up until a certain time. After that it should never be elective and only medical necessity or malformation etc.
I have yet to hear any such argument.
Such a statement is true. But that does not equate to saying "I want an abortion at 39 weeks." There are limits as to when abortion is permissible. I doubt that is likely to change to include abortions allowed at 39 weeks.
That is how it currently is.
According to your chart....I think I have a problem with an abortion at any time after 8 weeks. But that's my problem, not anyone else's.
Why?
Why eight weeks? Why not seven or nine? Six or ten?
How do you decide?
I'm very interested, because I've never heard any convincing arguments.
A religious / soul argument can be positioned at any moment, but there, too, I've never heard anything convincing - to my knowledge, the "soul" wasn't part of Judaism two thousand years ago, so the Bible doesn't speak of that idea as we know it today.
I have my ideas, but nothing cast in bronze. I'd like to hear something (anything) new.
I can't give you one, I'm basing it solely on emotion. And this is my problem not anyone else's. I am fully pro-choice and it doesn't matter to me at what point in the pregnancy someone has an abortion
I've noticed many people tend to base their arguments regarding abortion on emotion. The problem s when certain individuals attempt to use their emotional arguments as an excuse to limit or deny abortion rights.
It's hard to get away from emotion when discussing abortion. But emotion does not equal logic. And I won't say that my "feelings" are logical
IMNAAHO, emotions are fundamental in this conversation. We humans have a very powerful instinct to protect our young. Our brains melt at the sight of a baby... even a baby of an entirely different species...
The anti-abortion folks know that they can play on that instinct. If they can convince us that a ZEF is a "baby", then our protection instinct would take over. OTOH, if most people dodn't consider a ZEF to be a "baby", then our "a-w-w-w-w" reflex doesn't apply.
It's a grave error to ignore that powerful instinct. It must be part of the conversation.
Good point
Indeed, which is why many arguments against abortion tend to fall apart: they become irrational or misinformative because of emotion.
"Feelings" tend to be illogical.
We can recognize the ways that emotions influence us, and take account of them.
Alternatively, we can not recognize them... and be influenced all the same...
You're right to not agree with that pic because you've been duped into thinking that what's little rubber/plastic model of a fetus looks like that at 3 months. Here are some actual pictures of 13 week fetuses (and don't cry about having to look at these since you opened this up):
Next time you're thinking about trying to pass off some bullshit, keep in mind there are people out here who know things and you'll be busted again.
Sure doesn't look like only a clump of cells to me or any other rational person.
I'm assuming these are photos of miscarried fetuses.
Looks human to me.
It also looks like a fetus of any number of other species. Looks prove nothing. That said, even a two-cell blastocyst is genetically "human". A DNA sample would be human.
That doesn't make it a person.
That's a more significant subject: when does a developing human become a person? What are the criteria for personhood? It's not a simple subject.
I assume so as well.
What made you think it wasn't? No one claimed that. You need to try harder for a comeback. Much harder.
What made you think it wasn't? No one claimed that. You need to try harder for a comeback. Much harder.
They look doctored or fake.
A mannequin looks human too. What's your point?
I shouldn't be surprised by the abject ignorance of anti-choice people but it's still just amazes me.
Erm.....
Mr Giggles told me a story about the night his ex-wife had a miscarriage. He fished the fetus out of the toilet and he swears to me that it looked a teeny, tiny baby. I think she might have been about 12 weeks along.
BTW, I guess you could call any living thing of any size or age a "clump of cells." Is that what you meant?
You know exactly what I mean .The pro abortion crowd is always going off on how they are only aborting a clump if cells. As u said those pictures show something more than that
Really? Prove it. You and fellow anti-choice zealots are the only ones I've ever seen use it. But thanks for adding to the BS load on this site.
so... exactly how many babies does one have to kill for 3.5trillion?
and how much would we have gotten for chelsea if she was aborted??
There are no babies killed in an abortion.
you can keep telling yourself that over and over again... it changes nothing.
I don't need to tell myself anything. It's simple fact. Your denial of it doesn't change that fact. But you can keep telling yourself that its a baby over and over again if it makes you feel better.
