Home > Abortion > Counting Our Hot Buttons: Abortion Numbers in Perspective

Counting Our Hot Buttons: Abortion Numbers in Perspective

April 20th, 2011

by Dan McLaughlin

With the recent debate over federal taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood bringing the abortion debate back to the surface, it is sometimes useful to look at the numbers to get a little perspective on why this issue is such a large one. (All of these are estimates, and sources vary, but there’s no serious debate as to the scale of the numbers).

Number killed or missing in action in all wars in U.S. history: 1,343,812. Adding the wounded: 2,489,335.

Number killed or missing in action in U.S. wars since 1973: 12,387. Adding the wounded: 96,680.

Number of executions in U.S. history dating back to 1608: 15,269.

Number of executions in U.S. history dating back to 1930: 3,859.

Number of executions in U.S. history dating back to 1977 (after the Supreme Court lifted a decade-long moratorium): 1,099 through 2008.

Number killed in the September 11 attacks: 2,977.

Number of detainees waterboarded by the CIA under President Bush: 3.

Number of abortions in the U.S. since 1973: 53,310,843 through 2010.

Number of abortions per year in the U.S. since 1973: 1,402,917.

Number of abortions per month in the U.S. since 1973: 116,910.

Number of abortions per week in the U.S. since 1973: 26,979.

Number of abortions per day in the U.S. since 1973: 3,841.

Number of abortions by Planned Parenthood in the U.S. in 2009: 332,278, more than 900 per day, or 27.6% of all abortions in the U.S.

Keep reading.

Print Friendly
Be Sociable, Share!
Categories: Abortion Tags:
  1. Mont D. Law
    April 20th, 2011 at 16:38 | #1

    Some more stats:

    A study released last week by the highly respected Guttmacher Institute shows a federally funded family planning program is highly cost-effective and prevents nearly 2 million unintended pregnancies and 800,000 abortions in the United States each year.

    This doesn’t even consider the women whose lives saved when they are diagnosed & treated for cancers and stds.

    Three million women and men in the United States annually visit Planned Parenthood affiliate health centers.

    Planned Parenthood health centers focus on prevention: 83 percent of clients receive services to prevent unintended pregnancy.

    Planned Parenthood services help prevent more than 612,000 unintended pregnancies each year.

    Planned Parenthood provides nearly one million Pap tests and more than 830,000 breast exams each year, critical services in detecting cancer.

    Planned Parenthood provides nearly four million tests and treatments for sexually transmitted infections, including HIV.

  2. Dan
    April 20th, 2011 at 22:11 | #2

    @Mont D. Law
    Not bad for baby killers.

  3. April 21st, 2011 at 06:47 | #3

    @Mont D. Law There is no Constitutional authority to fund a private business. PP makes millions of dollars and doesn’t need federal funding. It is a theft of taxpayers’ dollars.

    Everything that PP provides can be provided by many other sources. PP is unnecessary except for abortions. They are the worlds largest provider of abortions. They are a murdering facility and everything else is a cover up to pretend they care. Margaret Sanger, PP founder, had a eugenics goal in mind, which is why the largest percentage of PP abortions are still minorities.

  4. April 21st, 2011 at 07:54 | #4

    So either 1) you want to put over 53,000,000 women in prison for murder or 2) you don’t actually believe abortion is murder.

    Which is it?

  5. Amy
    April 21st, 2011 at 10:23 | #5

    The ugly fact of abortion is that a human being with a completely unique DNA, never to be seen again in creation, is murdered, mostly for convenience to the mother. Even in cases of rape, incest, or where the life of the mother is in danger (which 3 cases are the ONLY reason to even consider an abortion), the life of a child is ended prematurely. The best way to prevent an unintended pregnancy or STD is to promote absolute abstinence before marriage, and complete monogamy, thereafter. Abortion does not constitute medical care. Planned Parenthood worships money, and is the modern equivalent of the fires of Moloch.

  6. Paul H
    April 21st, 2011 at 14:37 | #6

    Emma :
    So either 1) you want to put over 53,000,000 women in prison for murder or 2) you don’t actually believe abortion is murder.
    Which is it?

