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

[CowboyBob]

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.

Using your logic, a cancer tumor is a new life growing. Toenail fungus is a new life growing.

Better go and assassinate those oncologists and podiatrists too.

[Benvolio]

Can we at least agree that partial birth or late term abortions should be illegal? These are viable--but inconvenient--babies, half way out, having an instrument shoved into their skulls and their brains sucked out. What is the difference between that and killing the child after it is born?

[Jack Springer]

Using your logic, a cancer tumor is a new life growing. Toenail fungus is a new life growing.

Better go and assassinate those oncologists and podiatrists too.

What you said makes no sense. Toenail fungus or a tumor are not the beginning parts of a new human life.

[Nemothepanda]

In the 1st world, kids are expensive. Very expensive, and the the costs on raising a child are only going up. I was a preemie, with various defects, so for in order for me to live, my parents had to dish out nearly as much money as our house to keep me alive; including two other kids. That is when parents want to have a kid, that are willing to do whatever they can in being a parent. Now, imagine a mother that doesn't want a kid, that can't afford the costs on raising one. Now imagine them in high school or college after a bad night with their boyfriend, with no job.

For some girls, abortion is the only way to go. Now they could go through the oh-so-pleasant and painless birth process and give the child to out flawless adoption and foster case system, but someone has to pay for that child. That's were we, the tax payers in a time of fiscal hardship ever-nearing the fiscal cliff, come into the picture. Personally, I don't want to pay for a life that probably shouldn't have been born. Call that callous or barbaric or however you define it, but it's better off for everyone that we don't have unnecessary children. It's not good for them, the parents, and the society if not the entire planet as whole. That is of course, different if one who is pro-life supports childcare and services for teenage mothers which is a venture I share, but something tells me that one doesn't. There is as severe lack of family planning these days that's going to bite us in the ass down the road.

Now do I consider abortion murder? Too an extent, yes. I am Buddhist. I do consider life to be paramount. However, those are my beliefs. Not everyone is going to share my beliefs. My beliefs should also never be foisted on someone else. If you don't believe in abortion, don't get one. However, since I assume that everyone posting on this thread is homosexual, I don't think that it'll ever be your problem. So, why are you trying to get involved into an issue that doesn't affect you?

[jdbadboy]

If abortion is outlawed you can be that birth control is next. And the type of court that would outlaw abortion is not going to go easy on the glbt community. Remember those sodomy laws? Still on the books in some states and ready to go back in play with the right supreme court.

[Benvolio]

If abortion is outlawed you can be that birth control is next. And the type of court that would outlaw abortion is not going to go easy on the glbt community. Remember those sodomy laws? Still on the books in some states and ready to go back in play with the right supreme court.

So you are equating sodomy with baby killing?

[jdbadboy]

So you are equating sodomy with baby killing?

No I do not. But religious conservatives do.

[jdbadboy]

So you are equating sodomy with baby killing?

Oh btw, abortion isn't baby killing.

[GiancarloC]

What you said makes no sense. Toenail fungus or a tumor are not the beginning parts of a new human life.

Then one shouldn't masturbate and waste sperm.

[Kulindahr]

Can we stick to good sense and the use of reason?

And maybe get back to the topic -- the alleged loss to the economy of potential people who never came to be?

[Mariatenebre]

What you said makes no sense. Toenail fungus or a tumor are not the beginning parts of a new human life.

Sperm and eggs too are the beginning parts of human life but they are not senient life forms. So too are fertilized eggs, fetuses, embryos, clusters of cells not lives either are they are the early beginnings of life aka pre life forms but are not sentient, intelligent creatures with personhood and thus do not deserve respect. Funny thing pro lifers ignore my point that any given animal has more sentience, intelligence and personhood then these pre life forms and I don't see pro lifers running out to be vegetarians.

So you are equating sodomy with baby killing?

Fetus/embryos/clusters of cells are not babies. As much as you try to twist science to say that a baby is immediately created when sperm hits eggs your unscientific nonsense holds no water.

[Lestatnj]

What business is it of any man to attempt to put his beliefs onto any woman when it comes to abortion, unless he's the impregnator, & even then, it's the woman's choice.

I find it laughable & pathetic that the 3 "antis" here are:

The OP, who seemingly has outdated catholic opinions on everything, even being gay.

Springer, who will take any position as long as it's deemed anti Obama

Bennie, who makes no sense at any time.

Gentleman, you're supposedly gay, mind your business.

