Argument against abortion

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

I wonder if anyone has ever tried an economic argument against abortion. If we think about it abortion isn’t good for the government. The average salary in 1995 was $45,000. And about 20% of that comes out it takes. So if 1,500,000 babies were killed in 1970 by they would be earning around $45,000 on average. So in 1995, when these children would be 25, the government would lose $13,500,000,000 in taxes. Now the next year another 1.5million babies would not be paying taxes. So the government would lose $27,000,000,000 in taxes in 1996. Now in 2035 when the babies that were born in 1970 would be retiring. That year the government would lose $540,000,000,000 in taxes. That is crazy. Imagine what the government could use that much money on?

-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), August 07, 2003

Answers

Several European countries are already feeling the economic crunch resulting from a combination of birth control and abortion. Several nations, most notably France, are currently below replacement level, meaning that the number of deaths per year, exclusive of deaths by abortion, is smaller than the number of live births. Therefore the French population is in steady decline. Already there are not enough French people to fill needed jobs. As a result, France has been forced to import large numbers of workers from other countries where population decline is not a problem. Nations where birth control and abortion are not practiced. Nations where large families are considered a blessing. Guess where! Not Spain. Not Italy. They have the same problem, though not yet as severe. Workers are immigrating into France from Middle Eastern nations. As a result, France, a historic Catholic stronghold even during the years of the Protestant Rebellion, is now becoming increasingly Islamic. Unless something changes drastically, France may be an Islamic nation within fifty years, followed by several other European nations. What the Crusades prevented the "Mohammedans" from accomplishing - the overrunning of Europe by Islam - is being gradually accomplished today by birth control and abortion.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 07, 2003.

Hi Scott I dont know about using economic theory to argue against abortion, I supppose a case could be made but I aslo think that in most of the wolrd an eqaully strong case culd be made for arguing for abortion if we only considered economic factors.

I think you should remeber the role of the government isnt to maximise profit from taxpayers, its purpose is for the people, in theory at least!. Any tax revenue gained should be spent on the provision of public goods( like education, health, defence, roading etc) or the redistribution of income (like welfare payments and subsidies) .

$45,000 US sounds awfully high, pehaps the figures you were looking at were only SALARY earners, not slalary and wage earners. Many people choose not to work or unable to work for various reasons also. I know the average income per captia in the US is well below $20,000 but Im unsure of the average wage. ANyway thats me just being picky, your right it would broaden the tax base considerably whatever the figure.

Paul gives a goood example of the probelms of a low birth rate in Europe but also surely Paul its also about competition and lowering costs using cheap labour. In much the same way as many Hispanics are working in AMericaaland , Indonesians are working in SOuth EastASia, Eastern Europeans in Western Europe, Polynesians are working in New Z many North AFricans are working in France. Its evolutionbaby, the global market place of diversity and mobility. Is that a fair comparison?

Given that France has not been a "Catholic State" for some time, (indeed few states are more secular in their political nature) its hardly unsurprising that religious affiliiation is not a determinant of of immigartion. Smilarily I guess Catholic Hispanics are not dicriminated aginast on religious grounds. One final point is that France colonised these North African countries, with colonisation comes responsibilities. (BTW Muslim popltion in France somewhere around the 3-6% mark depending on who you believe)

Finally the groewth of Islam in America is itself some thing to behold from 527,000 in 1990 to 1,104,000 in 2000 +109%,. Some figures put the current population at close to 2 million in 2003!!!! The Budhists have similarily been increasing.

Given such continued increases in the future and using logic similar to that on France AMerica sometime in the not to distant future will become a Muslim/Budhist nation!

J/K s peoplemIm not serious....Im on a posting frenzy, Im out my mind anyway. Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. Yes Im seriusly bored, the weather is awful and Im stuck inside.

God Bless

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), August 07, 2003.