    This is a false choice. It is doctors, nurses, or other persons who perform an abortion who should be prosecuted under the law, not the mothers who themselves are often victims too in one sense or another (i.e., either because they may regret their abortion later, or because they were pressured by parents, boyfriend, etc. to have the abortion; and also because their body has been violated, even if it was done with their permission).

  7. April 21st, 2011 at 17:13 | #7

    @Emma One doesn’t have to be imprisoned for a crime for the crime to exist. The law refuses to recognize abortion as murder and it is the law which decides the punishment for the crime – in this life. But God recognizes it for what it is and He will deal with it.

  8. nerdygirl
    April 21st, 2011 at 19:31 | #8

    I hope you all adopt or do foster care.

    And are totally cool with the women who use planned parenthood for pap smears, and birth control services only (not abortion) getting screwed.

  9. Sean
    April 21st, 2011 at 19:44 | #9

    “There is no Constitutional authority to fund a private business.”

    Nor to fund religion-affiliated organizations. So why do we do it? The government gives all sorts of money to “private businesses.” Why can’t an organization that does as much good as PP have some?

  10. Sean
    April 22nd, 2011 at 04:21 | #10

    “The ugly fact of abortion is that a human being with a completely unique DNA, never to be seen again in creation, is murdered, mostly for convenience to the mother.”

    Then why doesn’t society charge women who get abortions with murder? Why is the anger directed at persons or organizations who provide abortions, but not at the women who get them?

  11. April 22nd, 2011 at 05:40 | #11

    Paul H :

    Emma :
    So either 1) you want to put over 53,000,000 women in prison for murder or 2) you don’t actually believe abortion is murder.
    Which is it?

    This is a false choice. It is doctors, nurses, or other persons who perform an abortion who should be prosecuted under the law, not the mothers who themselves are often victims too in one sense or another (i.e., either because they may regret their abortion later, or because they were pressured by parents, boyfriend, etc. to have the abortion; and also because their body has been violated, even if it was done with their permission).

    Paul, I can sense your compassion in the words that you write, but it seems both infantalizing and somewhat misguided. We women are fully-formed human beings with fully-formed intellects. We can make our own decisions, and do not need to be protected from our own decisions, or have responsibility for our own decisions thrust upon doctors, nurses, parents, boyfriends, etc.

  12. April 22nd, 2011 at 05:50 | #12

    @Glenn E. Chatfield
    I understand that, but my point is that if you believe abortion is murder (and I’ve had this yelled at me as I’ve entered a women’s health clinic, so I can only assume that this is what “pro-lifers” do in fact believe), then you must ALSO believe that the 53 million women who have had an abortion are in fact murderers — whether or not the law recognizes it as such.

    That’s a whole lotta criminals just running around all over the place, isn’t it? Including, without a doubt, women you know.

  13. April 22nd, 2011 at 09:52 | #13

    @Sean Here we go again. Because the government funds one group wrongly, therefore we should fund more? Very poor logic. PP does much more harm than it ever did good.

  14. April 22nd, 2011 at 09:55 | #14

    @nerdygirl One doesn’t have to own a bank to say robbing one is wrong. I have attempted to adopt, but the state’s policies were insurmountable. But even if I never tried, that doesn’t make the murder of the unborn acceptable.

    Women who use PP for services other than abortion can get those same services at places who do not murder children, so they are not getting “screwed.”

  15. Deb
    April 22nd, 2011 at 11:34 | #15

    @Emma

    ” if you believe abortion is murder…”

    Obviously, you do not. So, let’s back the discussion up. Do you think that abortion involves killing? If so, the killing of what? If not, then what is an abortion by your understanding?

  16. Leo
    April 23rd, 2011 at 06:48 | #16

    A question for consideration: If there is a gay gene, and if at some future date it is possible to detect that gene in utero, would you support a mother’s decision to abort her unborn child because it carried the gay gene? Would you support Planned Parenthood if it encouraged or supported that position?

  17. April 23rd, 2011 at 15:21 | #17

    @Leo if there ever is discovered a “gay gene” it would be a genetic defect as any other defect. But a gene that orients someone towards homosexuality never has to be acted upon. People tend to forget that. The same question could be asked about a “pedophile gene” – we would not allow someone to act on that genetic defect.