[bankside]

What business is it of any man to attempt to put his beliefs onto any woman when it comes to abortion, unless he's the impregnator, & even then, it's the woman's choice.

I find it laughable & pathetic that the 3 "antis" here are:

The OP, who seemingly has outdated catholic opinions on everything, even being gay.

Springer, who will take any position as long as it's deemed anti Obama

Bennie, who makes no sense at any time.

Gentleman, you're supposedly gay, mind your business.

To me this issue is less about "choice" actually than "what defines the start and end of life." And I'm satisfied that the definition revolves around the current capability to independently sustain consciousness.

I'm glad you do recognize a theoretical role for the "impregnator" aka "father…" but I'd go further and give legal protection to that role.

It's every man's right to not consent to sexual activity with a woman, and one of his conditions of informed and freely-given consent may be that the woman waives any right to the sole decision about terminating a pregnancy unless her health is at stake. If there is good evidence that without coercion or pressure, the couple discussed it openly and clearly agreed what course of action they would take if a pregnancy occurred, I would feel no qualms about making her go through with it.

For some people it is clearly not morally acceptable to abort a zygote, and those people are free to choose a partner who agrees with them. No general law should stop them. However if they freely choose and agree that the zygote will not be aborted barring any health crisis, I think the law should enforce that agreement, because changing their mind on a whim actually invalidates the consent for the sexual activity in the first place.

[Rolyo85]

Absurdity. You can't have anyone else making decisions about that. Such "agreements" can be abused in thousands of ways.

[bankside]

Absurdity. You can't have anyone else making decisions about that. Such "agreements" can be abused in thousands of ways.

You're missing the point that no one else is making a decision about that. If two people freely agree that it is a joint decision, and the decision is "no," then that is the decision. And, in most cases, a binding agreement upon which someone may rely as a precondition for being willing to part with sperm.

[Rolyo85]

You can always force someone into "willingly" entering such an agreement. You can make it an unofficial requirement for a job for example. Or abuse some position of dominance you have over the girl. This is absolutely not ok.

[beetle]

the whole discussion reminds me of this poster...

it says "this (disabled) person costs in his life 60 000 Reichsmark (the german currency in this time)".

the economic whealth was the legitimation for the nazis to "euthanize" (what a f*cked up word...) disabled people, meaning to break human rights.


just to show the supporters of this study where the end of this thinking happens when you are consequently thinking through (when we can take the human right cause of economics from this group, than why not from that group, too? etc)

[Kulindahr]

To me this issue is less about "choice" actually than "what defines the start and end of life." And I'm satisfied that the definition revolves around the current capability to independently sustain consciousness.

I'm glad you do recognize a theoretical role for the "impregnator" aka "father…" but I'd go further and give legal protection to that role.

It's every man's right to not consent to sexual activity with a woman, and one of his conditions of informed and freely-given consent may be that the woman waives any right to the sole decision about terminating a pregnancy unless her health is at stake. If there is good evidence that without coercion or pressure, the couple discussed it openly and clearly agreed what course of action they would take if a pregnancy occurred, I would feel no qualms about making her go through with it.

For some people it is clearly not morally acceptable to abort a zygote, and those people are free to choose a partner who agrees with them. No general law should stop them. However if they freely choose and agree that the zygote will not be aborted barring any health crisis, I think the law should enforce that agreement, because changing their mind on a whim actually invalidates the consent for the sexual activity in the first place.

That's great in principle, but I can't imagine that a couple in the heat of passion, who -- as just occurred last weekend on the beach near where I was camping -- just "grab and go" are going to stop and sign an agreement.

So you're right it would have to be written into law, so it's the default position.

[Kulindahr]

Absurdity. You can't have anyone else making decisions about that. Such "agreements" can be abused in thousands of ways.

All agreements can be abused, but we still grope toward making good ones.

[bankside]

That's great in principle, but I can't imagine that a couple in the heat of passion, who -- as just occurred last weekend on the beach near where I was camping -- just "grab and go" are going to stop and sign an agreement.

So you're right it would have to be written into law, so it's the default position.

I don't think it should ever be the default position to prevent abortion due to lack of paternal consent. It should be something only that two people can elect to prohibit based on their mutual conviction. The rationale I describe cannot apply to modern "drive-through sexuality:" in no sense is that indicative of a person who is serious about the possibility of raising a child.

For those people who do intend their sexuality to be irrevocably linked to the responsibilities of parenthood, they should be able to agree not to allow discretionary abortion if that is their free choice. Once made however, that's the bottom line.