Pants-of-dog wrote:We were discussing whether or not the abortion debate was relevant to your poll. You said it was not relevant, and now you seem to say it is comparable.
Religious prohibition of abortion does not seem comparable to China’s one child policy. There are at least two significant differences:
1. China’s policy is about limiting population growth. Religious bans on abortion are about increasing population, among other things, and
2. China’s policy was entirely state driven, while religious bans on abortion are driven mostly by churches, which are non-state institutions.
It isn't relevant because all variants of the reproductive models that I mentioned could take either position on that debate. See:
Pro-life laissez faire: "I don't want the government to force me to subsidise the murder of children!"
Pro-choice laissez faire: "I want to decide for myself whether I murder my children!"
Pro-life keynesian: "It is necessary for wise and holy rulers to prohibit their subjects from murdering their children!"
Pro-choice keynesian: "It is necessary for wise and holy rulers to make sure the people don't breed too much, making a burden on welfare provision, and so offer incentives and subsidies for killing their children, in case not enough are willing to do that on their own!"
Pro-life marxian: "Dear Leader is perfect and precious beyond all measure and thus all his clones are perfect and precious beyond all measure, even the defective ones
, thus the hive can not permit the destruction of even one dear leader clone!"
Pro-choice marxian (lol that's an oxymoron): "Only the most perfect clones are fit to honour Dear Leader with existence, thus even the slightest deformity must be purged!"
Let's be real we have all participated in the abortion debate on one side or another and it always degenerates into a shitshow where people just repeat the same boring arguments without even listening to the other side. It's a black hole topic and I don't want it devouring my thread.
Pants-of-dog wrote:This weird comparison you are making between childbirth and economics seems nonsensical.
Is there an actual logical point of similarity between childbirth and state control of the economy?
The point of worker ownership of the means of production is to get rid of economic exploitation. Since childbirth does not create exploitation (economic or otherwise), there is no need to control it.
Your comparison fails.
Economics is supposedly the study of the production and distribution of goods and services, and that includes livestock, so it could, should and does study the production and distribution of human livestock. So when some fruitbat says "wouldn't it be great if the communists had a monopoly on the means of production, like it was even illegal to own a means of production, unless you were a communist?"; it is fair to wonder if there are any limits on which means of production is to be monopolised, if it includes farm animals why would it not include human animals? It is actually for you and other communist totalitarians to specify the parameters of your monopolistic agenda. If you don't specify the limits then it is safe to assume there are none.