Researcher: Economic Impact of Abortion in U.S. Since 1970 - $35 to $70 Trillion

[Jack Springer]

Good. Let's go back to immediate hangings after a murder has been committed then.

Think of all the prison space and expense that would save.

Check this out: http://www.freakonomics.com/2005/05/...d-you-believe/

Abortion saves money actually. Children born to teenager and mothers unable to care for them are more likely to become criminals. So by having abortions we actually save money from being spent on the judicial system and imprisonment.

[JockBoy87]

Good. Let's go back to immediate hangings after a murder has been committed then.

Think of all the prison space and expense that would save.

Historically prisons were not used often as long term holding, just too expensive.

Most criminals were put in stocks, branded, or executed.

[bankside]

Good. Let's go back to immediate hangings after a murder has been committed then.

Think of all the prison space and expense that would save.

Just a second, no one is making the argument that abortion is a good idea because of cost savings. If people are going to argue that abortion is a financial drag on the economy however, that argument deserves to be refuted, because it's not true.

[Jack Springer]

Just a second, no one is making the argument that abortion is a good idea because of cost savings. If people are going to argue that abortion is a financial drag on the economy however, that argument deserves to be refuted, because it's not true.

jdbadboy made the point that abortions save money.

[bankside]

jdbadboy made the point that abortions save money.

The only reason to make that point is to refute the nonsense coming from people who don't like abortion for personal moral reasons who say that it also costs the economy trillions of dollars. It isn't a point ever made for its own sake.

[CowboyBob]

jdbadboy made the point that abortions save money.

That's all right wingers think about..... money.

[MikeyLove]

The only reason to make that point is to refute the nonsense coming from people who don't like abortion for personal moral reasons who say that it also costs the economy trillions of dollars. It isn't a point ever made for its own sake.

Okay, for the sake of argument, please back up your statement with resources for us to look at.

[bankside]

Okay, for the sake of argument, please back up your statement with resources for us to look at.

For the sake of argument, here is my argument:

1) We read an article about economics. Is it in the Journal of Political Economy? Is it in Econometrica? Is it in the Journal of Economic Theory? No, it's from an anti-freedom, anti-gay website pretending to offer rational information on economics, but they aren't economists, they're anti-abortion campaigners.

2) We think "Hmm…never mind all that, I wonder if it could really be true that abortions shrink the economy."

3) We read articles from "Freakonomics" that show economic improvements in a whole bunch of places in the years after they made abortion safe and legal. Articles from actual economists who are better equipped to study the economy than anti-abortion campaigners. Articles from economists who are neither pro or con in the abortion debate; they're just economists pointing out what the data shows.

4) We say "Hey, actually that anti-abortion claim is wrong. If anything, the data looks like abortion saves money, as well as not subjecting women to undignified or unsafe restrictions on their fertility."

5) Then we hear an overblown response accusing pro-choice people which boils down to: "Oh My God! Now the baby murderers want more babies murdered because of their baby-murdering financial greed!"

The point is, not one organisation campaigning for the freedom to have a safe abortion has ever said "The reason we should do this is to grow the economy." The only reason it was ever mentioned is to refute the nonsense published by the likes of anti-freedom campaign groups masquerading as economists.

[Rolyo85]

Yeah, this won't really fly. They saw that one post, decided how to interpret it, and now everything you hear will be "did you or did you not say that!" because context is for sissies...

[andysayshi]

The point is, not one organisation campaigning for the freedom to have a safe abortion has ever said "The reason we should do this is to grow the economy." The only reason it was ever mentioned is to refute the nonsense published by the likes of anti-freedom campaign groups masquerading as economists.

Great post, Bankside!

The original article linked here reminds me of the whole Intelligent Design debate. You have a group of people with an ideological belief, who try to build a case for their argument with fake science.

It's perfectly okay to be morally opposed to abortion, if your faith or belief system requires it. I get that. But you can't make up fake numbers in an attempt to scientifically explain your opinion. Just as you can't explain God with science, you can't make up bogus numbers around moral issues like abortion and hope to be taken seriously.

As Clinton said at the Dem Convention: "It's arithmetic!"