I will pray for you.
You don't have to on my account. I neither want or need your prayers, not that silly religious exercises like prayer actually does anything. But if it makes you feel better....
I did not ask your permission.
cheers
I didn't say you needed permission.
again,,, what you say or might have said changes nothing.
What's to change exactly? Like I said, I've given simple fact. There's nothing to change.
so at 3 days or 2 weeks in the pregnancy - it's a baby ? please explain this to everyone.
now that's ironic considering how many miscarriages happen
as far as I am concerned? yes. no amount of semantics will change that.
only one problem with that argument....
we are not talking about miscarriages.
and btw: people do not schedule miscarriages
do you often completely switch subjects in the middle of a thought?
You're free to be wrong then.
as are you my friend.
so you disagree with Science - ok. you are certainly entitled to your opinion.
only one problem with your argument - you are referring to abortion as in the ending of a "baby" which of course includes miscarriages since they are same concept. you can't separate the two. no amount of semantics will change that.
i don't remember stating they did.... looks like the woman has control over her own body when scheduling the abortion... i prefer having control over my own body and not having the government control it for me or tell me what's best for my own body as if i'm too stupid to know - do you ?
i didn't switch subjects, both are the exact same concept - just different methods of producing the same result and no amount of semantics will change that.
Except I'm not. And science backs me up on it too!
How many pregnancies have you suffered thru?
And I assume you believe the individual is more important than the collective. So...who's rights are more important here? The pregnant woman who is an individual and can make decisions or the fetus who is part of the collective considering that the fetus is dependent on the woman carrying it around in her uterus.
This is really amazing to me. You guys come on here and, say "abortion bad" yet, when it comes to separating families at the border, that's all cool with you.
too stupid to use birth control = ok to murder?
oral sex is natures birthcontrol.. very cheap and fun as well.
That's what you took out of my question?
Are you one of those that thinks birth control relies solely on the woman and that even if she uses birth control and got pregnant that she should have considered that before she had sex?
Do I need to start my Carrie Nation Temperance Movement again?
Science backs me up on embryological definitions (an embryo/fetus is not a baby). The law backs me up on the permissibility of abortion. And the law is unlikely to change regardless of who is on the SCOTUS bench. Abortion is recognized as a right and not once in the entire history of the court have rights been revoked once granted. Neither does the law equate or define abortion as murder. So all of your assertions are factually incorrect.
Really?
We weren’t unborn babies at that stage of our development process? I say we were just that, a human life. 👶 🍼
Once again, and unsurprisingly, you're wrong. When we are unborn, we are not babies. embryo and fetus are just stages of gestation. As for what you say, it's nothing more than opinion and doesn't amount to much in the face of scientific and legal facts!
Funny....I use words like "collective" and "individual rights" and none of the anti-socialists/commies have a rebuttal. Well except for Magic 8 ball and that's not a rebuttal. His comment doesn't even address mine.
too stupid to think up anything better than that = rightwing
too stupid to think up anything better than that = rightwing "argument"
too stupid to think up anything better than that = rightwing "argument"
too stupid to think up anything better than that = rightwing "argument"
I'm having to use a personal hotspot for internet connection as I'm without wi-fi where I've escaped the smoke. It was so slow over the past half hour that it seemed those posts were not being sent at all ..... thus the quadruplication. Unintentional but apologies nevertheless.
It's interesting that you always post unflattering photos of people you disagree with. Kinda childish, no??
Now you can return to your hatchet-job.
Of course the picture used for this POS article was doctored just as the quotes were cherry-picked and re-arranged in order to create a lie.
Let's talk about the photo instead of her crazy statements! Guess you figured out I would make you look silly for insinuating racism and personal insults (well you really couldn't fully abandon personal insults could you?)so you have reverted to the handbook and are dutifully Deflecting as instructed as the next step. LMAO! Once again, you have made yourself appear incapable of debate. Once again, I invite you to come back when you have something to debate with.
So you have one crazy statement from her.
You make a mountain out of that molehill, while willfully ignoring an entire mountain range of lies from the President and all his minions.
