Posted on 06/06/2009 12:48:47 PM PDT by theronraeway
Edited on 06/06/2009 2:14:23 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Actual title, alered by the troll:
According to the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit organization on sexual and reproductive health issues, state and federal tax dollars paid $89 million for 177,404 abortions in 2006.
“Already this year tens of thousands of Americans have asked Congress to respect the consciences of taxpayers and stop the abortion bailout,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony List, in early May. “As Congress begins the new appropriations process, it would do well to heed the voices of constituents and stop the flow of taxpayer dollars to the abortion industry.”
She added, “Common sense dictates one truism: we won’t find reductions in abortion as long as we continue to subsidize and promote it at taxpayers’ expense.”
Talking about subsidizing: The National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy reported that teen childbearing in the U.S. cost taxpayers over $9.1B in 2004; the breakdown includes $1.9B for health care, $2.3B for child welfare, $2.1B for incarceration and $2.9B in a lifetime of lower wages/less tax revenue. The accumulative estimated costs from 1991 to 2004 are estimated to have been $161B.
A child born to a teen mother who has not finished high school and is not married is nine times more likely to be poorer than a child born to a married adult who finished high school.
Babies born to teens are at an increased risk of low-birth weight and immediate health problems, including mental retardation, blindness, and deafness, plus respiratory distress syndrome and intestinal problems. American taxpayers bear these Welfare costs.
An example of the tax liability incurred with premature childbirth is the case of 33-year old Octomomma Nadya Suleman who is less responsible that any pregnant teen. Already receiving public assistance funds of $490/month in food stamps and an estimated $793 per month each in Social Security disability payments for three of the six existing children (a total of $2,379), the eight children born this past January cost California taxpayers another big bundle for her joys.
Although the actual medical costs haven’t been disclosed, in 2006 the average cost for a California hospital stay was $164,273 per baby, or $1.3M total, according to the Dept. of Health and Human Services. Unless she is more responsible in childrearing than she was in childbearing, the expenses will keep breeding on an already financially burdened California for the next 18 years.
With all 14 children conceived via in-vitro fertilization, it sure seems Nadya has been consistently playing the Welfare game – and California taxpayers aren’t very happy about it. “It's my opinion that a woman's right to reproduce should be limited to a number which the parents can pay for," Charles Murray wrote in a letter to the Los Angeles Daily News. "Why should my wife and I, as taxpayers, pay child support for 14 Suleman kids?” (Did he suggest cap and trade?)
Indeed, Charles. If intent on preserving the life of unplanned, unwanted and unborn fetuses, then anti-abortion groups, religious organizations and the charity of supportive citizens should bear the inherent financial burdens. Right is right, and the safety of the children would be better placed with the oversight of those who would guarantee them proper diet, housing, clothing and an environment to ensure they grow up as productive members of society.
If not for the dedication and determination of pro-life advocates, the fetuses will continue to be born into poverty, faced with malnutrition, sexual abuse and disadvantages in learning, putting them on paths that will most likely find their grandchildren in the same harrowing existences.
According to 2001 stats from The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, 40% pregnancies of white women were unplanned, 54% among Hispanics and 69% among blacks. We all know the conditions that await the lives of inner-city youths. Welcome to the real world, all you unwanted kids, thanks to anti-abortion advocates. The more the merrier?
Abstinence? Although we’re an intelligent lot, we’re still mammals with animal instincts inclined to satisfy rapture’s calling. Studies have shown that men think about sex every 52 seconds; women perhaps once a day, suggesting it’s the woman’s choice to accept the risk of pregnancy – outside of rape.
The average yearly cost incurred with each child born to a mother aged 17 and younger is $4,080 to the American taxpayer. In addition to the Standard Deduction, and with no need to file Schedule A, at the very least I should be able to claim this as a charitable deduction on Form 1040.
If not, the next poll should include the question, “On the issue of abortion, are you willing to provide $4,080, or more, in yearly taxes in support of making abortion illegal? Your answer is binding.”
A follow-up question could be, “Keeping in mind that you cannot change your previous answer, do you consider yourself a member of the Moral Majority?”
That statistic cannot be correct being that Pro Life Republicans controlled the White House and Congress in 2006.
Methinks this editorial writer may be a utilitarian. Chilling at how life is so casually summed up in terms of monetary value.
Abstinence? Although we’re an intelligent lot, we’re still mammals with animal instincts inclined to satisfy rapture’s calling. Studies have shown that men think about sex every 52 seconds; women perhaps once a day, suggesting it’s the woman’s choice to accept the risk of pregnancy – outside of rape.
The average yearly cost incurred with each child born to a mother aged 17 and younger is $4,080 to the American taxpayer. In addition to the Standard Deduction, and with no need to file Schedule A, at the very least I should be able to claim this as a charitable deduction on Form 1040.
If not, the next poll should include the question, “On the issue of abortion, are you willing to provide $4,080, or more, in yearly taxes in support of making abortion illegal? Your answer is binding.”
A follow-up question could be, “Keeping in mind that you cannot change your previous answer, do you consider yourself a member of the Moral Majority?”
Newbie FReeper theronraeway, I assume you are also Ron Rae the author of this garbage.
Your purely utilitarian rationale for continuing abortion is not only disgusting, it is WRONG.
Since 1973 FIFTY MILLION AMERICANS have been denied their right to life. However, they have also been denied their right to work and, by extension, contribute to the economy and even pay taxes. And let's not forget that many of these FIFTY MILLION would now also have children who are or would soon be contributing to society. Countries only prosper as long as they are GROWING and we have artificially stunted that growth. Social Security is in danger of collapsing because the Baby Boomers did not reproduce at predictable rates. Yes, the cost of government does increase with the size of the population, but not in all areas (for instance, the cost of defense really doesn't change based on the number of Americans).
But, if even if your false premise were true, it wouldn't change my mind one bit. YES, I am fully prepared to pay an extra $4080 per year to end abortion, in fact I will write a check today. You and your ilk may be prepared to sell your souls, but I will not.
I don't know if you realized this when you joined Free Republic, but this is a CONSERVATIVE PRO-LIFE forum, your assertion that abortion is good because babies cost too much is anything but conservative.
abortion industry
career politicians
These need to be deleted from society.They feed on each other.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.