Another surprising statistic: the divorce rate. Islam allows easy no-fault divorce, so you'd expect a higher divorce rate in a Muslim than in a Catholic country. But actually the divorce rate is only 6% in Turkey compared to 12% in Italy and 21% in Portugal. Polygamy is incidentally illegal in Turkey, so that can't be a reason for the low divorce rate.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), August 07, 2003.

Actually Paul Italy isn't doing so well either. It has the lowest birth rate in the world. Italy is like 1.8 children per woman. Remember the pope gave a speach before their parlament. The US is like 2.1. The only reason that Italy is still increasing is because of immigration. France has this problem because they don't like immigrants.

Actually Stephan Islam has a very hard stand on divorce. One of their main critizisms of the "West" is that people can get divorced to easily. This might be different in Turkey though since they are a more secualar Islamic state.

Another interesting thing is something Kiwi brought up. The increase of Islam in the world. Acutally many of the increases in Islam are not because tons of people are converting but that immigration is very high. At least in the US. I don't know about Europe.

But I will say that something needs to wake up the Catholic in everyone. People say that they are Catholic but they don't show it. I don't see why people don't like Catholicism so much. If people in Europe are converting to Islam, then why? They are very liberal people. Why would they convert to a religion that is more concervative than Catholicism? People seem to hate the message that Catholicism gives, but Islam gives the same message. At least on some soceital issues, like abortion, birth control, divorce, holding the family together, things like this. I just don't get it. Maybe someone should start a new thread about this.

-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), August 07, 2003.


it is a little disturbing that your argument to end abortion is based on what we may gain financially none the less, for these babies, the fact remains that a majority of these aborted children would havegrown up in a disfunctional home where proper growth mental and physical would have been stunted. What about all the children that won't have to grow up without a family that loves them, is desolate poverty, the ones that won't have to go to jail...etc.

-- jesus (jesus@hotmail.com), August 12, 2003.


first off, unless that is your real name, then your joke is not funny here.

second, youre wrong. most abortions dont occur in the lower income families. they occur in families of average incomes with little attachment to locality (city versus suburbans, etc) meaning that most aborted children would have led perfectly normal lives. but worst of all, how much worse is it that they should be murdered so young instead of allowing them the chance to live and grow in faith and love of God?

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), August 12, 2003.


I wonder if anyone has ever tried an economic argument against abortion.

Oh, most definitely, Scott. Sadly, it seems that some people, unmoved by sanctity-of-life arguments, can be reached only by things of this kind. That's why pro-life organizations and authors have worked on explanations of why abortion is destroying society in more than the most important (moral) ways.

I highly recommend that you read two short articles. They bring up some things mentioned above, but a lot more things related to abortion -- such as the Social Security crisis.

http://www.nrlc.org/news/2001/NRL01/laura.html

http://www.all.org/stopp/pop_rept.htm

And if you want to go into even greater detail, here's a book you can buy or maybe borrow from your library =====> http://pages.map.com/lroberge/cost.html

A.

-- Art (ars@gratia.artis), August 12, 2003.


hi i feel that abortion is just wrong thats enough said

-- Me (reenie_beenie_buck12@hotmail.com), October 29, 2003.

Yeah.. Abortion is totally wrong... I dont think its a woman's right but its a human value... come on I was reading this thing.. (I'm doing my Essay on abortion) and said how some woman use abortion as a birth control... the statistic was something like.. 5 times in her life the woman goes to the clinic and gets a abortion.. well that 5 babies to be.. that just makes sick! not only your a murderer, but its completly moraly wrong... well thats my thots and opinion.!

-- Sonay (xsonay@hotmail.com), November 10, 2003.

These postings are pathetic. First of all, most of you don't even know how to spell. So, I would suggest that you give more attention to getting a good education.