[JayHawk]

Remember republicans like rasining up more criminals because it helps the prison and corrections industry. they have turned that into a booming business.

[JockBoy87]

Great post, Bankside!

The original article linked here reminds me of the whole Intelligent Design debate. You have a group of people with an ideological belief, who try to build a case for their argument with fake science.

It's perfectly okay to be morally opposed to abortion, if your faith or belief system requires it. I get that. But you can't make up fake numbers in an attempt to scientifically explain your opinion. Just as you can't explain God with science, you can't make up bogus numbers around moral issues like abortion and hope to be taken seriously.

As Clinton said at the Dem Convention: "It's arithmetic!"

It's about making a crusade out of personal conviction, conformity to which must be wrought by any means necessary.

[MikeyLove]

For the sake of argument, here is my argument:

1) We read an article about economics. Is it in the Journal of Political Economy? Is it in Econometrica? Is it in the Journal of Economic Theory? No, it's from an anti-freedom, anti-gay website pretending to offer rational information on economics, but they aren't economists, they're anti-abortion campaigners.

2) We think "Hmm…never mind all that, I wonder if it could really be true that abortions shrink the economy."

3) We read articles from "Freakonomics" that show economic improvements in a whole bunch of places in the years after they made abortion safe and legal. Articles from actual economists who are better equipped to study the economy than anti-abortion campaigners. Articles from economists who are neither pro or con in the abortion debate; they're just economists pointing out what the data shows.

4) We say "Hey, actually that anti-abortion claim is wrong. If anything, the data looks like abortion saves money, as well as not subjecting women to undignified or unsafe restrictions on their fertility."

5) Then we hear an overblown response accusing pro-choice people which boils down to: "Oh My God! Now the baby murderers want more babies murdered because of their baby-murdering financial greed!"

The point is, not one organisation campaigning for the freedom to have a safe abortion has ever said "The reason we should do this is to grow the economy." The only reason it was ever mentioned is to refute the nonsense published by the likes of anti-freedom campaign groups masquerading as economists.

You still did not give resources to back up your statements.

[loveguys72]

And Remember kids....

Monty Python FTW!!!

[GiancarloC]

You still did not give resources to back up your statements.

And you have?

[bankside]

You still did not give resources to back up your statements.

That's not how proof works with something that isn't happening.

It's like asking me to produce a flyer that shows there is no sale going on right now at the store. Or proof that I didn't eat maple glazed salmon this week. No organisation has ever said "women should have abortions to improve the economy.."

[johaninsc]

You still did not give resources to back up your statements.

you're joking...right?

[JockBoy87]

I'm sorry, I've been thinking about what could be done with $70 trillion dollars other than run the country's abortions for 40 years.

[MikeyLove]

I'm sorry, I've been thinking about what could be done with $70 trillion dollars other than run the country's abortions for 40 years.

With $70 trillion, the USA could have gotten the country almost permanently out of serious debt, and the two wars paid in full before Obama came into Office, and the likes. We may have never lost those millions of Jobs, etc. Nation's debts would have been in the black, too.

[Rolyo85]

It would be Heaven on Earth. If only. Women. Would stop. Having. Abortions ;_;

[GiancarloC]

With $70 trillion, the USA could have gotten the country almost permanently out of serious debt, and the two wars paid in full before Obama came into Office, and the likes. We may have never lost those millions of Jobs, etc. Nation's debts would have been in the black, too.

There is no substance to that number. And those extra people wouldn't equal $70 trillion. Those numbers are erroneous at best. That number also doesn't take into account all the extra costs of having more people (including social security, health care, education, etc). This is what happens when you don't take into account all the facts.

And we may have never lost those millions of jobs? What? That was because of entirely different matters. Not abortion. Abortion didn't cause the recession. It was because of financial abuse. The recession was going to happen one way or another regardless.

[MikeyLove]

There is no substance to that number. And those extra people wouldn't equal $70 trillion. Those numbers are erroneous at best. That number also doesn't take into account all the extra costs of having more people (including social security, health care, education, etc). This is what happens when you don't take into account all the facts.