    I would not support abortion for ANY reason. A person with a genetic defect directing them to an sexual perversion could exercise self-control and never act on that orientation and yet live a perfectly normal life.

    I would not support PP for any reason at all. They are a tool of Satan.

  18. nerdygirl
    April 23rd, 2011 at 15:55 | #18

    @Glenn E. Chatfield
    Oh, do tell me of other clinics that provide sliding scale payments for women of low-income and/or have no health insurance.

  19. Leo
    April 23rd, 2011 at 22:21 | #19

    @Glenn
    I understand your position. I was wondering what the PP backers might answer.

  20. April 24th, 2011 at 05:49 | #20

    @nerdygirl Oh, so it’s all about someone else paying for it! Why should my tax dollars pay for anything in any private business? And if this is your excuse, then why not let the federal dollars be accessible to all clinics EXCEPT PP and other abortion businesses?

  21. April 24th, 2011 at 05:59 | #21

    @nerdygirl One thing more – why can’t the women continue to go to PP, and why can’t PP still offer the same discounts without federal funding? After all, they are supposed to be a non-profit organization yet they are never lacking in funding. PP will not suffer for the lack of federal dollars.

  22. Paul H
    April 25th, 2011 at 08:43 | #22

    Emma:
    Paul, I can sense your compassion in the words that you write, but it seems both infantalizing and somewhat misguided. We women are fully-formed human beings with fully-formed intellects. We can make our own decisions, and do not need to be protected from our own decisions, or have responsibility for our own decisions thrust upon doctors, nurses, parents, boyfriends, etc.

    Hi Emma,

    I understand, and I meant no offense by my comments. I did not intend to belittle women or womens’ capabilities.

    However, it is a fact that many women later regret having an abortion. (I don’t know what percentage, but it seems to be a non-negligible number of women.) Meanwhile, it seems to be very rare that a woman later regrets NOT choosing to abort.

    Likewise, it is a fact that a non-negligible number of women feel pressured to abort, by boyfriends, parents, friends, perceived lack of help, etc.

    And while you may disagree, I maintain that any woman who has an abortion has been physically violated, even if it was with her permission.

    When the above facts (and possibly other considerations) are taken together with the fact that it is a doctor, nurse, or other person (i.e., NOT the mother) who actually performs an abortion, then I just cannot see how justice and the common good are served by women being punished by force of law for having an abortion. You may think I ought to believe differently, but I cannot see my mind changing on this point.

  23. nerdygirl
    April 25th, 2011 at 14:28 | #23

    @Glenn E. Chatfield
    ………………………………………………………………

    You’d rather have low-income women chose between health services (not even abortion, things like pap smears, pre-natal care, cancer screening, STD testing, etc) and food for their family, rent or other important things like heating bills.

    I would imagine running an organization like PP would take a lot of money, you have to pay your workers a living wage, medical equipment, tests, etc, is expensive, there’s administrative positions, accountants, rent, maintenance, etc, to be covered. Add in that they are doing sliding scale payments for most of their patients, so they are not making a full-profit, or possibly any profit of each, and what little profit there is would go into overhead costs. Any cut in funding, be it federal or private donations, could affect how much of a discount the average patient receives or whether or not smaller clinics stay open.

    (Also, it’s a non-profit, I think by definition that means it’s NOT a private business, and that your tax dollars are going to a, non-profit)

    I would imagine if other clinics wished to operate as non-profit (as opposed to say, a private business) they would be eligible for federal funding.

    Because god forbid your tax dollars might go towards helping someone who don’t approve of.

  24. Paul H
    April 25th, 2011 at 14:55 | #24

    nerdygirl:
    You’d rather have low-income women chose between health services (not even abortion, things like pap smears, pre-natal care, cancer screening, STD testing, etc) and food for their family, rent or other important things like heating bills.

    I think it’s safe to say that the vast majority of people who support defunding Planned Parenthood do NOT want women having to make the kind of choice you mentioned here. But why couldn’t a low-income woman sign up for federal or state programs like Medicaid or WIC in order to fulfill some or all of these needs?

