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

[CowboyBob]

Of course an anti-abortion web site would make a claim like this. It's bogus. And since when is a zygote considered a human being?

If the number of missing children includes those aborted by IUDs, RU-486, sterilization and abortifacients, the figure climbs to over $70 trillion

The website is taking into effect the use of birth control and babies not born because of using it.

Do a google search on the author:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Thaddeus+M.+Baklinski

He's a rabid anti-abortionist. Of course he will write a story like this.

[Jack Springer]

The infamous late-term abortion "clinic" in Kansas is going to reopen.

The late George Tiller's assistant, Julie Burkhart, a rabid abortionist is opening the murder house. No doubt Kathleen Sebelius will attend the ribbon cutting and the first vacuum session of a young baby's brain.


http://www.kansascity.com/2012/09/25...ment-663184039

[Telstra]

The infamous late-term abortion "clinic" in Kansas is going to reopen.

The late George Tiller's assistant, Julie Burkhart, a rabid abortionist is opening the murder house. No doubt Kathleen Sebelius will attend the ribbon cutting and the first vacuum session of a young baby's brain.


http://www.kansascity.com/2012/09/25...ment-663184039

You murdered your sperm daily.

[rareboy]

Oh come now.

The economic consequences of the burden of the community having to care for unwanted children is likely far greater.

Totally useless economic 'study'.

For all the homos out there wringing their hands over abortion...get out there and adopt about 5 unwanted kids and raise them.

Then we'll talk.

[Telstra]

Oh come now.

The economic consequences of the burden of the community having to care for unwanted children is likely far greater.

Totally useless economic 'study'.

For all the homos out there wringing their hands over abortion...get out there and adopt about 5 unwanted kids and raise them.

Then we'll talk.

I thought homos are not allowed to adopt.

[maxpowr9]

Yes, you have to love studies that fail at economics because they ignore the opportunity cost. As CowboyBob pointed out, the study fails to take into consideration the adverse cost of all said aborted people if they were living. Opportunity drofit/loss. Just like the glaring statistic that is not apparent in many data sets is inflation.

[CowboyBob]

The infamous late-term abortion "clinic" in Kansas is going to reopen.

The late George Tiller's assistant, Julie Burkhart, a rabid abortionist is opening the murder house. No doubt Kathleen Sebelius will attend the ribbon cutting and the first vacuum session of a young baby's brain.


http://www.kansascity.com/2012/09/25...ment-663184039

Pat Robertson! How nice of you to stop here!

And why are you so concerned about the internal affairs of a state where you don't live?

[MassRuss]

How nice of men, straight or gay, putting in their 2 cents where it doesn't belong. It's like straight people wanting to vote on civil rights for gays.

CowboyBob,

Reading that post, I was wondering if Foulmouth Jerry had come back to life. A "rabid" abortionist"? What, she foams at the mouth as she enters the room???

[loveguys72]

What is with this election year that so much of women's rights suddenly is all open to discussion again? Here it is 2012, and we're seriously still talking about whether or not a woman has sovereignty over her own body? Really? Really?!?

[Just_Believe18]

Can't we have a week on here without the crazy coming out?

[andysayshi]

It's a junk study by a biased zealot.

Steven Levitt, renowned statistician and author of the best selling book "Freakonomics" and subsequent film, found overwhelming data that allowing freedom to abort unwanted pregnancies helps to improve education outcomes, employment levels, and reduces crime rates.

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

[CowboyBob]

How nice of men, straight or gay, putting in their 2 cents where it doesn't belong. It's like straight people wanting to vote on civil rights for gays.

CowboyBob,

Reading that post, I was wondering if Foulmouth Jerry had come back to life. A "rabid" abortionist"? What, she foams at the mouth as she enters the room???

Welcome to the world of Jack Springer.

[frankfrank]

The whole premise of lost GDP is so bogus. OF COURSE, with more humans, there will be more GDP.

JockBoy87 quotes $70 Trillion as the approximate figure for the global GDP of humanity.

Will the per capita GDP change very much? Probably not.

If, instead of more than 6 billion, there were TEN THOUSAND people on this planet, would the GDP still be $70 trillion? Absolutely not. If there were 17 billion, would the GDP be $70 trillion? Absolutely not, unless extreme global poverty had people dropping dead of neglect in the streets of London, Seattle, and Osaka.

