The Cost of Abortion - this is an amazing and eye opening look at the cost of abortion

[lizaanne]

I’m finish.

That’s amazing. The person that would have invented the remedy for the cure of Cancer and or of Aids was/is most like likely one of the unborn(abortion).

Abortion is going to have us(human race) extinct.

Thank you for taking the time.

~Liza

 

[hasikelee]

This reminds me of the special guest we had for our holocaust class. The survivor has a favourite saying:

“The world isn’t missing just 6 million Jews, but 6 million Jews and the children of those Jews, and the children’s children of those Jews, and the children’s children’s children of those Jews.”

 

[nice2000]

This reminds me of the special guest we had for our holocaust class. The survivor has a favourite saying:

“The world isn’t missing just 6 million Jews, but 6 million Jews and the children of those Jews, and the children’s children of those Jews, and the children’s children’s children of those Jews.”

Wow ! That’s a strong statement… But it’s the truth.

 

[hawkeye]

That’s where I think that some of us differ. I don’t write those people with hearts of stone off as impossible to get to. As a previous poster said, even some abortionists themselves have turned away from this and now condemn it.

~Liza

If pictures and finances work by all means use them, but there is the select few who are doing the work of satan, he has blinded many, like he blinded Adam and Eve, but hell will work, but by then it will be too late.

Plenty of Nazis saw the Horror and pain that they were inflicting and carried on. I remember seeing on TV an SS man once saying that the more people you shot and exterminated the easier it got. Perhaps it’s the same with abortionists. Let us all pray for those poor souls who are engaged in this evil procedure.

Yes like I said some won’t ever get it, probably caught up too much in the grip of satan, some could be occults, well hitler was.

This reminds me of the special guest we had for our holocaust class. The survivor has a favourite saying:

“The world isn’t missing just 6 million Jews, but 6 million Jews and the children of those Jews, and the children’s children of those Jews, and the children’s children’s children of those Jews.”

Wise saying and something I’ve never thought of before, but I’m sure we can all agree that no matter what works and what doesn’t, abortion is murder of the unborn, a slap in the face for God, who said “be fruitful and multiply.”

I heard someone say that abortion was a sin against the Holy Spirit, I’m not sure of this, but hasn’t the Holy Spirit been expelled from those tiny souls ?

 

[JimG]

This reminds me of the special guest we had for our holocaust class. The survivor has a favourite saying:

“The world isn’t missing just 6 million Jews, but 6 million Jews and the children of those Jews, and the children’s children of those Jews, and the children’s children’s children of those Jews.”

Yes, not just the holocaust victims but their descendents, entire generations, wiped out.

In like manner, I wonder how many now living in our abortion era know how many of their brothers and sisters–their own siblings–have been killed by abortion. What will these siblings say to each other when they eventually meet, hopefully in heaven?

 

[lizaanne]

In like manner, I wonder how many now living in our abortion era know how many of their brothers and sisters…

For an idea of what that number would look like, take a look at this show. It is a statistical analysis of the impact of abortion on society. And yes - the numbers are staggering.

~Liza

 

[Contarini]

Are people still touting that study as accurate? I’m shocked. A quick Google search on the Freakonomics abortion study yields much controversy about the conclusions drawn in that book. Sources no less than The Economist and* The Wall Street Journal* have published stories about the flaws behind the “proof” about abortion’s positive effect on the crime rate.

Check out: isteve.com/freakonomics_fiasco.htm

I know that it’s beside the point, but I’m always astounded when people don’t bother checking out the accuracy of sound bytes themselves.

Thanks for the link. I read a little about the claim some years ago when it was first made, but have not kept up with the debate. I did read parts of *Freakonomics *recently for the first time.

I do not know what the current opinion is among economists and sociologists as to the value of those claims. Nor, for that matter, do I know what validity the argument in the OP does or does not have. My point is that both sets of arguments are irrelevant with regard to the moral issue. If you want to make arguments such as those in the OP, you will not only have to defend them but will also have to refute any argument that comes along to the opposite effect. It adds another unnecessary (and morally offensive) layer to what is already a complex controversy.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I just looked at the link you provided, and Sailer dishonestly quotes Levitt out of context. I don’t understand statistics, but I do understand citation of sources. After what I just saw, I see no reason to trust Sailer any farther than I can throw him.