And we may have never lost those millions of jobs? What? That was because of entirely different matters. Not abortion. Abortion didn't cause the recession. It was because of financial abuse. The recession was going to happen one way or another regardless.

Those are numbers that are calculated to include all those years since 1970 and time of Roe vs. Wade up to near current time. They are not calculations for a single year.

[GiancarloC]

Those are numbers that are calculated to include all those years since 1970 and time of Roe vs. Wade up to near current time. They are not calculations for a single year.

Where did I say they were calculations for a single year?

Those numbers are still faulty. Care to address the rest of my post?

[bankside]

They are imaginary calculations that have nothing to do with economics. Bogus nonsense.

[MikeyLove]

They are imaginary calculations that have nothing to do with economics. Bogus nonsense.

Prove it that it is so.

[beetle]

yeah no...

is it this time again we weight up human rights against economic impact?

[beetle]

Prove it that it is so.

That's like "proof that god doesn't exist" or "proof that alternative medicine doesn't work"

it's your claim, you have to proof.
and when your proof is sh*t, in the meaning of "ignoring all elementary knowledge of statistics and science", than, well....where is my 4th grade math book?

[GiancarloC]

Prove it that it is so.

Prove your numbers carry weight by providing a non-biased, objective source.

[Tengilethos]

No economic argument could ever convince me of the merits of abortion if I thought that every abortion is basically murder.

No economic argument could ever convince me that abortion is bad if I see abortion as a fundamental womens right to decide over their own body a an absolutely necessary tool to overcome (latent) patriarchy. (And at the same time think that a cluster of cells only becomes a human being at a certain later date, which is admittedly rather arbitrary.)

[rareboy]

Prove it that it is so.

Sorry.

You can't use the old fashioned catholic church approach here.

It is up to the person putting forward the hypothesis to prove that it is so.

So far, there are numerous challenges to the figure quoted...let alone the notion that rampant over reproduction by humans leads to great wealth. One only has to visit countries around the world with high birth rates to knock this pin down.

No. It is up to you now, to prove the figure by laying out the methodology for the calculations in a scientific way.

....and at the end of the day, it is a morally bankrupt view of the world to think that anyone would be convinced that the best reason not to abort would be economics.

Abortion is a subject where those on either side of the argument will not reach any middle ground, unlike the Church's attempts at finding clinical justification for tubal ligation or 'natural' ways of birth control. If you are someone who believes that humanity begins at conception, there will be no way of even reconciling first trimester abortions.

If you are someone who believes that a foetus is not human until the point of unassisted viability outside the womb...then you will never see the side of those who really believe that every sperm (including those spilt by Onan) is sacred.

There is no winning this argument.

[Benvolio]

I most Western countries, the European population is declining, i.e. being aborted, and being replaced by immigrants, who, in the nature of things, come from dysfunctional cultures. No it is not race and please do not derail the discussion with racist allegations. Any discussion of the economic impact of abortion must take into account that most of the new people, being poorly educated, will be poorly paid and will need to be supported by society in welfare and social programs.

[rareboy]

^ People can get more information on Benvolio's position here.

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/

[JockBoy87]

I most Western countries, the European population is declining, i.e. being aborted, and being replaced by immigrants, who, in the nature of things, come from dysfunctional cultures. No it is not race and please do not derail the discussion with racist allegations. Any discussion of the economic impact of abortion must take into account that most of the new people, being poorly educated, will be poorly paid and will need to be supported by society in welfare and social programs.

I swear you just can't make this stuff up.

Keep it rolling Benvolio, you're doing a good job speaking for conservatism.

[Jack Springer]

A "cluster of cells" as you call it is not a cold. It's new life growing. The woman and man who joined together to make it were not dumb -- they knew what they were doing.

A woman or man has control over their body to seek treatment for an ailment -- but treating a new human being as property of a woman is not correct -- if it were so, that woman would have to the right to also kill the baby after it was born.

The sad part about what I just said is that there are people who publicly say that the mother should also have that right.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/wi...life-movement/

As a human being you must respect human life.

No economic argument could ever convince me of the merits of abortion if I thought that every abortion is basically murder.

