Челси Клинтон связала легализацию абортов с триллионным ростом экономики США

Chelsea Clinton argued in 2018 that the legalization of abortion under Roe v. Wade contributed to trillions of dollars in U.S. economic growth by allowing more women to join the workforce, a claim pro-life advocates condemned as placing a monetary value on the lives of unborn babies. Speaking at a “Rise Up for Roe” rally held to oppose the Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, Clinton connected the 1973 Roe decision to increased female labor force participation. “It is not a disconnected fact … that American women entering the labor force from 1973 to 2009 added three and a half trillion dollars to our economy. Right?” she said. “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.” Click Follow below to like the LifeNews Facebook page! Clinton added that economic arguments could persuade people who might not be moved by appeals to women’s rights: “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, some of these other arguments that you’ve expressed so beautifully, will be.” Since Roe v. Wade, approximately 66 million unborn babies have been legally aborted in the United States. Pro-life groups said Clinton’s remarks effectively treated those lost lives as an economic asset, framing the killing of preborn children as beneficial to the nation’s bottom line. Others noted that Clinton ignored the economic benefit of 66 million people working and contributing to society. In a detailed critique published by Blaze Media, philosophy and religion professor Owen Anderson argued that even after clarifying she did not claim every abortion deposited money in the Treasury, Clinton’s point remained deeply problematic. She presented legal abortion as one of the conditions that enabled greater female workforce participation, which in turn generated enormous economic value, and offered that value as a consideration in favor of abortion. Never mind that that could have and would have happened without killing millions of babies. Anderson wrote that a human life had entered an economic equation. Pregnancy may cause a woman to leave the workforce, reduce her hours, interrupt her career, or forgo income. Abortion may prevent those consequences and therefore contribute to economic productivity. “Once stated plainly, the moral ugliness is hard to miss,” he said. He compared the reasoning to the dystopian premise of Soylent Green, in which human beings become valuable only for what they produce or expendable when they get in the way of production. “The frightening thing about a darkened mind is not that it wakes every morning plotting evil while twirling a theatrical mustache. It is that evil begins to look reasonable.” Anderson stressed that the decisive question is not whether abortion makes it easier for somebody else to earn money, but “Who is the unborn child?” The unborn child is a distinct living human being. Society recognizes everywhere else that one may not deliberately kill an innocent human being because his continued existence imposes economic costs on somebody else. “We do not balance an innocent person’s right to live against another person’s earning potential and ask which column produces the larger number. Yet abortion is often granted precisely this moral exemption.” Once economic productivity is offered as a reason favoring abortion access, Anderson argued, the unborn child’s life has been made one variable in a cost-benefit calculation. He identified this as an invocation of Mammon, the god of wealth. Ancient peoples sacrificed human beings to their gods, persuading themselves the bargain was reasonable because prosperity might follow. Modern society describes the unborn child as a reproductive impediment, calculates the economic benefit of removing that impediment, and congratulates itself on being enlightened. Anderson pointed to Scripture’s category of divine judgment operating within history: God gives rebellious people over to the consequences of their rebellion so that their thinking becomes futile and their hearts are darkened. Professing themselves wise, they become fools. The punishment for rejecting what is good is eventually losing the ability to recognize the evil of one’s own reasoning. Categories become inverted: killing becomes health care, and economic productivity becomes part of the case for it. An argument that should horrify begins to sound like respectable public policy. Critics noted that the coincidence of Roe’s timing with workforce gains does not establish causation, and some research has indicated that the absence of those 66 million people may instead have imposed long-term costs on the economy. From a pro-life standpoint, Clinton’s framing elevates economic calculations above the inherent value of innocent human life in the womb.