Abortion: Just the Data

[Tab]

Originally posted by: zendari
After the 3rd trimester?

Opps..

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: zendari
A question for the libs: Why should we all have to pay for abortions, contraception, and birth control, subsidizing someone else's sexual activity?

People are going to have sex, youre too young to know but its actually enjoyable. Also if it wasnt subsidized there would be FAR more unwanted births. Since dumbya and the right are pushing abstinance only/contraceptives are evil agendas its absolutely necessary to keep unwanted births down.

What are you talking about? Contraception is available everywhere. You can buy condoms at your local convenience store. Can't afford them? Planned Parenthood and a dozen other orgs like them will give you contraception for free. The problem isn't availability, it's use.

Sure, people are going to have sex. But where is the responsibility that comes with the fun? Equasions must be balanced. You can't have one without the other. My personal view on abortion is this: You're making someone else (who has no say in the decision) pay for your mistake. And if the abortion is state funded then where exactly does responsibility play in? It doesn't. And if there is no personal responsibility expected of anyone, why would anyone excercise personal responsibility? And that turns into an issue much bigger than abortion real fast.

You miss the point, once a again, stupid kid. Did you see how FEW abortions are subsidized? Do you totally miss the fact that there would be more unwanted briths without abortion? I said NOTHING about responsibility. Its our responsilbity to take care of those that are irresponsible. If you disagree, you are not worthy of considering yourself part of society.

First off... I'm not a kid.

Second, we are supposed to be responsible for those who are not? What kind of F'd up logic is that? "Sure... don't worry about it. Do what ever you want, society will take care of you." I'm all for helping people who fall on hard times but people who just blatently throw responsibility to the wind can kiss my ass.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: zendari
A question for the libs: Why should we all have to pay for abortions, contraception, and birth control, subsidizing someone else's sexual activity?

Obviously, your only major concern in the financial cost to society of paying for abortions and contraception. Since you've overlooked the obvious, it might be useful to compare a few costs:

Cost of an abortion: ~$1000.
Lifetime cost of birth control (assumes $1/day for 30 years) ~$11,000

Cost of prenatal care and delivery of a baby: $10,000
Cost of raising a baby to age 18 (includes public school, medical, day care, food, shelter, clothing, transportation): $200,000+

I'd say preventing all those babies from being born represents a HUGE savings to us taxpayers. Since you're so concerned with the cost to society, I'm sure you heartily agree. Why, you ought to be a major advocate for abortions, "pro-abortion" in the truest sense of the word.

 

[dmcowen674]

No worries, the U.S. will require women to get circumsized and sewn up anyway.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: zendari
A question for the libs: Why should we all have to pay for abortions, contraception, and birth control, subsidizing someone else's sexual activity?

Obviously, your only major concern in the financial cost to society of paying for abortions and contraception. Since you've overlooked the obvious, it might be useful to compare a few costs:

Cost of an abortion: ~$1000.
Lifetime cost of birth control (assumes $1/day for 30 years) ~$11,000

Cost of prenatal care and delivery of a baby: $10,000
Cost of raising a baby to age 18 (includes public school, medical, day care, food, shelter, clothing, transportation): $200,000+

I'd say preventing all those babies from being born represents a HUGE savings to us taxpayers. Since you're so concerned with the cost to society, I'm sure you heartily agree. Why, you ought to be a major advocate for abortions, "pro-abortion" in the truest sense of the word.

An abortion costs a $1000?!?!?! :Q

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: zendari
A question for the libs: Why should we all have to pay for abortions, contraception, and birth control, subsidizing someone else's sexual activity?

Obviously, your only major concern in the financial cost to society of paying for abortions and contraception. Since you've overlooked the obvious, it might be useful to compare a few costs:

Cost of an abortion: ~$1000.
Lifetime cost of birth control (assumes $1/day for 30 years) ~$11,000

Cost of prenatal care and delivery of a baby: $10,000
Cost of raising a baby to age 18 (includes public school, medical, day care, food, shelter, clothing, transportation): $200,000+

I'd say preventing all those babies from being born represents a HUGE savings to us taxpayers. Since you're so concerned with the cost to society, I'm sure you heartily agree. Why, you ought to be a major advocate for abortions, "pro-abortion" in the truest sense of the word.