The big trouble with pro-life people, nowadays, is that too many would send people to prison for masturbating if they had absolute power to do so (but, of course, they would be exempt from their own laws).

[loveguys72]

Can't we have a week on here without the crazy coming out?

Now what would be the fun in that.

[Tengilethos]

Population growth directly translates to GDP growth, that is basic economics. It is in fact one of the reasons that the United States and Western Europe had different GDP growth, but very similar GDP per person growth, because the USA has higher population growth. But the way the loss is calculated in this study is seriously flawed. They calculate it as GDP per capita time the number of abortions. A married couple could have an abortion while the woman is in college for financial reasons and later go on to have their planned three children, if abortion had been illegal she would have the same number of children only not at a time of her choosing. So you cannot just say that the 50.5 million abortions would translate into 50.5 million more people, and thus 35 to 70 trillion higher GDP. And it would not lead to higher GDP per capita anyway.

But ultimately this argument is unimportant in the abortion debate. Opponents have a strong argument that every abortion kills a human being, while supporters have a strong argument about the self-determination of women. How can any economic argument trump these fundamental issues? (As a contrast, supporters can point to studies that show a positive economic impact for poor/single women who abort in comparison to women who don't.)

[Mariatenebre]

When Mankind plays the role of GOD, there will always be a negative impact, and in this case it is the Economy that suffers over 4 decades in the making, and then compounded by the Republicans/TP's Obstructionism in Congress is making things a lot worse.

Mankind has the right to be as the Gods are. Our goal is to reach enlightenment and realize our divine nature. The reason that Abrahamics are against man playing "god" is because they want their god to have his power and give it to the select few that he chooses. They do not want the masses to have that power so they can be submissive to their god and his selected elite. Further more again abortion is just fine. Fetus/embryos/clusters of cells are not living sentient creatures nor do they have any personhood, intelligence or as I said sentience. They have as much of these things as a jar of paste and in fact any given animal has more of these things that a fetus/embryo/cluster of cells but I don't see pro lifers running out to be vegetarians.

In fact abortion helps our economy as it reduces overpopulation as well as keeping children from being born in homes that can't support them and decreasing the number of people on wellfare and public assistance.

[bankside]

It's a junk study by a biased zealot.

Steven Levitt, renowned statistician and author of the best selling book "Freakonomics" and subsequent film, found overwhelming data that allowing freedom to abort unwanted pregnancies helps to improve education outcomes, employment levels, and reduces crime rates.

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

Thank you for posting this before I could get to it.

[Rolyo85]

I want to use this rare opportunity to share that I will be starting a petition to change JUB's rules to state that anyone who uses the term "murder" to define abortion will receive a permanent ban, kthxbye.

[star-warrior]

If the pro-lifers are mostly religiously motivated, then the impact of not taxing religious institutions is much higher probably.

[Kulindahr]

I want to use this rare opportunity to share that I will be starting a petition to change JUB's rules to state that anyone who uses the term "murder" to define abortion will receive a permanent ban, kthxbye.

I'll oppose it. Once there are fully human brainwaves, that's a person -- so, murder.

Before that, it isn't -- so, medical procedure.

[Kulindahr]

If the pro-lifers are mostly religiously motivated, then the impact of not taxing religious institutions is much higher probably.

That would be interesting to find figures on.

But donations to purely religious causes should not be a deduction, because it constitutes government supporting religion.

[Rolyo85]

Well, good to know everyone still has a sense of humor -_-

In other news, abortion is an essential, if unfortunate, human right. But if we're gonna continue calling it "murder", can I call people voting GOP "gay teen killers"? Seems only fair.

[Kulindahr]

Okay, there are several flaws in his 'methodology'. Tengelithos pointed out one, namely that these days many people decide how big a family they want, and that's what they do, so one abortion doesn't change the number of children for those couples. Let's say that accounts for a quarter of the population, so now the purported $70 trillion is $51 trillion. Then there's the matter of immigration, legal or otherwise: if we have these additional kids, they'll be growing up and taking jobs, which would seriously reduce the influx of immigrants, since far fewer jobs would be available. Being conservative, let's say this reduces the purported amount to $30 trillion. On top of that, there's the wage issue: jobs would still be outsourced to overseas because the labor is cheaper -- or labor in the U.S. would get cheaper to keep jobs here. Either one reduces GDP, so let's say the figure now drops to $20 trillion. On top of that, there are still only so many high-paying jobs to go around in this situation, further reducing GDP, let's say to $10 trillion. Throw in some other factors, and the total flutters down to $5 trillion.