    And why is Planned Parenthood the only organization that could supply these services at a reasonable rate?

    For example, I am pretty sure that most low-income women right now can go to a pro-life crisis pregnancy center near them, and obtain help with many of these issues, through either direct services (e.g., pre-natal testing), or referrals, or help with signing up with government programs, etc.

  25. nerdygirl
    April 25th, 2011 at 16:14 | #25

    @Paul H
    Not all women in need of state and federal assistance programs can get on them. Let’s face it, minimum wage isn’t enough to live on in this country, yet it’s usually too high of an income to qualify for assistance.

    PP doesn’t have to be the only organization doing this, and I’d love for there to be more options (why not have a a catholic/christian based organization that does everything PP does except abortion?) The nice thing about PP is, ones not judged or shamed for their choices there normally. Jezebel had an article about how many lesbian and transwomen found PP safer then “normal” offices, ((of course, some commenters felt the exact opposite, no system is truly perfect, and individual experiences will vary)) referrals are nice, but that doesn’t necessarily cover the sliding scale and flexible payment options, or if it can be a walk-in service.

  26. April 26th, 2011 at 07:31 | #26

    @nerdygirl Being “non-profit” has nothing to do with being a private business. There are zillions of private business non-profit organizations – I can cite hundreds of Christian ministries which are private businesses but are non-profit.

    SO, in order to qualify for federal dollars to help women, one must be a non-profit organization? Let me tell you, anyone who thinks PP is non-profit in total is naive. They rake in millions each year and I submit that much of this has to go to salaries, as you noted, which certainly profits those who are paid! THAT income is the reason they do what they do, in addition to furthering their eugenic foundation of eradicating the “human weeds” as Sanger liked to call them. ANd of course we are all very familiar with how PP promotes teens to be involved sexually and helps them without parental permission to have access to birth control and even abortions – after they are encouraged to have sex!

    Whether one is non-profit or not, there is no Constitutional allowances for funding PP. So that is theft of tax dollars for the Feds to take our money and provide to to PP.

    Your statement of what I’d “rather” is false as well as being a red herring. The fact is that PP is the world’s largest abortion provider and no matter what other services they perform in their attempts to legitimize themselves, they still do not come under anything Constitutionally to allow them to take in tax dollars. We either have a law or we don’t!

    Those women who go to PP can certainly find other places to get the same services. And if they are so poor, then perhaps they should think more about their behaviors so as not to be needing STD testing! Nevertheless, I sincerely doubt even the low-income will not have to choose between PP and food. This is nothing more than a “the sky is falling” scare tactic.

    Are you willing to pay for these people to get such services at reduced rates? You know, use your own money and stand outside of clinics handing out the cash? I don’t think so. Then don’t force me to pay for it through taxation.

  27. April 26th, 2011 at 07:33 | #27

    @nerdygirl There certainly are alternatives to PP providing the same services even around the area where I live, which isn’t a large city! So the other places are available, but will not provide abortions. And those I know of are Christian-run.

  28. nerdygirl
    April 26th, 2011 at 19:51 | #28

    “. And if they are so poor, then perhaps they should think more about their behaviors so as not to be needing STD testing!”

    Slut-shaming and classism, all rolled up into one icky ball.

    “They rake in millions each year and I submit that much of this has to go to salaries, as you noted, which certainly profits those who are paid!”

    Because Doctor’s, nurses and receptionists (most of whom don’t handle abortions) don’t deserve living wages.

    “Are you willing to pay for these people to get such services at reduced rates? You know, use your own money and stand outside of clinics handing out the cash? I don’t think so. Then don’t force me to pay for it through taxation.”

    I pay taxes too buddy. I don’t see why your taxes are any more special then mine. That said, I do donate to Planned Parenthood, and if the clinics in my area needed volunteers, I’d probably volunteer there as well.

    ….

    Glenn, somehow you manage to sum up everything I dislike about mainstream christianity. Congratulations.

  29. Ruth
    April 26th, 2011 at 22:14 | #29

    @nerdygirl
    I think you have judged Glenn wrongly.
    He doesn’t want women to ruin their lives, and he doesn’t want to participate in their ruin.