An abortion costs a $1000?!?!?! :Q

Abortion analysis - look about a page down

In 1997, the average cost of a first-trimester, non-hospital abortion with local anesthesia was $319. In 2000 this cost was $372. For low-income and younger women, gathering the necessary funds for the procedure often causes delays. Compounding the problem is the fact that the cost of abortion rises with gestational age: in 2001, non-hospital facilities charged $774 for abortion at 16 weeks gestation and $1,179 at 20 weeks.

Even if the actual cost is a factor of two or three greater, arguments about the "cost to society" of paying for abortions and contraception are patently absurd when one considers the cost to society of raising the unwanted children of indigent mothers.

And I was being VERY conservative in my estimates of what it costs to raise a child. The cost of day-care alone is $1000/month where I live, and public schooling of a child is approximately $6000/year. Food, health care, clothing, housing, transportation? Many $1000's more per year. And let's not forget that the children of welfare mothers are MUCH more apt to be welfare parents themselves and produce additional children that society has to pay for. If you factor the multi-generational effect into the "cost to society" of bringing a single child to term rather than preventing/aborting it, I'll bet we're EASILY talking in excess of $300,000; maybe a lot more.

As usual, those who make the emotional argument about "paying for the careless sexual practices" of indigent girls/women don't really want to stand behind their statements. If "cost" were really their main concern, they'd be advocating that we drag every one of those "spread-legged whores" (Zendari's term) onto a table and strap them down so we can pull those costly fetuses right out of their wombs.

But of course, we already know from countless examples that the right is more interested in winning arguments than in having honest ones.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: zendari
A question for the libs: Why should we all have to pay for abortions, contraception, and birth control, subsidizing someone else's sexual activity?

Obviously, your only major concern in the financial cost to society of paying for abortions and contraception. Since you've overlooked the obvious, it might be useful to compare a few costs:

Cost of an abortion: ~$1000.
Lifetime cost of birth control (assumes $1/day for 30 years) ~$11,000

Cost of prenatal care and delivery of a baby: $10,000
Cost of raising a baby to age 18 (includes public school, medical, day care, food, shelter, clothing, transportation): $200,000+

I'd say preventing all those babies from being born represents a HUGE savings to us taxpayers. Since you're so concerned with the cost to society, I'm sure you heartily agree. Why, you ought to be a major advocate for abortions, "pro-abortion" in the truest sense of the word.

You forgot 2 other things:

Costs of not having sex: free
Income earned by 18 year old after adulthood: 20k a year x 40 years = $800k.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: zendari
A question for the libs: Why should we all have to pay for abortions, contraception, and birth control, subsidizing someone else's sexual activity?

Obviously, your only major concern in the financial cost to society of paying for abortions and contraception. Since you've overlooked the obvious, it might be useful to compare a few costs:

Cost of an abortion: ~$1000.
Lifetime cost of birth control (assumes $1/day for 30 years) ~$11,000

Cost of prenatal care and delivery of a baby: $10,000
Cost of raising a baby to age 18 (includes public school, medical, day care, food, shelter, clothing, transportation): $200,000+

I'd say preventing all those babies from being born represents a HUGE savings to us taxpayers. Since you're so concerned with the cost to society, I'm sure you heartily agree. Why, you ought to be a major advocate for abortions, "pro-abortion" in the truest sense of the word.

You forgot 2 other things:

Costs of not having sex: free
Income earned by 18 year old after adulthood: 20k a year x 40 years = $800k.

Can we assume that you're celibate?

 

[zendari]

Assume whatever you like.

 

[imported_tss4]

I don't think you have to be celebate to acknowledge celebacy as the best way to prevent unwanted births. That is not the same thing as saying celebacy is the only option for preventing unwanted births.