No economic argument could ever convince me that abortion is bad if I see abortion as a fundamental womens right to decide over their own body a an absolutely necessary tool to overcome (latent) patriarchy. (And at the same time think that a cluster of cells only becomes a human being at a certain later date, which is admittedly rather arbitrary.)

[JockBoy87]

A "cluster of cells" as you call it is not a cold. It's new life growing.

The main argument seems to be that a "cluster of cells" even if it is considered a human being, cannot sustain itself, and therefore is terminable.

Besides abortion, can you think of another example of life we terminate?

What about people on life support who will never be able to be independent again? We let them go, don't we? So it seems that anything that cannot support itself is game.

[MikeyLove]

I most Western countries, the European population is declining, i.e. being aborted, and being replaced by immigrants, who, in the nature of things, come from dysfunctional cultures. No it is not race and please do not derail the discussion with racist allegations. Any discussion of the economic impact of abortion must take into account that most of the new people, being poorly educated, will be poorly paid and will need to be supported by society in welfare and social programs.

We can see that the Western World is aging, and that many are at or above retirement age. Abortion eliminated the needed population that was supposed to replace the aging work-force. Now, WHO is going to be paying the taxes that pays into everyone's retirement, Social Security, and the likes...especially when the Wealthy do not pay their fair share in Taxes?. America has already wiped out an entire generation of potential Workers/tax payers since Roe vs. Wade.

[Rolyo85]

The woman and man who joined together to make it were not dumb -- they knew what they were doing.

Are you kidding me? Over 50% of pregnancies worldwide are unplanned. Because American teenagers aren't taught anything in sex-ed classes but "abstinence" (as if that's an option), they have no clue how to protect themselves and go into it with "I don't need protection, it's not gonna happen on the first time" mentality. Seriously, Jack, defend your anti-woman position all you want, but at least don't go into it from the position that somehow all pregnancies are planned, and then those fickle Jezebels just change their mind and decide to flush it out...

[Rolyo85]

There can be no consensus here, and these endless arguments lead nowhere. A religious point of view is unacceptable to me, and my morals are unacceptable to the religious hypocrites (I am sure all of you masturbate), so why keep going?

[Jack Springer]

Are you kidding me? Over 50% of pregnancies worldwide are unplanned. Because American teenagers aren't taught anything in sex-ed classes but "abstinence" (as if that's an option), they have no clue how to protect themselves and go into it with "I don't need protection, it's not gonna happen on the first time" mentality. Seriously, Jack, defend your anti-woman position all you want, but at least don't go into it from the position that somehow all pregnancies are planned, and then those fickle Jezebels just change their mind and decide to flush it out...

You're telling me that people who have sex don't know where babies come from?

or

[Rolyo85]

First of all yes, many don't. Second - no, I'm saying that many go into it without suspecting they might end up getting pregnant. Or with the girl thinking the guy is using a condom when he isn't. Or with the guy thinking there's no risk if he shoots outside. Or thinking it just won't happen "this one time". Seriously, do you live under a rock?

[GiancarloC]

We can see that the Western World is aging, and that many are at or above retirement age. Abortion eliminated the needed population that was supposed to replace the aging work-force. Now, WHO is going to be paying the taxes that pays into everyone's retirement, Social Security, and the likes...especially when the Wealthy do not pay their fair share in Taxes?. America has already wiped out an entire generation of potential Workers/tax payers since Roe vs. Wade.

No. Abortion did not "eliminate the needed population". Abortion isn't as common as you may think... and it certainly won't be cutting the population growth rate like you are claiming it is. America didn't wipe out anything. This country has grown population wise significantly. And to think immigrants won't be able to do well... well people said the same thing about the Irish and Italians when they came here.

Benvolio is mistaken with his argument... he criticizes immigrants but he's criticizing the wrong people. And then he makes a xenophobic allegation that Latinos and other immigrants come from dysfunctional cultures. Has he visited these countries rich with heritage and a strong drive for transparent democratic governance? There is NOTHING dysfunctional about these countries.

I am very insulted and I am an immigrant. I do not come from a dysfunctional culture, rather a vibrant one. I have taken this up in the Ask the Mods section. I am fed up.