  30. April 27th, 2011 at 07:59 | #30

    @nerdygirl Okay, so now it is “slut-shaming and classism” to state that one should be responsible for their actions? Marginalize the debate rather than address the issue; common for those who think no one should be responsible for their actions but should instead have everyone else pay for their poor decisions.

    Yes, I’m sure all they make at PP are just barely “living wages.” I have no respect for anyone in the medical profession who works where murder is committed on a daily basis as they participate in that murder.

    My taxes or your taxes, either one, isn’t the issue. The issue is that there is no Constitutional allowance for supporting PP. Your taxes which go to PP are minuscule compared to what you should personally be donating to them if you support their business as much as you claim. If you people would spend all your own money to support PP, then those of us who are against murdering children in the womb wouldn’t be forced to do so.

    “Mainstream Christianity” that you hate is probably the only true Christianity; you know, those who follow the Bible rather than the dictates of man. And why, by the way, is it a blight on Christianity to say women should be responsible for their behavior so as not to need STD testing, and why is it a blight on Christianity to say the murdering the unborn is wrong, and why is it a blight on Christianity to complain about unConstitutional spending?

  31. nerdygirl
    April 27th, 2011 at 16:57 | #31

    No, however there’s a difference between one should be responsible the consequences of their actions and what you said.

    “. And if they are so poor, then perhaps they should think more about their behaviors so as not to be needing STD testing!”

    Let’s be honest here, if one’s having sex the responsible thing to do is get tested. If one makes a mistake, getting tested is the responsible thing to do, not only for their health, but for the health of potential/future partners. If ones contracted a disease, the responsible thing is to treat it. Telling a woman who contracted chlamydia that she shouldn’t have had sex in the first place doesn’t really cure chlamydia. More importantly, that attitude isn’t going to change her mind on whether she’ll have pre-marital/extra-marital sex again, you catch more flies with honey, etc.
    Here’s another thing, just because I believe people should have access to healthcare regardless of their income isn’t marginalizing the debate. The poor are already marginalized in this country, forms of social assistance are being cut, people are being dropped, etc. If a large portion of the country more or less stops receiving medical attention, the consequences don’t just stick to themselves, it grows, it spreads, it becomes a pandemic. You can’t just ignore the poor’s health issues with a hand-wave of “maybe they should take better care of themselves”.

    I imagine PP pays their staff decent. You yourself are inserting the barely there, keep in mind a living wage is higher (in some parts of the country a good bit higher) then minimum wage. But I have to wonder,
    ” I have no respect for anyone in the medical profession who works where murder is committed on a daily basis as they participate in that murder.”

    So, it’s cool for the armed forces to commit murder everyday? I mean, there’s been a lot of civilian deaths at the hands of our armed forces over the years, thousands of innocent lives lost, do they deserve respect and pay? What about police officers? How do you feel about death sentences? Our tax dollars going to murder someone, and pay another human being to do it. OR do those murders not count as much?

    “Your taxes which go to PP are minuscule compared to what you should personally be donating to them if you support their business as much as you claim. If you people would spend all your own money to support PP, then those of us who are against murdering children in the womb wouldn’t be forced to do so.”

    Is there a constitutional allowance for NASCAR? Also, if my tax dollars are so minuscule, whats wrong with your two cents going to PP, if it even gets there.

    ““Mainstream Christianity” that you hate is probably the only true Christianity; you know, those who follow the Bible rather than the dictates of man. And why, by the way, is it a blight on Christianity to say women should be responsible for their behavior so as not to need STD testing, and why is it a blight on Christianity to say the murdering the unborn is wrong, and why is it a blight on Christianity to complain about unConstitutional spending?”

    My (mind you, continual and ongoing) interoperation of the scripture is no less valid then yours. It is a blight to try and deny healthcare to those in need of it. Their predicament may be of their own doing, but they are still deserving of help and forgiveness. And it is a blight to mix the words of God’s into the petty and corrupt politics of man. Christianity is above the laws of man, and it is only valid when freely chosen. Attempting to force Christian values on a nation through laws and punishment instead of the example of being the light in the dark plays to dividing and separating us instead of bringing us together.

