It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by DrHoracid
Originally posted by soficrow
No. I don't make that assumption. I am aware that unwanted children create many and diverse burdens upon society.
My first question stands, "What do you propose to do do about the already hungry, poor, uninsured and homeless before you add more unwanted children to their numbers?"
My second question: "Given that abortion clients come from so many different backgrounds and have such different motives, rationales and constraints, how can you presume to create a "one-size-fits-all" judgment?"
.
If 97% of all abortions are for reason other than saving the woman life then reduce abortions by 97%. Sounds fair to me!
Lets do some math. Of the 40,000,000 dead. Lets take the number up to 20 years ago, say 15 million. Lets add 15 million to the tax base. The average income in the US is $42,000 per year. Tax equals approx 30% thats $12,600 per person of the 15 million. Thats about $378 billion in extra revenue over 20 years. You can feed a lot of hungry people on that.
These are very "ruff" numbers but you get the idea.
Originally posted by DrHoracid
Originally posted by soficrow
No. I don't make that assumption. I am aware that unwanted children create many and diverse burdens upon society.
My first question stands, "What do you propose to do do about the already hungry, poor, uninsured and homeless before you add more unwanted children to their numbers?"
My second question: "Given that abortion clients come from so many different backgrounds and have such different motives, rationales and constraints, how can you presume to create a "one-size-fits-all" judgment?"
.
If 97% of all abortions are for reason other than saving the woman life then reduce abortions by 97%. Sounds fair to me!
Lets do some math. Of the 40,000,000 dead. Lets take the number up to 20 years ago, say 15 million. Lets add 15 million to the tax base. The average income in the US is $42,000 per year. Tax equals approx 30% thats $12,600 per person of the 15 million. Thats about $378 billion in extra revenue over 20 years. You can feed a lot of hungry people on that.
These are very "ruff" numbers but you get the idea.
Originally posted by soficrow
Your numbers do not - and cannot - accommodate the numbers of undiagnosed women in whom pregnancy triggers hormone related diseases. Which I have shown elsewhere are likely substantial.
You have yet to answer my questions - except to suggest that adding legions to the out-of-work and unemployed in America might add to the tax base by sacrificing womens' civil liberties.
Originally posted by soficrow
Your numbers do not - and cannot - accommodate the numbers of undiagnosed women in whom pregnancy triggers hormone related diseases. Which I have shown elsewhere are likely substantial.
You have yet to answer my questions - except to suggest that adding legions to the out-of-work and unemployed in America might add to the tax base by sacrificing womens' civil liberties.
Originally posted by Kinja
Originally posted by soficrow
Your numbers do not - and cannot - accommodate the numbers of undiagnosed women in whom pregnancy triggers hormone related diseases. Which I have shown elsewhere are likely substantial.
You have yet to answer my questions - except to suggest that adding legions to the out-of-work and unemployed in America might add to the tax base by sacrificing womens' civil liberties.
Bring forth the numbers. and Links... enlighten everyone.
[edit on 25-2-2005 by Kinja]
Originally posted by soficrow
Originally posted by Kinja
Originally posted by soficrow
Your numbers do not - and cannot - accommodate the numbers of undiagnosed women in whom pregnancy triggers hormone related diseases. Which I have shown elsewhere are likely substantial.
You have yet to answer my questions - except to suggest that adding legions to the out-of-work and unemployed in America might add to the tax base by sacrificing womens' civil liberties.
Bring forth the numbers. and Links... enlighten everyone.
[edit on 25-2-2005 by Kinja]
See posts 1 and 2:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
.
Abortion was decreasing. When President Bush took office, the nation's abortion rates were at a 24-year low, after a 17.4 percent decline during the 1990s. This was a steady decrease averaging 1.7 percent per year. (The data come from Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life using the Guttmacher Institute's studies.)
We found four states that have posted three-year statistics: Kentucky's increased by 3.2 percent from 2000 to 2003. Michigan's increased by 11.3 percent from 2000 to 2003. Pennsylvania's increased by 1.9 percent from 1999 to 2002. Colorado's rates skyrocketed 111 percent. We found 12 additional states that reported statistics for 2001 and 2002. Eight states saw an increase in abortion rates (14.6 percent average increase), and four saw a decrease (4.3 percent average).
Under Bush, the decade-long trend of declining abortion rates appears to have reversed. Given the trends of the 1990s, 52,000 more abortions occurred in the United States in 2002 than would have been expected before this change of direction.
Economic policy and abortion are not separate issues; they form one moral imperative. Rhetoric is hollow, mere tinkling brass, without health care, insurance, jobs, child care and a living wage. Pro-life in deed, not merely in word, means we need a president who will do something about jobs, health insurance and support for mothers