[rareboy]

We can see that the Western World is aging, and that many are at or above retirement age. Abortion eliminated the needed population that was supposed to replace the aging work-force. Now, WHO is going to be paying the taxes that pays into everyone's retirement, Social Security, and the likes...especially when the Wealthy do not pay their fair share in Taxes?. America has already wiped out an entire generation of potential Workers/tax payers since Roe vs. Wade.

You are dodging now. You've been told that it is up to you to prove the hypothesis stated in the article, complete with methodologies for calculating the supposed costs of abortion.

And just bear in mind that according to your logic, every sperm wasted is equal in impact to abortion. The jizz you clean up off your boyfriend, the stuff in the condom or down the throat, either straight or homo is directly responsible for the collapse of civilization.


Except we know that isn't true.

What we do know to be true is that rampant unchecked growth in the human population will be the end of humanity. Period. Full stop. Overpopulation and stripping the planet to serve only one species is unsustainable.

Humans are destined to be replaced and we are likely the only species that is fully cognizant of just what it takes to annihilate our own species utterly.

And it isn't abortion.

It is more likely to be influenza or war.

[Mariatenebre]

I would encourage them not to change the rules, as they would be violating Free Speech. Killing a Child in the Womb, I would say is on par with a woman killing her children by drowning them in a bathtub. Murder is Murder no matter how you look at it. What is that word when someone tries to scratch a word out because it is offensive to a few? I may be Gay, but I am adamenately Pro-Life all the way. You would want to strip away my opinion just because of the word "Murder"? That would be a bad move. With this kind of action, you would be on par with the stupid crazy Republicans/Tea Party.

Except it is not a child. How many times do I have to tell you pro lifers that there are stages of development in the womb. A fetus/embryo/cluster of cells is not a person and as about as much sentience, personhood and intelligence as a jar of paste. In fact any given animal as more sentience etc then said pre life forms and I dont see pro lifers runnin out to be vegetarians. You think that as soon as conception happens that there is a sentient person in the room with you and that is not the case. Again you pro lifers are basing your ideas on your primative religion instead of science. When in reality your god practiced not even abortion but outright infaticide in the Bible.

A "cluster of cells" as you call it is not a cold. It's new life growing. The woman and man who joined together to make it were not dumb -- they knew what they were doing.

A woman or man has control over their body to seek treatment for an ailment -- but treating a new human being as property of a woman is not correct -- if it were so, that woman would have to the right to also kill the baby after it was born.

The sad part about what I just said is that there are people who publicly say that the mother should also have that right.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/wi...life-movement/

As a human being you must respect human life.

A cluster of cells is a living organism but it is not an actual sentient life. It is a potential life that the mother can choose to terminate when she pleases before it becomes an actual life because potential and pre life forms do not deserve respect only actual ones do. It is sentience, intellience and personhood that determines what life is and these potential life forms have none of these things and only gain them later in the womb before that they are merely potential lives or pre lives. They are not sentient human lives worthy of respect. Which as I mentioned before any given animal has more sentience, personhood and intelligence then these clusters of cells and I don't see pro lifers running out to be vegetarians. Again personhood and sentience are how we determine life. Until said creature has these things it is not a life and unlike what you pro lifers say a sentient life is not formed at the moment of conception.

[Just_Believe18]

We can see that the Western World is aging, and that many are at or above retirement age. Abortion eliminated the needed population that was supposed to replace the aging work-force. Now, WHO is going to be paying the taxes that pays into everyone's retirement, Social Security, and the likes...especially when the Wealthy do not pay their fair share in Taxes?. America has already wiped out an entire generation of potential Workers/tax payers since Roe vs. Wade.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

Western civilization by nature declines in population. The reduction of families is not because women are having abortions. It's called family planning. My parents only had two kids. My mom didn't go, "whoops!" and have three abortions. If you want to encourage child raising, then you provide more tax, health, and education incentives to encourage couples to have more children. When the economic recession hit, so did the U.S. birth rate.

Developing and third world countries have higher birth rates because of systemic poverty, a lack of education, and oppressive gender dynamics.