Second, I note that most of the commentators are male (and very young I expect). May I remind you that women do not get pregnant by themselves. It involves at least sperm (not necessarily actual intercourse), and unless she is using invitro fertilization, more often than we like to believe, becomes pregnant unintentionally. As the male half of potential sexual matings, are each of you committed to (1) always using a condom when you have sex with a woman you don't intend to impregnate (you should use a condom anyway to prevent transmission of sexual diseases including, but not limited to, HIV/AIDS), (2) take personal and financial responsibility for any resulting pregnancies (no birth control is 100% effective), (3) support the use of tax monies to care for hundreds of thousands of unwanted children or those whose mothers are unable to care for them, and (4) raising your own children by yourselves if the mother is unable or unwilling to do so? Finally, I want you to seriously consider the consequences of seriously malformed fetuses (brains developing outside the head...this is not a scare scenario; it happens), pregnancies that threaten the mothers life (tubal pregnancies, i.e., the fetus forming in the fallopian tube, not the uterus; pregancies that threaten to rip the uterus apart...these are all real examples), and other seriously dangerous situations that (1) could kill the mother, (2) threatens to destroy the mother's reproductive capacity permanently, and (3) will result in a child so severly malformed it cannot survive.

Women do not lightly make the decision to have an abortion. It is a physically painful procedure, and is a serious decision. Though there are women who have had more than one abortion, the vast majority of women have only a single abortion, not "five". This is one of the most ignorant and misogynist statements made on this site.

I will not attempt to argue the fetus/baby debate here with you. However, I will reiterate that giving birth is first and last a physical function of an individual woman's body. It is not up to anyone except herself, her medical practitioner (doctor/midwife, etc.) and a committed partner of her choosing to determine how and when she chooses to give birth. I suggest each of you seriously consider how you would respond to an unwanted pregnancy (for whatever reason...and don't cop-out by saying you'd avoid it in the first place), if you were a young woman. Would you not consider it your 'right' to decide? Or would you really be willing to give up that decision to a lot of other people self-righteously thought they knew what was best for you?

And finally, I suggest those of you who

-- Rebecca (sailorsdelight2001@yahoo.com), November 12, 2003.



Rebecca, there are women out there who think that abortion is "no big deal" and have more than one. There are, sadly, lots of men who think the same way, and either coerce women into having one or through physical violence cause them to miscarry. I also take issue with "abortion being a painful procedure"--painful compared to what? Most women get abortions early enough in the pregnancy that "pain" per se is not an issue, especially when compared to the ordeal of childbirth. The life-threatening issues you mention are a very small percentage of all pregancies and you should know that.

As a woman myself, I can't believe that any woman would think of a baby as anything other than a baby. In this day and age, with no stigma attached to being pregnant and unwed, why not have that baby and give him/her up for adoption to a loving family, if you can't or won't raise a baby yourself? When people say it is a woman's decision, think of the baby--we were all babies once.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), November 12, 2003.


Good post, GT;
I suspect nothing in the world will sway Rebecca's opinion in this matter. Not your input; which comes from somebody I never thought of as conservative. Much less the Catholic position, which is based on God's truth. There is choice, Yes; and then, there is never choice on the part of the unborn child. Only a woman; and usually one like Rebecca,

Who believes pregnancy is just a disease. What other choice can a sick person have? Her disease is growing. If she doesn't make the ''choice'', the awful thing will soon be eating at Rebecca's table! Time's a wasting, Clinic! I made the right CHOICE. The baby has no choice, he's going DOWN! Or she; depends on whether this is the grandson or the grand-daughter of Rebecca's own parents. They, of course, ''chose'' life.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), November 12, 2003.


"Finally, I want you to seriously consider the consequences of seriously malformed fetuses (brains developing outside the head...this is not a scare scenario; it happens)"

A: Yes it does, and such children do not survive - so there is nothing to be gained by violently killing them first.

