Thursday, February 19, 2009
Darwin Award Nomination: the blogger that advocates overturning Roe v. Wade to save the economy
So... somehow I stumbled upon this douchebag's "personal finance" blog, saw a post titled
"Abortions Will Need to Stop to Pay for the Financial Collapse,"1 and thinking it was an instance of astute political humor, clicked on it. Nope! The guy's serious. Amused at its ridiculousness and stupidity as I was, I felt the need to offer this dude a spoonful of reality and posted a comment. In case he's deleted it, I'll post it again here:
This has got to be the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a long time. Oh, of course! The solution to the failing economy is more children people can't afford to take care of! Yes! How could we all have missed that? And of course, the solution to increasing the already exponentially growing population that the environment obviously cannot support is to set women's rights back several decades and outlaw abortion! Brilliant!
First of all, there are WAY too many unwanted children in this world already, and you want to mandate that more be produced? Second, the US may have land, but it's owned already! Hence, it would need to be bought--with money. Money that people don't have because, as you may have noticed (though perhaps not since your IQ, judging by this suggestion and the numerous glaring grammatical errors coating your website, seems to be on par with that of a rutabaga), there are more people than jobs right now. And you want to mandate the creation of more. Third, are you crazy? Have you not heard of women's rights? Since when is it your decision whether or not someone else has a child? Are you really so arrogant as to think that you have the right to force a woman to change her entire life and undergo nine months of pregnancy against her will? Honestly....
All right. I suppose I've used up my ration of indignant sarcasm for the week. That's all folks.
[1] I'm loathe to link to this guy's blog since there's a chance he'll receive advertising revenue from the extra hits and I'd hate to help fund a member of the religious right no matter how insignificantly—but I suppose it's a necessary risk.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
ok, I admit it, I went to this barf -- uh -- blog.
so far his comments are running about 50/50 pro- and anti-choice.
but, his bottom line seems to be that we ought to have more kids so they can subsidize him in his old age.
excuse me -- but children are not resources to be exploited for the good of others. period.
This argument has been around before the collapse of the past year. Usually it's linked with Social Security. It's just absurd - so you bring a child into the world that you obviously can't take care of, just so some asshat can feel a bit better about the future of the national debt. It's like two brain cells rubbing together...lol
People who think logically don't oppose abortion in the first place.
I don't see a problem reversing Rowe. From a legal standpoint Rowe was an unconstitutional farce; reversing it would allow the states to address abortion. So be it. Progressive states would continue to allow it. Backward states already effectively outlaw it by not funding it for the poor and by not adequately protecting abortion clinics from anti-abortion forces.
Post a Comment