So this mythical $70 trillion might actually be $5 trillion -- maybe. I suspect that if I had some better figures to work with, it would zero out.

Some of you will pounce and say I'm just making up figures. Well, if so, that's fair -- so was he.

[Kulindahr]

Well, good to know everyone still has a sense of humor -_-

In other news, abortion is an essential, if unfortunate, human right. But if we're gonna continue calling it "murder", can I call people voting GOP "gay teen killers"? Seems only fair.

You're better than this sloppy thinking. What it comes down to is that location makes the difference between being a person and not.

Or the second bit of sloppy thinking: abortion involves killing an organism, so murder is at least in the realm of the discussion; only if you can show us an organized system for taking the lives from gays can "killers" apply there.

[Rolyo85]

It's not sloppy at all. I am just pointing out how ridiculous both sound. To me there's equal truth in both. Of course you can make arguments about personhood and all that, but I'm sure there must be some statistic on how many abortions ever occur after brainwaves are formed. The procedure gets progressively more dangerous later in the pregnancy, so I doubt it's too much.

Also, I'd make the argument that the tooth and nail fight to dismantle any protection from sexuality-based bullying in schools by the GOP is totally a concerted effort to kill gay teens.

[Kulindahr]

It's not sloppy at all. I am just pointing out how ridiculous both sound. To me there's equal truth in both. Of course you can make arguments about personhood and all that, but I'm sure there must be some statistic on how many abortions ever occur after brainwaves are formed. The procedure gets progressively more dangerous later in the pregnancy, so I doubt it's too much.

Also, I'd make the argument that the tooth and nail fight to dismantle any protection from sexuality-based bullying in schools by the GOP is totally a concerted effort to kill gay teens.

It depends on how strict one wants to be on brainwaves. IIRC, it's anywhere from 80 to 120 days that dream states and other elements appear. Abortions after 120 days are bloody rare; after 80... don't know the stats on that.

I'd say it's not quite an effort to kill gay teens -- but it stops (barely) just short of painting targets on them. It would be a situation where I'd be tempted to apply my sidearm without giving a warning, if I came upon bullies beating up a gay kid.

[rareboy]

And Remember kids....

[CowboyBob]

The economic impact of anti-cigarette propaganda has been huge too.

The tobacco farmers, cigarette manufacturers, hospitals & funeral directors have all suffered from job-killing anti-smoking propaganda.

Think of the profits lost to these people!

[bankside]

That would be interesting to find figures on.

But donations to purely religious causes should not be a deduction, because it constitutes government supporting religion.

I believe the original quote was "Render unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar's and put the rest in this here plate. Have we spoken to you about our 'planned giving' program?"

and not

"Put everything in this plate and give the leftovers to Cæsar."

[Rolyo85]

I'd say it's not quite an effort to kill gay teens -- but it stops (barely) just short of painting targets on them. It would be a situation where I'd be tempted to apply my sidearm without giving a warning, if I came upon bullies beating up a gay kid.

And abortions aren't quite an effort to murder babies, but why let that stop zeal-speech?

[Kulindahr]

I believe the original quote was "Render unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar's and put the rest in this here plate. Have we spoken to you about our 'planned giving' program?"

and not

"Put everything in this plate and give the leftovers to Cæsar."

So Jesus spake unto Caesar, saying, "Thou shalt not count the things given to God as thine own, for thou art clueless".

[TX-Beau]

Mikey, if you care so much about abortion, go make it a cause of yours and go out there and try to CONVINCE women not to have one.

Junk science and terror tactics do not make you look like a follower of Christ, they make you look like a Muslim Imam pushing Sharia Law.

[jdbadboy]

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.

[bankside]

It pleases me to know that so many people have at least read something from freakonomics.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[loveguys72]

And Remember kids....

Monty Python FTW!!!

[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.."

[Rolyo85]

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

[bankside]

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

[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?

[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.)