More than 200,000 Teachers out of work in US because of Abortion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Big_Dummy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ducky1963 said:
That logic is a little fuzzy, I’d say There are much better pro life arguments
Click to expand...
What is fuzzy about adding up the number of students who are lost to abortion by adding up the last 13 years of abortions to gain the missing student population for a given school year divided by class size of say 30 then divided by an average class day of 7 hours? Which equals the number of Teachers it would take to teach those missing children.

When talking with a liberal out of work pro-choice teacher those stats makes a lot of sense.

It is not a matter of better arguments aganist abortion, many of which I do not find compeling. Yes, I am pro-life. It is a matter of finding any argument that is compeling to someone. A picture of a dead baby for example, simply shuts me off from hearing any arguments other pro-lifers use. Taking scriptures out of context — for example, quoting a Psalm that has to do with an attribute of God does not prove or even demonstrate what is trying to be taught.

Yes, to some this sounds like a lame argument. But, to a liberal teacher out of work, it is gold.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
The numbers may be a little fuzzy, but there can be no doubt that if there have been 40 million abortions since Roe v Wade, a lot more teachers would have been needed to educate all the children from K through College. Likewise, we would have been less reliant on immigrants to cross our borders for employment opportunities that would have gone to our own citizens that were aborted.

Lemon

This is perhaps the most bizarre pro-life argument I have ever heard "Stop abortion! It produces more children so more teachers are needed so more jobs are created…"

It’s not really a bad argument. If we keep killing our children, who is going to do the work?

But the author of this question never offered it as the best argument against abortion, so why are you upset? Would you like to briefly name the best argument in passing without sidetracking the discussion? 😃
Click to expand...
Amen, and the missing children, who grow into adults would have been strong support for social security, paying more taxes, making contributions to society in general.
 
This is a bizarre argument.

If abortion was not legal, how many women would restrict sex or use birth control, since they couldn’t fall back on abortion?

It’s naive and unsophisticated to suppose only one consequence from these children being born. Who would they be born to? Would those woman have fewer babies, meaning some children who *were *born wouldn’t have been? How would it affect taxes, if these children were born to low income women? Maybe class sizes simply would have increased.
 
LemonAndLime said:
Would you like to briefly mention how you think this argument is going to convince anyone to change their views,** unless they are perhaps aspiring to be a teacher in a market in which there aren’t enough children? **
I know what the best argument is, but I see no reason why it’s relevant for you to ask me.
Click to expand...
That is exactly whom this argument would be addressed to. And, I have used this argument with libearl out of work teachers who have became prolife because of it.

I never claimed it is the best argument ever, it is just an argument to use with the right people. Some people respond to dead baby pictures – I am grossed out by them and shut off listening to anything the person has to say who depends on them to make their case. Some people misquote scripture and I shake my head and do not pay attention to them either. Some develop the image of god in humans as an argument or scriptural approach I tend to listen to that person because they are doing a systematic theology of life.

For me the pair of twins being born in the OT (Genesis 25 Jacob and Esau
Genesis 38 Perez and Zerah) would be a better scriptural argument because in both cases while one was out of the womb, one was still in the womb and both were given equal value as humans – not to be confused with rank as firstborn.

Bottom line, some arguments reach different people, whereas some arguments don’;t float your boat, so what.
 
I would, however, concede that the picture of a dead fetus is exactly what every American should see. It is because we don’t see that dead fetus torn limb from limb that we view abortion more as an abstract philosophical question and less as a matter of life and death for the most innocent among us.

Abortion is worse than capital punishment. Not only is an innocent life taken, but its entire future life is snuffed out with one stroke of a knife.

Why did the Supreme Court justify killing the most innocent among us?
 
Big_Dummy said:
You are over estimating the other causes of death to children in the US. Besides, I did take that into account by only going back 5 years rather than 13 years for K-12.

lol
Click to expand...
Was there something funny in what I said? No, there wasn’t.

No, I’m not over estimating that figure. If you consider the number of children that die during pregnancy up to their 18th year, the number is larger than you might realize. Being that my son died, I know a thing or two about the subject.

To make any argument valid, all factors MUST be considered or it will be dismissed much like it has in this thread.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
I would, however, concede that the picture of a dead fetus is exactly what every American should see. It is because we don’t see that dead fetus torn limb from limb that we view abortion more as an abstract philosophical question and less as a matter of life and death for the most innocent among us.