I have no difficulty believing that the claim in Freakonomics is in fact bunk. But I do not believe this on the word of someone who quotes his opponents dishonestly.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

That’s simply not true - there are plenty of people who have seen the horror and yet carry on, and are then turned pro-life by something other than a very emotive image.

Blood and gore are emotionally impacting - but not necessarially mind-changing. Surgeons have seen blood and gore - and abortionists have seen dead babies. Yet abortionists still change their minds - based on evidence other than the simple horror of death.

As to saying it is “obscene” to say that abortion should be banned because of economics, get real. How can it be obscene to say that we should ban abortion for ANY reason? You will notice that the text SPECIFICALLY says that economics is not the only or main reason, but it is ONE reason which some people may respond to.

I think the flaw in your approach is the assumption that prochoice folks are amoral. In my experience, they are as passionately convinced that their position is right as prolifers are. It’s a moral issue for them, because it involves the sacred cause of “women’s rights.” They aren’t amenable to arguments based on economic calculation, any more than we are. At least I’m not (not on an issue like this).

Edwin

 

[lizaanne]

My point is that both sets of arguments are irrelevant with regard to the moral issue.

So you think that, to someone who does not see the moral issue, that it is irrelevant to try to approach them on a level that THEY DO see as relevant?

If you want to make arguments such as those in the OP, you will not only have to defend them but will also have to refute any argument that comes along to the opposite effect.

Have you bothered to take the time to watch the show? I think the presenter does an excellent job of defending these arguements and has the hard cold stastics to refute any arguement to the contrary.

It adds another unnecessary (and morally offensive) layer to what is already a complex controversy.

Edwin

Now this totally blows my mind - you think it is morally offensive to try to educate people - ON ANY LEVEL NECESSARY - that abortion is wrong?!! How can numbers be morally offensive??

It appears that you are perfectly happy to just let this be as it is and not do anything to change the situation because it is “already a complex controversy”. Just wash your hands of it and walk away and let others deal with it because if they just don’t “get it” with the photos of dead babies then they will never get it?

Wow - your neutralism just astounds me.

~Liza

 

[Morningkill]

I think the flaw in your approach is the assumption that prochoice folks are amoral.

I don’t assume they are amoral, that would be too generous. I assume they are immoral :

In all seriousness, there are plenty of people who are influenced by the economic argument - simply because there are people who are amoral with regard to this issue. It is based on the notion of economics for them - I have heard many arguments that begin “it is better from a consumption of resources point of view to abort a child.”

Also, are you seriously arguing that we should not attempt to use any and all methods to attempt to stop people murdering babies? Seriously - you have used the word “obscene” to refer to this. How can attempting to prevent abortion and the slaughter of innocent children by telling the truth be obscene? What, precisely, is wrong about it?

 

[Tracyms1974]

I think this line of argument is a serious mistake. If you start down this road, then you’ve got to deal with arguments such as the one made in Freakonomics that abortion helped lower crime. These things are simply irrelevant to the moral issue.

It’s almost obscene to say that we should abolish abortion for economic reasons. I think this kind of argument can only hurt the prolife movement (as I think Freakonomics hurt the prochoice movement, though I may be wrong on that one).

Edwin

I agree that certainly, economics is not the only issue here, but it is AN issue. Perhaps those who cannot be swayed for moral or religious reasons that abortion is absolutely wrong and is a tragedy would be swayed by this argument instead.

I don’t have hi-speed internet, so I’ll watch what I can.

Tracy

 

[Morningkill]

Wow - your neutralism just astounds me.

To be frank, it doesn’t me. I’ve read his signature The hallmark of the Episcopal ecclesial community has been neutrality for several years now. The fences have been widened and widened in an attempt to take in more and more people (female clerics, female “bishops”, openly-gay clergy, etc. etc.) that I am genuinely not surprised when a neutral position is adopted by one of its members.

Granted, I may be generalizing - but it is based on my own experience of the Anglican ecclesial community in the UK which I understand is reasonably representitive of the worldwide sect. And, of course, on the fact this poster has said that he finds the notion of providing statistics (which people are, of course, at liberty to disagree with and argue against) offensive.

The point is this - everyone has seen the videos. Everyone has heard “it’s a person and it has bones and fingers and a heart!” And the pro-abortionists ignore that and still decide to slaughter.

No more. This far and no further. Not on my watch and not within reach of my arm. If I can make the slightest dent with economics, then I will. And, frankly, I’ve been called worse than “obsence” by better than members of the Episcopal ecclesial community.