"pregnancies that threaten the mothers life (tubal pregnancies, i.e., the fetus forming in the fallopian tube, not the uterus"

A: The only medical conditions that directly threaten a mother's life, and are not treatable by bedrest and/or medication are tubal pregnancy and uterine cancer. Tubal pregnancies are a non-issue as far as abortion is concerned. The chances of survival for the child, with or without surgical intervention, are zero; and the chances of survival for the mother are near 100% with surgery, near zero without. So the necessary surgery is done. This is not an abortion. In the case of uterine cancer, some women choose to wait until the child is viable, and have a C-section followed immediately by hysterectomy. Others elect to have the hysterectomy immediately, in which case the baby dies as an inadvertent and unwilled side effect of essential surgery. The Church has no objection to either of these surgeries. A mother is never required to place the life of her unborn child above her own life, though many mothers choose to do so.

"seriously dangerous situations that (1) could kill the mother, (2) threatens to destroy the mother's reproductive capacity permanently, and (3) will result in a child so severly malformed it cannot survive."

(1) is covered above. (2) no common complication of childbirth destroys a mother's reproductive capacity permanently. However, abortion, especially repeat abortion, frequently does such damage. (3) so why kill a patient who is already terminal?

"Women do not lightly make the decision to have an abortion. It is a physically painful procedure, and is a serious decision. Though there are women who have had more than one abortion, the vast majority of women have only a single abortion, not "five"."

A: Obviously "most" women who have abortions have only one. That doesn't negate the fact that thousands of women use abortion as after the fact birth control, and have multiple abortions as a result. Besides, the unnecessary brutal death of one child is sufficiently heinous, whether she has additional children killed or not.

"I will not attempt to argue the fetus/baby debate here with you"

A: A wise decision. Fetus, baby, toddler, preadolescent, adolescent, octogenarian, are just phases in a single person's life. This so blatantly obvious that it really can't be argued rationally. I wouldn't be here now if someone killed me when I was a teenager - or when I was a toddler - or when I was a fetus.

"However, I will reiterate that giving birth is first and last a physical function of an individual woman's body"

A: Yes, GIVING BIRTH is a function of the mother's body. But BEING BORN is something that happens to her little son or daughter's body - not her's. There are a minimum of TWO people involved in every birth, and neither of them has any less right to life than the other.

"It is not up to anyone except herself, her medical practitioner (doctor/midwife, etc.) and a committed partner of her choosing to determine how and when she chooses to give birth"

A: Nonsense! A mother has some choices about how she will give birth, but no-one can decide when she will give birth. Her body decides when her little son or daughter will be born, and no-one has a right to prevent that from occuring by terminating the child's life.

"I suggest each of you seriously consider how you would respond to an unwanted pregnancy (for whatever reason...and don't cop-out by saying you'd avoid it in the first place), if you were a young woman. Would you not consider it your 'right' to decide?"

A: I have plenty of unwanted people in my life. No, it is NOT my "right" to decide to murder them in order to make my own life more pleasant. No such right exists, for anyone.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 12, 2003.


Rebecca,

"...first off most of you, don't even know how to spell."

What does spelling have to do with murdering a baby ? Can the murdered babies spell Becky?

Real Ladies don't kill their babies! Only the perverted, sick, money hungry, low self confidence mongrels, would take part in such a sadistic crime.

Don't choke on your sub when you are "shoveling" it down your throat tonight dear.

Is your body in good shape?Or are you working on it?[I only ask because I would imagine most baby murderers are fat and out of shape]

-- - (David@excite.com), November 12, 2003.


Eugene, I have my moments....

I get so tired of the "it's not for a man to control a woman's body" argument. That BABY comes from both a man and a woman and is a person in his or her own right.

A woman can control her own body by not having sex, or at least using a barrier method of birth control. AND, being prepared with a plan if you do turn up pregnant, one that doesn't include having an abortion. If you don't know which of the 20 guys you slept with is the father, have them all take paternity tests.

Guys, if some woman you slept with turns up pregnant, ask for a paternity test and own up to your fair share of the responsibility, and no, that doesn't mean forking out money for an abortion. Even if the BABY is the result of rape or incest, that BABY is blameless, totally innocent, and should be given the chance to live, just as you were given the chance to live. I can understand a traumatized woman perhaps not wanting the baby, but please give him/her up for adoption. There are so many people who have a lot of love to give a child.