I think the 1st trimester cut off is reasonable for abortions, HOWEVER, you will have a devil of a time getting it through both parties. Down Syndrome is diagnosed after this preiod and the abortion rate is about 90% for those discovered to have down syndrome. clearly, 90% or people diagnosed with down syndrom aren't pro-choice. So when the $h1t hits the fan, most people become pro-choice. Its a tough issue.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: zendari
A question for the libs: Why should we all have to pay for abortions, contraception, and birth control, subsidizing someone else's sexual activity?

Obviously, your only major concern in the financial cost to society of paying for abortions and contraception. Since you've overlooked the obvious, it might be useful to compare a few costs:

Cost of an abortion: ~$1000.
Lifetime cost of birth control (assumes $1/day for 30 years) ~$11,000

Cost of prenatal care and delivery of a baby: $10,000
Cost of raising a baby to age 18 (includes public school, medical, day care, food, shelter, clothing, transportation): $200,000+

I'd say preventing all those babies from being born represents a HUGE savings to us taxpayers. Since you're so concerned with the cost to society, I'm sure you heartily agree. Why, you ought to be a major advocate for abortions, "pro-abortion" in the truest sense of the word.

You forgot 2 other things:

Costs of not having sex: free
Income earned by 18 year old after adulthood: 20k a year x 40 years = $800k.

Oh, I get it. All those unwanted children born to welfare mothers become PRODUCTIVE members of society. More than that, they pay more in taxes than they consume. Pretty neat society you've dreamed up.

Sorry, in case you didn't realize it, even using those figures you've imagined, a person earning only $20K a year pays far less in taxes (maybe $3000 a year, at most, state + federal + sales tax) then they consume in state-provided benefits.

Such people are a net drain on society, AND MUST DIE!!!

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: zendari
A question for the libs: Why should we all have to pay for abortions, contraception, and birth control, subsidizing someone else's sexual activity?

People are going to have sex, youre too young to know but its actually enjoyable. Also if it wasnt subsidized there would be FAR more unwanted births. Since dumbya and the right are pushing abstinance only/contraceptives are evil agendas its absolutely necessary to keep unwanted births down.

What are you talking about? Contraception is available everywhere. You can buy condoms at your local convenience store. Can't afford them? Planned Parenthood and a dozen other orgs like them will give you contraception for free. The problem isn't availability, it's use.

Sure, people are going to have sex. But where is the responsibility that comes with the fun? Equasions must be balanced. You can't have one without the other. My personal view on abortion is this: You're making someone else (who has no say in the decision) pay for your mistake. And if the abortion is state funded then where exactly does responsibility play in? It doesn't. And if there is no personal responsibility expected of anyone, why would anyone excercise personal responsibility? And that turns into an issue much bigger than abortion real fast.

I never said contraceptives are not widely available--i said people who can not afford them should have them FREELY available.

So, youre claiming that if you dont pay (monetarily) for a mistake there is no responsibility? Do you also think one can not be moral without following the teachings of jebus christmas too?

And who is this "someone else" that is going to pay for ones mistake? If youre talking about the mass of cells called the embryo/fetus then you too must follow the doctrine of "love the fetus, hate the child." You also seem to think that women use abortion as a form of birth control. I on the other, know that its not (based on statistics from the CDC that i cant find ATM). But even if it was, i would rather see the state pay for 10 abortions @ $500 each to ONE woman than to see 10 UNWANTED children brought into society. But then thats just me...

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: zendari
A question for the libs: Why should we all have to pay for abortions, contraception, and birth control, subsidizing someone else's sexual activity?

Obviously, your only major concern in the financial cost to society of paying for abortions and contraception. Since you've overlooked the obvious, it might be useful to compare a few costs:

Cost of an abortion: ~$1000.
Lifetime cost of birth control (assumes $1/day for 30 years) ~$11,000

Cost of prenatal care and delivery of a baby: $10,000
Cost of raising a baby to age 18 (includes public school, medical, day care, food, shelter, clothing, transportation): $200,000+

I'd say preventing all those babies from being born represents a HUGE savings to us taxpayers. Since you're so concerned with the cost to society, I'm sure you heartily agree. Why, you ought to be a major advocate for abortions, "pro-abortion" in the truest sense of the word.