[vulgar_newcomer]

What of the cost in suffering and botched back alley abortions had they not been legal, or doesn't that count? Along with the human cost physically and emotionally there certainly is a high economic cost.

If abortions were illegal in the states or certain states it wouldn't be the well off young woman who would stuffer the consequence. They would travel to a Country where they would be legal, Daddy would make sure of that if her account couldn't cover the fees. Of course it will be the low income and poor who don't have the resources to do this. They will be birthing babies or going to the local dumpster abortionist risking great mortal or lifetime disability.
No one wants those babies after they are born it seems.

Many of the same people that are against any form of abortion are also against any sort of public aid to adults and children that will require assistance once brought into this world. Once the baby cries care is on on going until death, or does it matter after that? Some people I hear can live well into their 80's or beyond, even from poor neighborhoods.

Mikey Love a good flick to watch on this for several good points, its excellent WW II era "Cider House Rules" from 1999 where the story takes place in a orphanage

It offers several points of view pro and con, but it opens your eyes, however I know some think they talk for God or he to them and knows what is best, yet they haven't a desire to help out with all these people. Either with volunteer work, funds, or education to avoid the mostly preventable situation of a abortion. On this point it matters not if you are female or male.
The church cannot handle the cost of this, and why should it? Oh the Catholic Church come out with some good bullshit how they think Ryans budget plans are barbaric and cruel to the poor and elderly but that and a lit match burn out quickly.

[Benvolio]

I swear you just can't make this stuff up.

Keep it rolling Benvolio, you're doing a good job speaking for conservatism.

If their cultures were not dysfunctional, they would not be so desperate to come here in hoards. Their economies and political systems are functions of culture. Why else would they come?

[GiancarloC]

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2012/04/2...-perhaps-less/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...DdT_story.html'

A four-decade tidal wave of Mexican immigration to the United States has receded, causing a historic shift in migration patterns as more Mexicans appear to be leaving the United States for Mexico than the other way around, according to a report from the Pew Hispanic Center.

Hoards of immigrants? Really? Immigration has stalled and in fact started to reverse. People are leaving this country.

Their cultures aren't dysfunctional. The American culture is more dysfunctional in my opinion. And Mexico has actually had a pretty stable economy despite violence in the country (fueled by American drug demand). And in other Latin American countries, economic growth has been quite strong (like in Brazil, Argentina, Colombia).

[JockBoy87]

If their cultures were not dysfunctional, they would not be so desperate to come here in hoards. Their economies and political systems are functions of culture. Why else would they come?

You conflate human capital with culture, and that's American exceptionalism in a nutshell.

[Benvolio]

You conflate human capital with culture, and that's American exceptionalism in a nutshell.

No. American culture has encouraged innovative thinking, free enterprise, democracy, individual responsibility, and unwillingness to accept governmental corruption. Not all cultures ancourage innovation. Many countries tolerate governmental corruption which is destructive of free enterprise and democracy. Many cultures find it hard to accept democracy or to maintain it for long.
Notice that the other WASP countries have similar cultures, economies and political systems: UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand. It is not a coincidence. Many countries have great masses of "human capital" but remain stagnant third world countries.

[FirmaFan]

A "cluster of cells" as you call it is not a cold. It's new life growing. The woman and man who joined together to make it were not dumb -- they knew what they were doing.

A woman or man has control over their body to seek treatment for an ailment -- but treating a new human being as property of a woman is not correct -- if it were so, that woman would have to the right to also kill the baby after it was born.

Giving women the option to terminate the pregnancy is not "treating a new human being as property of a woman". What it is doing it allowing a woman the right to decide what her body is to be used for. If a woman chooses to not use her body to sustain the life of a fetus inside her, she has every right to remove that from her body. There is no other instance in which it has been argued that a person sacrifice their bodily autonomy for the life of another is required.

The sad part about what I just said is that there are people who publicly say that the mother should also have that right.

Yep, and they are as misguided as those who say it should not be allowed for a woman to have the right to decide if her body is to be used to sustain the development of a child.

As a human being you must respect human life.

Projecting the qualifier of "human life" onto a zygote or fetus, and then misguidedly protecting that "life" at the expense of an adult woman's bodily autonomy is not "respecting human life".