    Also, lets’ be really really honest here. GOD DOESN’T CARE ABOUT GOVERNMENT SPENDING. Jesus doesn’t care if it’s constitutional or not. Right and wrong are not defined by the Constitution.

  32. Deb
    April 28th, 2011 at 09:02 | #32

    @nerdygirl

    “Also, lets’ be really really honest here. GOD DOESN’T CARE ABOUT GOVERNMENT SPENDING. Jesus doesn’t care if it’s constitutional or not. Right and wrong are not defined by the Constitution.”

    True. But God also doesn’t demand a government (any government) to take it’s citizens money and spend it on programs it (the government) sees fit, either. Money for health care for the poor should be done at a local level, not a large federal level – this respects the dignity of all persons involved – those who receive and those who give. This is the principle of subsidiarity. This also lowers the amount of wasted spending and fraud that we see at the federal level.

    Many people know that abortion is the murder of an innocent and therefore take great offense of thought of their tax money being taken to spend on an abortion provider against their will. That is the crux of the issue here for many. If you want government money to go to STD testing, Pap smears, etc.. for the poor, fine, but that healthcare provider shouldn’t also perform abortions. And these type of healthcare providers already exist and could use tax money for the services you want for the poor, without killing the unborn.

    “So, it’s cool for the armed forces to commit murder everyday? I mean, there’s been a lot of civilian deaths at the hands of our armed forces over the years, thousands of innocent lives lost, do they deserve respect and pay? What about police officers? How do you feel about death sentences? ”

    Nerdygirl, with all due respect, this was the whole point of the above article. If you compare the number of deaths due to abortion to those who have died due to the death sentence, war, you name it, those other numbers pale in comparison with deaths due to abortion.

  33. nerdygirl
    April 28th, 2011 at 20:27 | #33

    “Money for health care for the poor should be done at a local level, not a large federal level ”

    Are you kidding me? Thats how we fund our school districts, and guess what, it doesn’t work too well. Or more accurately, it works out great for people who live in affluent areas, and screws the rest, be it higher taxes or not as much resources available to them. A persons income shouldn’t be the deciding factor in whether they have access to quality healthcare and public education.

    Tax money isn’t going to abortion services. It’s going to the other areas of care.

    No. The article compares only American deaths. It ignores civilian deaths in occupied nations. And quite honestly, if we’re talking about life; brushing off those other aspects, tax money supporting murder, as not being as bad as abortion deaths, kinda cheapens the importance of life. Either you’re okay with murder being supported by tax dollars, or you’re not.

  34. April 29th, 2011 at 15:46 | #34

    @nerdygirl No, let’s be honest here. One should not be having promiscuous sexual relations, and then they wouldn’t need to be tested for STDs. That was my point – that rather than demanding tax dollars for testing them for STDs, “they should think more about their behaviors so as not to be needing STD testing.” It’s not about seeking help on others’ dollars afterwards, it’s about not getting into the position in the first place.

    Health care is readily available for everyone regardless of their income level. To say otherwise is buying into the liberal propaganda machine. Regardless, the Constitution has not authorization for spending money on the likes of PP. We are either a country of law or not.

    In the Armed forces their job is not murder – it is defense. They are fighting against other armed people. A baby in the womb is not harming anyone. Innocent lives do accidentally get taken during war times, but that is still not murder (except in rare instances where some men have actually committed murder using the war as a cover – but that isn’t the issue). Police officers also do not commit murder if they kill a criminal – that is self-defense or defending someone else. Capital punishment is not murder – it is punishment for a crime, and God commanded capital punishment for murder. I think you need to learn the definition of the word “murder.” None of these are the same as killing an innocent child in the womb. And let’s just say for a moment that all these things WERE murder – would that justify murdering a baby in the womb?

    No one is denying health care to anyone. The health care is available. What I want to deny is the unconstitutional funding of abortion or any other service provided by PP. Show me in Scripture where it says to violate the laws of a nation to subsidize any business. The Christian is commanded to obey the laws of the land unless they conflict with God’s law. And not allowing the Government to subsidize a business is not against God’s law.