You forgot 2 other things:

Costs of not having sex: free
Income earned by 18 year old after adulthood: 20k a year x 40 years = $800k.

Oh, I get it. All those unwanted children born to welfare mothers become PRODUCTIVE members of society. More than that, they pay more in taxes than they consume. Pretty neat society you've dreamed up.

Sorry, in case you didn't realize it, even using those figures you've imagined, a person earning only $20K a year pays far less in taxes (maybe $3000 a year, at most, state + federal + sales tax) then they consume in state-provided benefits.

Such people are a net drain on society, AND MUST DIE!!!

Every child has a chance of becoming a good person, if given the chance by the people.

If you want to execute someone for being a net drain on society, execute the welfare moms and dads who pump out kids they can't afford. Just take some scissors, cut their skull open, and suck their brains out nice and clean. At least the child has a shot at changing, the parents who continue to spread their legs don't.

You also seem to think that women use abortion as a form of birth control. I on the other, know that its not (based on statistics from the CDC that i cant find ATM).

So the 1.3 million fetuses killed each year were for the health of the mother or the fetus?

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: zendari
You pay for it.
Parental consent for minors.

What if the parents have no involvement in the minor? Ever heard of latchkey kids? What if the parent cant be bothered to go to the clinic to give consent? What if the parents are abusive, but there is not enough evidence to prove it?

Spousal consent for married people.

What if the wife is in an abusive relationship? What if the wife cheated and realized her mistake, but wants to save the marriage? What if the husband abandoned the wife and cant be found/contacted? What if the husband is overseas, or working in another state?

Did you think of these scenarios?

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: homercles337

What if the parents have no involvement in the minor? Ever heard of latchkey kids? What if the parent cant be bothered to go to the clinic to give consent? Phone callWhat if the parents are abusive, but there is not enough evidence to prove it?Then you have the child. There's a lot more things than abortions that aren't allowed for children

What if the wife is in an abusive relationship? Divorce What if the wife cheated and realized her mistake, but wants to save the marriage? All the more reason to be honest What if the husband abandoned the wife and cant be found/contacted? Divorce What if the husband is overseas, or working in another state? Phone Call. You have 13 weeks to contact him.

 

[RightIsWrong]

I am amazed by a few things in this thread.

First would be that I actually think that Zen is making sense on a lot of points and I am in agreement with him/her. Secondly is that amount of times that I have seen that the gubment shouldn't be using taxpayer money on abortions. I wonder why this same logic isn't applied by these same people when companies are getting HUGE tax breaks and gubment welfare for aborting jobs.

I am and have been a registered independant for many years. I do fall more to the lib side of the fence more ofton than the con side. That being said, I am firmly in line with Bush's publicly stated abortion views. Not allowed as a form of birth control but legal for cases of rape, incest or medical necessity. I do not agree with the abstinence only or faith based sex ed however. Ignorance is bliss and costly. Education of all options; abstinence, birth control methods, etc. is the only way to effectively lower the rate of abortions and unwanted pregnancies.

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: homercles337

What if the parents have no involvement in the minor? Ever heard of latchkey kids? What if the parent cant be bothered to go to the clinic to give consent? Phone callWhat if the parents are abusive, but there is not enough evidence to prove it?Then you have the child. There's a lot more things than abortions that aren't allowed for children

What if the wife is in an abusive relationship? Divorce What if the wife cheated and realized her mistake, but wants to save the marriage? All the more reason to be honest What if the husband abandoned the wife and cant be found/contacted? Divorce What if the husband is overseas, or working in another state? Phone Call. You have 13 weeks to contact him.

