Abortion is the law of the land. We may never see the Supreme Court reverse itself on its Roe v. Wade ruling of 1973. However, to make it safer and rarer, we can regulate it in a much better manner.
Few people know this, but most modern abortion methods were developed in the Nazi prison camps of the holocaust (according to Abortion and Social Justice, NY: Sheed & Ward, 1972). The documents explaining the methods were put under seal right after World War II along with most of the other captured documents and were not released en masse until the late 1960s. It may be no coincidence that the abortion industry started pushing so hard at this time for legalization. Many of these documents are still available through the Freedom of Information Act from the U.S. Government Printing Office.
Based on principles found in many macro-economic textbooks, I believe that abortion started negatively affecting our economy about fifteen years after it was legalized by judicial fiat. How? By reducing our birth rate, we reduced the rate at which the economy could grow and reduced the number of young people able to take on the entry-level jobs and be consumers. This forced the government to turn its back on immigration laws (see Immigration). Donald Mann, President of NPG, said that “Macro economic growth requires a growing labor force so that GNP can increase constantly. A growing labor force is only possible if population grows, and population growth in the U.S. depends largely on massive immigration.” By reducing abortion rates, we can improve our economy without illegal immigration.
Late-term abortions are extremely dangerous and must be eliminated. This includes such practices as “partial-birth abortion”—inducing a dangerous breach birth, leaving the head within the birth canal, and destroying the baby’s brain with the medical equivalent of a pair of scissors—are barbaric by any standards. The one exception to late-term abortion should be when the mother’s health is endangered. Even then, the child can be often be delivered by caesarian section and saved anyway. The survivability rate of children born normally after 6-month terms is very high. Mid-term abortions should only take place to save the life of the mother, or in the case of rape or incest.
Abortions performed on minors must be with a parent’s consent. No other medical procedure is allowed without it. Why should this be any different? If complications result (and they do in as many as 25% of cases—see Abortion Complications for more information), the parent must know what is wrong so he or she can make informed decisions about medical care.
Planned Parenthood’s motto is “Every child a wanted child.” In practice, the result is “Every child a wanted child—if not, kill it.” So, what do we do with all the “unwanted” children? First, let’s attack the myth about unwanted children. With an increase in infertility rates here is the USA, there is a shortage of infants up for adoption. This has been true for the last twenty years and more. Many people are forced to go overseas in order to find babies. There are no unwanted infants. As far as the older children go, there are studies that show that “unwanted” children show no more deviance or problems later in life than “wanted” children. There remains the problem of abandoned and abused children. We need to change the laws to make them easier to adopt instead of forcing them into perpetual foster care. Furthermore, we must encourage families to adopt them and provide those families with support to handle the potential for emotional and behavioral problems caused by abuse. Click here for more information.
You said: Abortion started ruining our economy about fifteen years after it was legalized by judicial fiat. How? The major way an economy grows is through population increase.
ReplyDeleteI say: Is this just an opinion of yours or is this a fact? I can't tell from this excerpt, which is a problem. If it's a fact, please provide a reference. If it's an opinion, please state it as such.
If population increases are "THE major way an ecopnomy grows," this logic would suggest that that China's recent economic boon could not be possible, especially after the Chinese government enacted their "one-child policy" in 1979, which has served to prevent 250 million births by 2000 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy).
Additionally, regardless of one's stance on the abortion issue, it is my position that having additional thousands of unwanted children, children whose parents cannot care for them properly, or abandoned children who are never adopted would constitute an economic drain on any host country. In fact,"Increased population growth generally represents problems for a country - it means increased need for food, infrastructure, and services. These are expenses that most high-growth countries have little ability to provide today, let alone if population rises dramatically." (see http://geography.about.com/od/populationgeography/a/populationgrow.htm )
I'm NOT saying that these children should not be given the chance to live and be loved. My personal views are not drastically different than yours. I AM saying, however, that your attempt to tie legalized abortion to the collapse of the economy appears to be faulty, at best.
Good points, customer2145. Perhaps I overstated by saying "ruining". Maybe I should say "negatively affecting."
ReplyDeleteI should also revise my statement to, "A major way a FREE-ENTERPRISE economy grows is through population increase." China is coming out of a feudalistic system into a hybrid socialist/free-enterprise system and with a little bit of freedom, their economy is growing that way. It's an apples and oranges comparison.