    It is not “Christian values” anyone is “forcing” on anyone. Abortion is murder no matter whether one is a Christian or not. The Constitution is the law of the land and if we decide to ignore it willy-nilly to finance every business we will go broke as a nation (as if we aren’t already).

  35. nerdygirl
    April 29th, 2011 at 22:17 | #35

    But Glenn, who are you to judge anothers sex life? What about those who find their partners have cheated on them? They shouldn’t be able to get affordable STD checks?

    “Health care is readily available for everyone regardless of their income level.”
    O rly? Please back that up.

    What does the constitution allow spending wise, do you bother to stand up and tell your congressional representative that NASCAR has enough funding, or do you only care that PP gets their funding cut off?

    And not quite. There are many fine people in the armed services, and even sometimes these people make mistakes, be it shooting a child or other adult thought to be hostile, but there are plenty of accounts of non-accidental civilian murders, bombings, etc to suggest that they are without fault. And it kinda is. Because at some point, you’re comfortable with a certain amount of murder being funded by you. Police officers shoot innocent victims, harass innocent suspects, etc. Innocent people have been put to death by the state (and mind you, I’m fairly sympathetic to the death penalty) You’re okay with these murders being funded with your money, but not abortion (only kinda sorta maybe being funded with your money) What we’re left with is, is abortion murder? Some say yes, some say no. The law of the land says no. I mean, this all draws back to the question of where life begins. I don’t believe it begins at conception. I’m don’t even personally believe it begins until after the point of viability.

    “show me in Scripture where it says to violate the laws of a nation to subsidize any business. ”
    I think this goes back to the whole, God probably doesn’t really care. I don’t think business subsidies are the worries of a christian, of a citizen sure, christian, no. They are worldly concerns. Besides. even taking into account the belief that all abortion is murder, if you outlaw abortion, do you think every baby is magically born into a happy home? Do you think back alley abortionists not exist? Babies don’t turn up in dumpsters? That women won’t order abortion meds over the internet? Women have children they didn’t want not because they changed their mind but because they had no other option? How is that better? If we want to stop abortions, isn’t it better to keep unwanted pregnancies from happening, as opposed to making abortions illegal?

    (In short, your goal is admirable, your course of action is questionable)

  36. April 30th, 2011 at 14:56 | #36

    @nerdygirl Again, “affordable” is in the eye of the beholder. The point is that NO ONE has the right to demand the government pay for their services. The Constitution does not allow it. Pay your own way!

    I have never met anyone who could not get medical help when needed.

    I want ALL non-Constitutional spending to stop, but especially that which supports abortion! And, yes, I write my congressmen all the time about stopping unConstitutional spending.

    I’m not okay with any “murder,” but you want to bring in all these other red herrings – we are discussing only abortion at this point. Life begins at conception: all science and medical fields concerned state that.

    What happens with the babies not aborted is not the issue. That is another red herring.

  37. nerdygirl
    May 1st, 2011 at 15:24 | #37

    “What happens with the babies not aborted is not the issue. That is another red herring.”

    I think thats the entire issue. You claim abortion is murder and you won’t stand for it, but you’ll stand for children ending up in foster or adoption programs, which lets’ be honest, is crapshoot? You’re okay with children being raised by neglectful and abusive parents? You’re okay with dumpster babies? This is not a quick-fix issue. Banning abortion isn’t going to stop abortion, it is most likely going to lead to more botched abortions and dead women and children.

  38. May 2nd, 2011 at 07:00 | #38

    @nerdygirl No, the issue is NOT what happens with the babies who are allowed to live. Murder is murder regardless. I suppose you are then supporting the murder of children already in bad situations? There are plenty of people waiting to adopt babies, and I have good friends who have seven who were abortion saves. And many of those women would keep their babies and have just fine lives if they knew what it was really all about.

    No one has any way of knowing what will be the destiny of any baby not aborted. Your claims as to their likely destinies and the statement about “botched abortions and dead women and children,” aside from meeting many logic fallacies, is just a scare tactic. Even so, there would be a drop in the bucket compared to how many women died from LEGAL abortions. And I’m really trying to figure out how more children will die if abortion is illegal.