Abortion is worse than capital punishment. Not only is an innocent life taken, but its entire future life is snuffed out with one stroke of a knife.

Why did the Supreme Court justify killing the most innocent among us?
Click to expand...
I disagree, many people when they see those pictures look the other way and harden their hearts thus becoming more “pro-choice” in mindset. Abortion existed in Jesus’ day and his approach if you well was “let the little children come on to me.” And preaching the kingdom to their would be parents. I think they turn away, not because of rejection of “truth” as I am sure you will say, but by the fact that those pictures are gross. For example, when a bible thumper approaches you, do you all turn away because of his/her message or because of their approach?
 
nicolep said:
Was there something funny in what I said? No, there wasn’t.

No, I’m not over estimating that figure. If you consider the number of children that die during pregnancy up to their 18th year, the number is larger than you might realize. Being that my son died, I know a thing or two about the subject.

To make any argument valid, all factors MUST be considered or it will be dismissed much like it has in this thread.
Click to expand...
Ah yeah, Nicole what you said was funny to me because you are in fact way overestimating other causes of death for K to 12th graders in the US. In fact, if you extend those stats to include college, one can add another what ten or 20 percent of professors?

Yes, Nicole you are being very funny, ROFL.
 
Big_Dummy said:
Ah yeah, Nicole what you said was funny to me because you are in fact way overestimating other causes of death for K to 12th graders in the US. In fact, if you extend those stats to include college, one can add another what ten or 20 percent of professors?

Yes, Nicole you are being very funny, ROFL.
Click to expand...
Obviously you didn’t look at my link. 6% is NOT insignificant when working with numbers. Whatever though, it’s an ignorant argument and I’m not going to waste my time trying to make it better.

I’m glad to know that pointing out that children die is funny to you. Rude!
 
nicolep said:
Take a look at this link if you think the rate of deaths that would have occurred anyway is insignificant -

childdeathreview.org/nationalchildmortalitydata.htm

For whatever it’s worth, I was trying to help you make the argument better, not disagree with you. LOL!!!
Click to expand...
**Again I took those stats into account by only adding up 5 of 13 grades **which results to a little under 40 percent living on to learn another day — 5/13 = 38.4 percent. The death rate you brought up is around 64.7 percent.

Thank You for your help.

And, as Christians and US Citizens I think we should address those causes.

Selected Causes of Death, Ages 0-19, per 100,000 Population (2006)
Cause Number of Deaths Mortality Rate

Natural 35,708 43.6

Perinatal Conditions 14,418 17.6
Congenital Anomalies 6,906 8.4
Neoplasms 2,291 2.8
Respiratory Disease 1,450 1.8
Circulatory Disease 1,610 2.0
Nervous System Disease 1,546 1.9
SIDS 2,323 2.8

Unintentional Injury 11,674 14.2

Motor Vehicle 7,006 8.5
Drowning 1,077 1.3
Fire/Burn 495 0.6
Poisoning 839 1.0
Suffocation/Strangulation 1,164 1.4
Firearm 154 0.2

Homicide 3,418 4.2

Firearm 2,259 2.8

Suicide 1,774 2.2
Firearm 763 0.9
Suffocation/Strangulation 798 1.0
Poisoning 90 0.1

Source: National Center for Health Statistics

childdeathreview.org/nationalchildmortalitydata.htm

One thing we could do about natural causes for example is take the money away from
Planned parenthood and give it to science research for those causes.
 
nicolep said:
You’ll have to figure in the number of children that would have died from other causes as well. Unfortunately, not all of those children would have made it to the first year of school or live long enough to graduate.

The large number of babies aborted every year is shocking and disturbing. However, this argument won’t go far if some other things aren’t added in.
Click to expand...
nicolep said:
Was there something funny in what I said? No, there wasn’t.

No, I’m not over estimating that figure. If you consider the number of children that die during pregnancy up to their 18th year, the number is larger than you might realize. Being that my son died, I know a thing or two about the subject.