That's kinda sorta hypocritical....
Way to deflect, insult and stick to the playbook Bob! Can't you try debating or is this the best you can do on any subject? You do get credit for not trying to defend her loony statement. I'll give you that.
On the contrary. I'm underscoring the most significant aspect of this seed: that it is a vapid distraction from serious malfeasance elsewhere.
You mention "deflection". This seed is nothing else.
Your Great Leader is indefensible, and you have no platform to propose ("More tax cuts for the rich!!") so you attack minor players like Chelsea Clinton in hope that no one will notice how pathetic your whole operation is.
Backing off.....
Eh, in a way I am sure it saved us quite a bit. I mean, when you consider a significant number of those abortions went to poorer women, and the fact that they most certainly would have relied on public assistance to raise those kids, it probably did save us a lot.
I see the author of this POS has refused to give links to the original, full and unedited statements of Ms. Clinton so that makes this entire article officially false.
Talk about willful ignorance.....Here is the full video of her statement. If you would have clicked the seed link you wold have found it there but I know that is probably too difficult for you and too presumptuous of me. ENJOY!
It may seem odd but I never knew that was a link. Of course you could have informed me of that the first time I asked for the link but I guess you need every trick to make yourself feel smart. But, I am glad that it confirms that she never used the term abortion and was clearly talking about all reproductive rights. The use of contraception both prevented more abortions that Roe permitted since it's passage. And as Tessy pointed out your source, a rapidly extreme religious cult element of the rightwing disinformation pukefunnel it should be noted, carefully made sure that was all we were going to be allowed to hear--so the very definition of cherry-picking. Furthermore, your POS source didn't even have the honesty, and certainly never courage, to provide even a clue where and when and in what venue these remarks were made so that anyone might find the entire comment she made. Nothing like cowardly dishonesty to show what scumbags they are. Now I begin to see why you only fessed up on my second request.
I "tricked" you by not putting in the article that if you click the SEED link you get the video? You are easily "tricked" LMFAO! Try to remember this next time you don't even bother to click the link and go to the actual article.
You didn't trick anyone--except maybe yourself. I finally located the full video of Clinton's remarks which went on for nearly 30 minutes covering a wide range of topics and never once did she single out abortion as single it out as the source for all of the economic activity of women since 1973. In fact, the biggest factor by far contributing to that was the availability of contraception (which prevents abortion by preventing unwanted pregnancies and which anti-choice people should vigorously support if they really wanted to prevent abortion which they really do not since it's such a good way to rile up the fundamentalist rabble). In further fact, the prelude to Roe was in fact a preceding Texas case involving access to contraception:
So, the upshot of this is that your article is a cherry-picked, dishonest gutter-level attack job.
No one claimed she singled it out. Are you going to try and argue she didn't say what she meant now?
Oh, but someone did exactly that. Here's your first paragraph of your OP:
Are you now ready to retract your false claim? She never once used the term "abortion" in the 30+ minutes of her appearance at the event. And here's what that Supreme Lying POS, Franklin Graham, ran with:
Franklin Graham Blasts Chelsea Clinton's Claim 60 Million Abortions Added $3.5 Trillion to Economy
So...
There's nothing left.
The "quotation" is false, to go along with the hatchet-job photo.
Class act!
Yeah, a lotta class---and it's all low.
Oh and here's the provenance of that bullshit photograph at #13 above and it's just what we'd expect:
Snopes?
Yeah, Facts. Try 'em sometime.
When you can't refute the message, attack the messenger eh? Smart, since you can't win on actual facts.
Ah, I've traced the source of Sean Tracey's absurd attempts to apply the concept of money's fungibility to the abortion and PP issue--and, of course it was born out of just the kind of rightwing, anti-choice republican idiocy* that you'd expect.
Here's a beautifully written smackdown of the stupidity of that argument:
Republicans Say “Money Is Fungible” When It Comes to Planned Parenthood. It Is Not.
Here's the nutshell:
* namely, the moral and mental midgets like Ted Cruz and James Sensenbrenner.