I can't imagine life without children.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), November 13, 2003.



As the male half of potential sexual matings, are each of you committed to ... (3) support the use of tax monies to care for hundreds of thousands of unwanted children ...

Each of us here is a human male. We don't take part in "matings" (as though we were subhuman species). Also ... no child is "unwanted." Some are "unexpected." God WANTS every one of them, and there are waiting lists of couples who WANT to adopt the unexpected children too, if their parents are unable to raise them.

Women do not lightly make the decision to have an abortion. It is a physically painful procedure ...

Yes -- excruciatingly painful to the innocent, defenseless baby that is murdered.

Though there are women who have had more than one abortion, the vast majority of women have only a single abortion, not "five".

This is very misleading. This is a big planet, with about 3 billion women. The fact is that a "majority of women" have probably never had "a single abortion" -- because they know that it is murder.

Now, if you want to isolate the U.S., then you have to say (as Planned Parenthood's Guttmacher Institute research reports) that an estimated 1/3 of women entering a killing mill for an abortion have been there for an abortion before. When you wrote the words "vast majority" (to refer to those who have just one abortion in a lifetime), I'm sure that no one (including yourself) thought you meant just 2/3 of women.

Fr. Frank Pavone, head of "Priests for Life," knows an American woman who has had over 20 abortions. Even in supposedly Catholic Italy, Planned Barrenhood estimates the repeat-offender rate at 30%. Now, head East to Russia, where the average woman, before reaching menopause, has a (conservative) estimate of "more than three" abortions. It's probable that the rate is still higher in Red China, where the government's "one child policy" results in many forced abortions, besides the ones willingly committed by the mothers.

And we haven't even begun to talk about the additional babies aborted (maybe even some of yours, Rebecca) through the use of hormonal agents (pills, injections, implants) and IUDs that are usually mis-referred to as merely as "contraceptives."

-- Art (Ars@Gratia.Artis), November 14, 2003.


Well my respond on this topic is that i personaly think abortion is realy stupid an that peolple that do it are not only killing there child but are also killing the futre and people can't kill what dose not belong to them in spirit

-- Melissa Balderas (sexycky@hotmail.com), November 20, 2003.

85% of the people in America believe in Heaven and Hell, yet many of them also believe in abortion rights. If abortion is not the prime issue in your vote,(pro life), you are as guilty as the politician, or doctor. Do they still think that they will go to Heaven? What a self dissolution.

-- Bubbles (9999@444.com), November 21, 2003.