As to "unwanted" children--yes, we need to tackle that problem, too. I will revise the main post. There has never been a glut of newborns on the adoption market. Look at everyone turning overseas to adopt lately (I'll get the statistics later). The problem is with older children being abandoned. Clearly, we need to do something to solve this problem. Your input would be appreciated.
You said: Perhaps I overstated by saying "ruining". Maybe I should say "negatively affecting."
ReplyDeleteI say: Perhaps you should demonstrate that legalized abortion has ANY causal relationship with the economy, period. You attempted to sidestep the issue by launching into a description of the Chinese economy, but you continue to build your stance on an unsubstantiated foundational statement.
Once that statement has been substantiated (or refuted), we can move on to one of the multitude of other undocumented claims you've posted.
See reformulated original post. Abortion causes reduction in population growth. Reduction in population growth causes reduction in macro-economic growth. I thought that was common knowledge from Macro-Economics 101. I have supported it with a quote from a recognized expert.
ReplyDeleteI understand the idea that population growth influences economic growth. I also understand that abortion has some meager affect on population growth. However, so does skydiving, suicide, drunk driving and domestic violence. If you were to say that suicide was negatively affecting our economy, you might be "technically correct," but for what purpose? In my opinion, using this derived association is inflammatory and an unnecessary, especially when the subject is controversial.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, given the fact that the US has enjoyed an annual population growth of about .70% a year (http://www.npg.org/facts/uspopfax.htm), the impact of abortion on the national population growth rate, and (indirectly) the economy, as compared to other primary factors, is unlikely to be among the top causes (my opinion).
If you have some degree of opposition to abortion, there are better ways of expressing it without adding to the general misinformation about a very important topic.
I'm just saying...
According to Stephen Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, "with an estimated 1.5 million legal and illegal immigrants settling in the country each year, and about 900,000 births to these immigrants each year, immigration directly and indirectly accounts for at least three-fourths of U.S. population growth."
ReplyDeleteAccording to cpforlife.org (and others), over 49 million fetuses have been aborted in the USA since 1973. Last year, over 1.5 million were aborted.
How many immigrants did we let in, both legal and illegal? 1.5 million. How many were aborted? 1.5 million. Highly significant! And no misinformation here. Direct statistics.
Excellent! Now we're getting somewhere! Thanks for your responses.
ReplyDeleteI'm buying the idea that the practice of abortion is a significant player in the nation's population growth. However, we're only halfway home.
Now you need to substantiate (still) the claim that the practice of abortion is a major player in the decline of the economy. Just because the level of abortions impacts the country's population growth does not automatically indicate abortion is a significant player in the country's economic outcomes. Mann's quote (posted above), suggests "economic growth requires a growing labor force so that GNP can increase constantly." Even with the impact of the practice of abortion, the U.S. has continued to enjoy an annually "growing labor force," given the estimated average population growth rate of approximately 0.70% as I noted above. That means the U.S. economy should have had enough population growth to support a flourishing economy despite the impact abortion imparts into the equation.
So, since U.S. population growth has been relatively constant, and since the US economy has officially tanked (recession), there must be other (more significant) causes for the economic downturn that have little or nothing to do with the impact of abortion or the impact of an increasing labor force.
Consequently, we're back to needing to substantiate the claim that the practice of abortion caused our economic woes; which would mean abortion had as much or more impact than risky lending practices, trade deficits and/or increasing the national debt.
Shall I assume since you stopped commenting on this topic that you didn't find documentation that abortion is a significant variable in the health of the economy? I have no way of knowing since you left the conversation hanging. If I'm wrong, I'd appreciate hearing about it. If I'm right, I'd suggest you make a statement as such and rework your "Abortion started negatively affecting our economy..." statement above. It's misleading, at best.
ReplyDeleteThanx for all your comments. My assertions are textbook--see any macro-economics textbook. Lower population growth = Lower economic growth. I will adjust my statement to "Based on principles found in many macro-economic textbooks, I believe that . . . "
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your adjustment. It's an improvement, but it's still misleading. I'd be willing to bet that while "any macro-economics textbook" would indicate "Lower population growth = Lower economic growth," I wager that NONE of them would explicitly include abortion in that general equation. There must be a pretty strong personal agenda at work behind these assertions. We all have agendas/opinions/feelings/beliefs, but I'd invite you look closely at any internal motivation that appears to compel you to massage the data to fit. Political platforms strong enough to support a credible alternative must be built on a much stronger foundation.
ReplyDelete