Youre profoundly simplistic view of the world truly astounds me. You think its that easy to confirm WHO is on the other end of a phone line? You think its better for an abused minor to have (to carry to term) AN UNWANTED CHILD than destroying a mass of cells? And dont trry the "adoption" BS. Do you know how dangerous childbirth can be for young women? Not to mention the emotional scars. Youre WAY oversimplifying, but then youre just a kid so i guess i expect that.

You think abused women can just "get a divorce?" Just like that, eh? You really need to do some reading on spousal abuse. Better yet, volunteer at a shelter for abused women (although, i doubt you actually could being male). Its difficult for abused women to leave the house alone, let alone "get a divorce." So you would rather see an ENTIRE family destroyed--the very fabric of moral society you repugs claim to cherish--than to allow an ADULT woman to a minor medical procedure? All i can say is :roll: to your next point. Again, with the "phone call" is sufficient to give consent.

Just so you know, legal consent requires a signature and verification of identity BEFORE consent can be given over the phone. How do you suspect they protect themselves legally if they receive "consent" from someone not authorized to do so? Yes, you can give consent to have a conversation taped, but that is a very different form of consent than what youre thinking.

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: zendari
A question for the libs: Why should we all have to pay for abortions, contraception, and birth control, subsidizing someone else's sexual activity?

Obviously, your only major concern in the financial cost to society of paying for abortions and contraception. Since you've overlooked the obvious, it might be useful to compare a few costs:

Cost of an abortion: ~$1000.
Lifetime cost of birth control (assumes $1/day for 30 years) ~$11,000

Cost of prenatal care and delivery of a baby: $10,000
Cost of raising a baby to age 18 (includes public school, medical, day care, food, shelter, clothing, transportation): $200,000+

I'd say preventing all those babies from being born represents a HUGE savings to us taxpayers. Since you're so concerned with the cost to society, I'm sure you heartily agree. Why, you ought to be a major advocate for abortions, "pro-abortion" in the truest sense of the word.

You forgot 2 other things:

Costs of not having sex: free
Income earned by 18 year old after adulthood: 20k a year x 40 years = $800k.

At least we are getting to the core of why Repugs are anti-abortion. They need more uneducated minimum wage poor to work for their corporations, ie. Walmart, McDonalds, etc.

I'm not pro-abortion, but it's not my place to tell a girl when to have a child. Sure, don't have sex is the answer. That's like telling a Bush twin not drink or Rush not to do drugs. Does it work?

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: homercles337

Youre profoundly simplistic view of the world truly astounds me. You think its that easy to confirm WHO is on the other end of a phone line? You think its better for an abused minor to have (to carry to term) AN UNWANTED CHILD than destroying a mass of cells? And dont trry the "adoption" BS. Do you know how dangerous childbirth can be for young women? Not to mention the emotional scars. Youre WAY oversimplifying, but then youre just a kid so i guess i expect that.

If she was raped, most people, myself included, are willing to let abortion laws slide a bit. If the pregnancy is dangerous to her health, most people, myself included, are willing to let abortion laws slide a bit. If she's old enough to choose to spread her legs she's old enough to carry a child to term.

You think abused women can just "get a divorce?" Just like that, eh? You really need to do some reading on spousal abuse. Better yet, volunteer at a shelter for abused women (although, i doubt you actually could being male). Its difficult for abused women to leave the house alone, let alone "get a divorce." So you would rather see an ENTIRE family destroyed--the very fabric of moral society you repugs claim to cherish--than to allow an ADULT woman to a minor medical procedure? All i can say is :roll: to your next point. Again, with the "phone call" is sufficient to give consent.

Now murder is a "minor medical procedure"? Adoption is readily avaiable in most states (and should be more avaialable and encouraged in others).

Just so you know, legal consent requires a signature and verification of identity BEFORE consent can be given over the phone. How do you suspect they protect themselves legally if they receive "consent" from someone not authorized to do so? Yes, you can give consent to have a conversation taped, but that is a very different form of consent than what youre thinking.
Better a phone call than no consent at all? I'm well aware its not foolproof, but its a start. At the very minimum notification for husbands should be acceptable to everyone

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: zendari
A question for the libs: Why should we all have to pay for abortions, contraception, and birth control, subsidizing someone else's sexual activity?

