The Economy and Abortion

And like Nancy Pelosi suggested, if we can keep those poor people from reproducing, the savings to the country will greatly stimulate the economy. A "win-win."

Please cite your source for that comment.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/08/24/pelosi-li...

http://www.jbs.org/index.php/news-feed-archive/...

So I watched the video, and nowhere does she even suggest what nuclearferret says she said. Was your link intended to support that argument, or were you trying to make another point?

She still doesn't say what nuclearferret says she said--if you posted the link to support that point...

Her quote that smokem links below is: "...contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government."

She does not explain the comment further as she is basically trying to sidestep Brokaw's question re how hundreds of millions in family planning funding qualifies as fitting in a federal stimulus bill.

I agree with what Jim says.

I also notice, both in his post, and in the news article he references, how powerless everyone is.

I am not implying any one thing such as "People should exercise their power to not get pregnant." Although that could be a possibility. Nor do I mean to imply that economic constraints severely limit options.

I simply note everyone is portrayed as very powerless--including those who have been 'rescued' by assistance of some kind.

Does this language; does this self-understanding; does this diminishment of human resilience and Divine power get us where we want to be?? Is the only way we can advocate for abortion-reducing policies by portraying persons as helpless, powerless, or victims of large external forces and human desire that cannot be controlled??

Is it possible this very attitude and language has a corrosive effect on our understanding of ourselves as gifted with the individual and communal power to stand, to govern our own beings, to create, to provide, to pro-create, to nurture the life we create?

Ok.... tell me if I'm wrong. Hasn't Jim Wallis said that abortion rates went up under G.W.. But the article he sites says, "Abortion rates have been declining for years." What is the truth?

It still isn't a legitimate source for "if we can keep those poor people from reproducing, the savings to the country will greatly stimulate the economy" which is what nuclearferret claimed she said.

It may be the quote he is referring to, but it's putting words in her mouth.

I don't know--I don't remember Wallis saying abortion rates went up. Can you find an article that supports that assertion?

Maybe nuclearferret confused Nancy Pelosi with John LaBruzzo
http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2008/09/labr...

"Hasn't Jim Wallis said that abortion rates went up under G.W.."

You tell me. I don't recall Wallis saying that either.

Like the Pelosi comment, I'll believe it when you find the quote.

p. 193: of The Great Awakening "The abortion rate actually declined a little during the Clinton administration, likely because of the improved status of low-income women, which is a consistent causal factor in diminishing the choice for abortion. But the abortion rate went up again in the Bush years, likely with the decreasing status of low-income women and families."

i agree. i was just specifying what was said.

The point is using Nancy Pelosi as a spokesperson for the pro life or pro choice debate is inappropriate.

Did find this interesting , that protestants have less abortions then their catholic counterparts in the USA .

http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/Ca...

The one explanation for which there is at least some anecdotal evidence is that Catholic women appear to experience more feelings of guilt around sex, and more shame about pregnancy outside of marriage.

Thanks for the clarification.

That is an interesting statistic.

As a Catholic, I have to ask, what on earth does that have to do with the topic at hand? Why bring it up?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_PTqvyzwRg

If you take her comments in their full context she was suggesting essentially what nuclearferret said she was. If she is unwilling to use the legislation as an engine for people to put things on that don't accomplish what they're setting out to do (turn the economy around), and then goes on to defend spending hundreds of millions of dollars on family planning services, she must believe that lowering the birth rate among those who would qualify for those family planning services will both save money and stimulate the economy.

Thanks for the link, it certainly says a lot!

Amber

Estimates from all governmental agencies and private organizations both opposing and performing abortions generally agree: there have been approximately 45,000,000 abortions performed since January 22nd 1973! The thing you never hear about from either side is the inescapable fact that untold millions of these aborted children would now range in ages that would be capable of part and full time work, according to the law! Those ages, 16 to 28, would be in the U.S. workforce, from the youngster taking your order or orders at a Macdonald's, to a young bright professional building a business, to tradesmen erecting an edifice. They would be on their way to becoming needed doctors in the medical field, teachers, policemen, nurses, drivers, entertainers, inventors and the list could go on forever. How many potential "Bill Gates" have been aborted? Has abortion killed the person who might have found years ago the cure for "AIDS??" or Cancer??? True we might have aborted another Al Capone or Charles Manson, but in life the good and the bad are, have been and will always be present together, till the end of time! The preponderance of the "good" would outweigh the "bad" and in addition to the benefits to our Country by these bright new citizens. They would be paying taxes, contributing to the Social Security Fund, while "increasing the ratio of needed workers to keep the fund solvent" (a most important fact)

Estimates from all governmental agencies and private organizations both opposing and performing abortions generally agree: there have been approximately 45,000,000 abortions performed since January 22nd 1973! The thing you never hear about from either side is the inescapable fact that untold millions of these aborted children would now range in ages that would be capable of part and full time work, according to the law! Those ages, 16 to 28, would be in the U.S. workforce, from the youngster taking your order or orders at a Macdonald's, to a young bright professional building a business, to tradesmen erecting an edifice. They would be on their way to becoming needed doctors in the medical field, teachers, policemen, nurses, drivers, entertainers, inventors and the list could go on forever. How many potential "Bill Gates" have been aborted? Has abortion killed the person who might have found years ago the cure for "AIDS??" or Cancer??? True we might have aborted another Al Capone or Charles Manson, but in life the good and the bad are, have been and will always be present together, till the end of time! The preponderance of the "good" would outweigh the "bad" and in addition to the benefits to our Country by these bright new citizens. They would be paying taxes, contributing to the Social Security Fund, while "increasing the ratio of needed workers to keep the fund solvent" (a most important fact)

http://blog.sojo.net/2009/03/12/the-economy-and...

We need to get back to what is truly important in life: faith, family, friends, community, and responsibility. Responsibility to be productive members of society and not to expect the government to pay for the personal choices that we make. Somewhere along the way, America left that path and selfishness and greed led the way. Having more and better became our goal. Look where this has taken us.

Food scarcity was due to population explosion. If only faith based belief is clarified, wrong perception about the right way of rearing a family will not be the primary cause of food scarcity, and abortion nevertheless will be a thing of the past. This should properly be addressed to before its too late.