To make any argument valid, all factors MUST be considered or it will be dismissed much like it has in this thread.
Click to expand...
nicolep said:
Take a look at this link if you think the rate of deaths that would have occurred anyway is insignificant -

childdeathreview.org/nationalchildmortalitydata.htm

For whatever it’s worth, I was trying to help you make the argument better, not disagree with you. LOL!!!
Click to expand...
nicolep said:
Obviously you didn’t look at my link. 6% is NOT insignificant when working with numbers. Whatever though, it’s an ignorant argument and I’m not going to waste my time trying to make it better.

I’m glad to know that pointing out that children die is funny to you. Rude!
Click to expand...
nicolep said:
Sigh I give up. You do not understand my point.
Click to expand...
It was pointed out to me via PM that it appeared I was arguing in favor of abortion. I have multi-quoted everything I wrote in this thread. Reading the above (especially the bold sentences), can someone explain how I could possibly be misunderstood to the point that I appear to be favoring abortions?
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Lemon

**I know what the best argument is, but I see no reason why it’s relevant for you to ask me. **

I know you are in RCIA and just wanted to know if your views are pro-life or pro-choice.

I ask because you seemed not to agree with the Catholic bishops on that other thread. But I didn’t get to see your answer because the thread was erased. 😃

But, as I said, I don’t want to press the issue because this thread is about a different subject.
Let’s drop it. 😉
Click to expand...
Seeing as you asked - I’m “pro-life”.
 
I am pro-life. Just wondering who is going to take of this kids if they are not aborted (in your statistical analysis). We just cant give the to gays so they will have to go to orphanages and hopefully get adopted. Would Prisons fill up with more males from broken homes entering the population? ( Freakanomics author’s claim that abortions actually lead to less crime since there were less frustrated males from impoverished backgrounds).
 
Birdpreacher

**I am pro-life. Just wondering who is going to take of this kids if they are not aborted (in your statistical analysis). We just cant give the to gays so they will have to go to orphanages and hopefully get adopted. Would Prisons fill up with more males from broken homes entering the population? ( Freakanomics author’s claim that abortions actually lead to less crime since there were less frustrated males from impoverished backgrounds). **

Isn’t this like saying we should kill people before they can prove to the world that they are killers? Of the 40 million babies aborted, exactly how many are supposed to die in order to prevent a few from turning into criminals?

ALL OF THEM?
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Birdpreacher

**I am pro-life. Just wondering who is going to take of this kids if they are not aborted (in your statistical analysis). We just cant give the to gays so they will have to go to orphanages and hopefully get adopted. Would Prisons fill up with more males from broken homes entering the population? ( Freakanomics author’s claim that abortions actually lead to less crime since there were less frustrated males from impoverished backgrounds). **

Isn’t this like saying we should kill people before they can prove to the world that they are killers? Of the 40 million babies aborted, exactly how many are supposed to die in order to prevent a few from turning into criminals?

ALL OF THEM?
Click to expand...
It’s the pre-emptive death penalty: "These kids are going to cause problems, so let’s kill them now while it can be done cheaply and before they cause trouble. (Of course, so far they are guilty of nothing except being conceived, and that was through no action of their own.) Still, the pre-emptive death penalty shall apply.

We might start with root causes. The government has spent a lot of money destroying families. Then it promotes contraception and safe sex, ensuring promiscuity and unwed pregnancies, which provide more business for the abortion clinics. Planned Parenthood keeps the cycle going.
 
I bleieve the freakonmics argument was merely stating a correlation, take it as you will as to what actually caused crime to go down, morally, also agree that there is no excuse to abort a baby.

My question is that who will take care of these kids who arnt getting aborted?
 
Birdpreacher said:
I bleieve the freakonmics argument was merely stating a correlation, take it as you will as to what actually caused crime to go down, morally, also agree that there is no excuse to abort a baby.

My question is that who will take care of these kids who arnt getting aborted?
Click to expand...
Are you making the assumption that there parents will not take care of them? Is the implicit choice for natural parents now between killing and abandonment? If so, the society has fallen far enough that it cannot last much longer.

Professor Singer thinks that parents should have a few months post-birth to decide whether they really want the child or not. In other words, he accept abortion up to about +6 months.

I have not yet given up the belief that parents will care for their young.

Have we truly come to the point that sex is so important to us and children so inimical that our attitude must be: sex–always, but as for children, they must be prevented, killed, or abandoned.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top