Obviously, your only major concern in the financial cost to society of paying for abortions and contraception. Since you've overlooked the obvious, it might be useful to compare a few costs:

Cost of an abortion: ~$1000.
Lifetime cost of birth control (assumes $1/day for 30 years) ~$11,000

Cost of prenatal care and delivery of a baby: $10,000
Cost of raising a baby to age 18 (includes public school, medical, day care, food, shelter, clothing, transportation): $200,000+

I'd say preventing all those babies from being born represents a HUGE savings to us taxpayers. Since you're so concerned with the cost to society, I'm sure you heartily agree. Why, you ought to be a major advocate for abortions, "pro-abortion" in the truest sense of the word.

You forgot 2 other things:

Costs of not having sex: free
Income earned by 18 year old after adulthood: 20k a year x 40 years = $800k.

At least we are getting to the core of why Repugs are anti-abortion. They need more uneducated minimum wage poor to work for their corporations, ie. Walmart, McDonalds, etc.

I'm not pro-abortion, but it's not my place to tell a girl when to have a child. Sure, don't have sex is the answer. That's like telling a Bush twin not drink or Rush not to do drugs. Does it work?

When the Bush twins get drunk they don't rectify the situation by taking the life of another human being. Might surprise you, but I'm in favor of decriminilizing all drugs. .

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: zendari
A question for the libs: Why should we all have to pay for abortions, contraception, and birth control, subsidizing someone else's sexual activity?

Obviously, your only major concern in the financial cost to society of paying for abortions and contraception. Since you've overlooked the obvious, it might be useful to compare a few costs:

Cost of an abortion: ~$1000.
Lifetime cost of birth control (assumes $1/day for 30 years) ~$11,000

Cost of prenatal care and delivery of a baby: $10,000
Cost of raising a baby to age 18 (includes public school, medical, day care, food, shelter, clothing, transportation): $200,000+

I'd say preventing all those babies from being born represents a HUGE savings to us taxpayers. Since you're so concerned with the cost to society, I'm sure you heartily agree. Why, you ought to be a major advocate for abortions, "pro-abortion" in the truest sense of the word.

You forgot 2 other things:

Costs of not having sex: free
Income earned by 18 year old after adulthood: 20k a year x 40 years = $800k.

At least we are getting to the core of why Repugs are anti-abortion. They need more uneducated minimum wage poor to work for their corporations, ie. Walmart, McDonalds, etc.

I'm not pro-abortion, but it's not my place to tell a girl when to have a child. Sure, don't have sex is the answer. That's like telling a Bush twin not drink or Rush not to do drugs. Does it work?

When the Bush twins get drunk they don't rectify the situation by murdering another human being. Might surprise you, but I'm in favor of decriminilizing all drugs. .

you use the term "murder" a lot for some one that's ok with 1st trimester abortions. If its "murder" then why is it ok in the 1st trimester? You were making sense eariler, but when you throw the term murder around you start to sound awfully similar to the liberals that love to throw the nazi term at bush. It gets harder to take you serious then.

 

[zendari]

There is a difference between what I want and what I'm willing to accept. Believe me, I wouldn't lose sleep if abortion was banned outright. But I suppose you are right.

 

[conjur]

ooo...look at the high and mighty abortion foes. See how far they fall!

Fla. Abortion Foe Jailed in Molestation
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050729/ap_...;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

 

[Eeezee]

The funniest thing is when an anti-abortionist claims to be saving the lives of a bunch of babies by bombing an abortion clinic and effectively killing doctors, mothers, AND the babies that they tried to say.

Just proof that these anti-abortion people are mostly retarded and should probably have been aborted.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Eeezee
The funniest thing is when an anti-abortionist claims to be saving the lives of a bunch of babies by bombing an abortion clinic and effectively killing doctors, mothers, AND the babies that they tried to say.

Just proof that these anti-abortion people are mostly retarded and should probably have been aborted.

HAHA! That made me laugh...