 

[Contarini]

I don’t assume they are amoral, that would be too generous. I assume they are immoral :

That’s my point. I’m not sure why you think it’s better to be amoral than immoral. To me the opposite seems obviously true. However, that’s a moot point. My point is that they do have a set of values, but they are (at least with regard to this issue) horribly wrong. They are not simply looking at the economic bottom line.

In all seriousness, there are plenty of people who are influenced by the economic argument - simply because there are people who are amoral with regard to this issue. It is based on the notion of economics for them - I have heard many arguments that begin “it is better from a consumption of resources point of view to abort a child.”

Well, I’ve never heard this argument used. If there are such monstrous people out there, it goes against the grain to think that we should have to make arguments for them. My point is that calculating the cost of abortion and treating this as a morally relevant argument for a minute is obscene. However, if you’re right that there are people who make such an argument (and I’ll take your word for it), then the obscenity is theirs, not yours.

Those are not the pro-choice people I’ve talked to.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I don’t assume they are amoral, that would be too generous. I assume they are immoral :

That’s my point. I’m not sure why you think it’s better to be amoral than immoral. To me the opposite seems obviously true. However, that’s a moot point. My point is that they do have a set of values, but they are (at least with regard to this issue) horribly wrong. They are not simply looking at the economic bottom line.

In all seriousness, there are plenty of people who are influenced by the economic argument - simply because there are people who are amoral with regard to this issue. It is based on the notion of economics for them - I have heard many arguments that begin “it is better from a consumption of resources point of view to abort a child.”

Well, I’ve never heard this argument used. If there are such monstrous people out there, it goes against the grain to think that we should have to make arguments for them. My point is that calculating the cost of abortion and treating this as a morally relevant argument for a minute is obscene. However, if you’re right that there are people who make such an argument (and I’ll take your word for it), then the obscenity is theirs, not yours.

Those are not the pro-choice people I’ve talked to–who are mostly liberal academics. To them an argument such as yours would simply show how morally bankrupt and driven by capitalist greed conservative prolifers are.

Edwin

 

[Morningkill]

If there are such monstrous people out there, it goes against the grain to think that we should have to make arguments for them.

Absolutely it doesn’t, and that is simply pandering to the idea that “if they don’t see the horror they see nothing!” notion which is ludicrous.

These people are advocating killing babies (and at the same time messing up their own chances of getting to Heaven). I don’t care if they want to kill babies because of “womens’ rights”, child sacrifice, economics or because pixies told them to. If I have to, I will argue that pixies don’t exist to save children.

I work on behalf of the Catholic Church - we don’t back away from a fight if the victory is sweet enough.

My point is that calculating the cost of abortion and treating this as a morally relevant argument for a minute is obscene.

A point you have yet to support. And, additionally, you are the one who keeps bringing in morality to this - you’ll notice (or maybe you didn’t, as you might not have watched the show) that the notion of “economics = morality” has been pushed by one person here. And if you look in the mirror, you can see him.

This is an economic argument - one which is logically appealing and powerful. It is absolutely not a moral argument, and therefore cannot be morally obscene.

Those are not the pro-choice people I’ve talked to–who are mostly liberal academics. To them an argument such as yours would simply show how morally bankrupt and driven by capitalist greed conservative prolifers are.

There are two points here;

i) You’ve spoken with a very small sector of pro-abortionists.

ii) Your last statement reads (very clearly) that my argument shows that pro-life people are “morally bankrupt”. Not that people might THINK we are morally bankrupt, but rather that we ARE morally bankrupt.

You use the word “are”, not “appear to be”. You seem to be of the opinion that any statement which is not “this is morally wrong!” is automatically a morally evil action. And you have comprehensively failed to prove that.

Again, how is pointing out that abortion is bad economic policy morally evil? Abortion IS bad economic policy - even our “back of envelope figures” prove that! It’s the truth - how can telling the truth about a moral evil be itself morally wrong?

 

[rpp]

Okay, I had purchased the DVD and just finished watching it.

I thought it was well done and provided some very good material. I admit that I had to fast-forward through the graphic scenes.

Thank you, Lizaanne for telling us about the video. I am certain this video will be making the rounds with my friends.

After seeing Demographic Winter, it is clear that abortion is clearly one of the most evil and self-destructive activity the human race has ever engaged in.