  39. Deb
    May 2nd, 2011 at 08:06 | #39

    @nerdygirl

    ” but you’ll stand for children ending up in foster or adoption programs, which lets’ be honest, is crapshoot?”

    Are you saying those children in foster care would be better off if aborted instead of being given the chance to live?

  40. nerdygirl
    May 2nd, 2011 at 16:13 | #40

    @Glenn E. Chatfield
    “many of those women would keep their babies and have just fine lives if they knew what it was really all about.”

    Oh please. You know nothing of any individual woman’s situation.

    “No one has any way of knowing what will be the destiny of any baby not aborted. Your claims as to their likely destinies and the statement about “botched abortions and dead women and children,” aside from meeting many logic fallacies, is just a scare tactic. Even so, there would be a drop in the bucket compared to how many women died from LEGAL abortions. And I’m really trying to figure out how more children will die if abortion is illegal.”

    No, there is no way of knowing what could become of every potential child aborted (If you could have aborted Stalin, would you?) I don’t think it’s a failing of logic to say that outlawing abortion would lead to rise of back alley abortions and as such dead women. And you should REALLY back up statements like “Even so, there would be a drop in the bucket compared to how many women died from LEGAL abortions.” Because I don’t think you’re in any way shape or form accurate about that. Thats a a logical fallacy.

  41. May 3rd, 2011 at 06:54 | #41

    @nerdygirl I may not know every individual woman’s situation, but I do know the GENERAL situations, which is why I said “many,” and not “all.” I know several women who have had abortions, and every one of them has said they wished they had kept the child. There are many, many women who die each year from legal abortions. And that is a FACT one can read in the newspaper. I’m still waiting for you to explain how more children will die as a result of making abortion illegal.

  42. May 3rd, 2011 at 10:44 | #42

    @nerdygirl Just as an example of how dangerous abortions are to women, aside from sometimes killing them, here is a great article explaining all the health hazards: http://www.abort73.com/abortion/abortion_risks/

  43. nerdygirl
    May 3rd, 2011 at 19:34 | #43

    Well.
    http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/abortion-miscarriage
    claims the abortion increases breast cancer link is bunk.

    http://jezebel.com/#!5667742/do-multiple-abortions-actually-harm-your-ability-to-conceive
    Abortions in the past were more invasive, more damaging, abortions to day rarely impact future fertility

    And finally, all of 6 women died from legal abortions in 2007, one of the few statistics this site quotes from the last decade. Your own source discredits your stance of “many, many women who die each year.”

    Also, usually sites worth citing, don’t have numbers in their domain name. I was worried clicking that link was going to send me to site that promises not only to cure any desire I might have for an abortion, but also a sure proof way to get out debt if I just buy their 12 book program.

    My leap of logic would be that if abortion is illegal, there will be more illegal abortions. Late-term abortion, like those of kermit gosnell, tend to cross that line from morally questionable to straight out murder.

  44. May 4th, 2011 at 12:01 | #44

    @nerdygirl Okay, so “many, many” might be a bit of hyperbole, but the point is that many (6 a year is many in my book) women die from “legal” abortions, yet you want to discount that.

    If you want to give credence to a government site, operated by a government which promotes abortion, more power to you. But there have been numerous studies in several nations which have conclusively demonstrated a link between abortion and breast cancer.

    Abortions, no matter how modern they are, still have many dangerous effects on the woman’s body, and many ramifications afterwards, not the least of which is the emotional trauma carried by most for the rest of their lives.

    So, if a site has numbers in their domain that makes them not worth citing?!?! Talk about illogical! I visit myriads of sites with numbers in their domain – those numbers represent something personal to the domain holder. I suppose you judge a book by its title also.

    So what if there more illegal abortions if abortion is illegal. Total abortions will be reduced exponentially.

    Your relative morality is illogical. Late term abortion is murder but early term is not? What determines right and wrong? Why is it okay to kill a child up to a certain point but not another? For that matter, why is it okay to kill a child in the womb but not after birth? Peter Singer says we should allow up to two years after birth for retroactive abortion if we decide we don’t want the kid.

Comments are closed.