> In "Faithful Citizenship: A Catholic Call to Political > Responsibility," published October 13, 2003, the U.S. Conference of > Catholic Bishops provided the latest evidence that they won't rest until > every person is clothed in the coarse fabric of their "seamless garment" > theology. > > And by every person they mean every person. No sentimental exceptions > made-not even for those persons who happen to be living in their mothers' > wombs. > > Priests and bishops who promote a "seamless garment" theology claim > that no single thread in their man-made garment is greater than the overall > dignity of human beings-up to and including the sanctity of human life from > the moment of conception. > > In fact, "seamless garment" bishops often criticize those in the > pro-life movement who say that ending decriminalized abortion and saving the > lives of pre-born babies is unquestionably the most important effort there > is and by far the most important challenge of our time. > > These bishops and priests say that fighting for the rights of the most > vulnerable among us is no more or no less important than fighting for things > like a living wage for workers, health care for children, economic freedom, > educational opportunity and ending global hunger. > > Pro-life advocates typically respond to these accusations with > well-reasoned arguments based on Scripture, the Catechism, scientific > research and common sense in an inevitably futile attempt to shine the light > of truth on the Buick-sized hole in the seamless garment argument. As Pope > John Paul II teaches in The Gospel of Life, "Disregard for the right to > life, precisely because it leads to the killing of the person whom society > exists to serve, is what most directly conflicts with the possibility of > achieving the common good." > > But logical argument and clearheaded thinking are never a match for > the seamless-garment propagandists who apparently believe that rescuing a > baby from murder by abortion is no more important than making sure every > community has a soup kitchen. > > According to seamless-garment bishops, it's simply inexcusable for > pro-lifers to publicly identify pro-abortion "Catholic" politicians like Ted > Kennedy, John Kerry, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Nancy Pelosi, Dick Durbin, Susan > Collins, Pat Leahy, Tom Daschle, Tom Harkin, Barbara Mikulski and Dennis > Kucinich. > > They say if we're going to name the names of those opposed to the > inalienable right to life, we must also name the names of those who are > opposed to all the other "rights" the U.S. bishops address in their "social > justice" laundry list. > > As goofy as that sounds to anyone with a modicum of common sense, > maybe the only way to get through to these bishops is to play the game > according to their rules. > > So, as a representative of those who know that disregard for the right > to life leads to the most heinous crimes in mankind's history, I offer the > following five promises to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops: > > You say a "living wage" is just as important as the sanctity of human > life. > > We say, if you can name the names of the Catholic politicians who > openly oppose a living wage, we'll publish those names, too. > > You say adequate health care is just as important as the sanctity of > human life. > > We say, if you name the names of the Catholic politicians who oppose > adequate health care, we'll publish those names, too. > > You say the freedom of education is just as important as the sanctity > of human life. > > We say, just give us the names of the Catholic politicians who openly > oppose freedom of education and we'll expose them, too. > > You say, economic freedom is just as important as the sanctity of > human life. > > We say, name the names of those Catholic politicians who openly oppose > economic freedom and we'll put their names in print, too. > > You say reducing poverty is just as important as the sanctity of human > life. > > We say, send us the names of the Catholic politicians who openly > oppose reducing poverty and we'll put their names in print, too. > > If you're able to identify the names of Catholic politicians who > openly oppose any of these "human rights" defined so precisely by your > conference, please list them on your official stationery and mail them to my > attention, using the address of this news outlet. > > On the other hand, if you rack your brains and can't come up with the > name of a single Catholic politician who openly opposes any of those threads > in your seamless garment, maybe it's time to remember that the original > seamless garment wasn't valuable because it was seamless. It was valuable > because it had protected the most sanctified life ever lived and because it > bore witness to the incomparable value every human person possesses in the > eyes of God Almighty. > > While we're waiting for your reply, however, we trust you won't mind > if we continue to inform pro-abortion "Catholic" politicians like Kennedy, > Kerry, Schwarzenegger, Pelosi, Durbin, Collins, Leahy, Daschle, Harkin, > Mikulski and Kucinich that their reception of Holy Communion-the body, > blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ-is a sacrilege and thus the act > doesn't cleanse their sinfulness. It compounds it. > > And we pray you won't object to our repeating again and again that > your job is to protect the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ from > sacrilege, which is why we politely insist that you enforce Church law. > >

-- Bubbles (9999@444.com), November 21, 2003.

NEVER FORGET ...The Question of the Day today on the Talk Radio Network's National Talk Radio Show... ..'Faith, Family, Freedom with BOB DORNAN'.. ...asked by Radio Host, Lifetime Catholic and former 20- year U.S. Congressman BOB DORNAN from California was... ..-Will an under-investigation for Cover-Up's L.A. Archdiocese Cardinal ROGER MAHONY get BOB DORNAN kicked off his Southern California Radio Station for his on the air TRUTHFULLNESS about the now huge Catholic Priests' SeXual Abuse Scandal...? ...BOB DORNAN's Radio Talk Show airs Live and Taped Monday thru Friday in 43 different Radio Markets across the country as well as Live online on.....

Mahoney also backed the abortion candidate against Rep. Dornan, a real pro-lifer.

-- Bubbles (9999@444.com), November 21, 2003.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