Sunday, January 8, 2012

Why not?

I saw this editorial cartoon by Steve Benson on Jill Stanek's site the other day. According to Jill, Benson is the one obsessing about banning abortion, not Santorum.

I think the whole thing is absurd, along with this "Santorum is coming for your birth control" idiocy. The president does not have the authority to ban abortion or confiscate condoms. The real goal is to scare people into voting for a president who has looser morals than they do because, hey, then he can't possibly criticize anyone else.

I say absurd, because what we desperately need in politics are people with morals. When we elect people who are OK with killing children, why are we surprised that they can't be trusted with money either?

But the good thing about this cartoon is it got me thinking. Is banning abortion really the way to fix the economy? To end war? To balance the budget? Last year, the federal government paid close to $350,000,000 directly to the abortion industry. What if we got rid of that? I know it's a drop in the bucket, but what would happen economically if abortion were banned?

As I pointed out in my post "Healthcare economics and abortion" the children aborted since Roe v. Wade would have contributed 17 trillion dollars to the US GDP. And that's net gain, not gross.

So, if you want to make fun of the idea that banning abortion is the solution to all our problems go ahead. But you've chosen some pretty shaky ground to stand on.


LOL, randomly found my way to your diatribe. Your post is lacking in critical thinking, especially if you think banning abortions would have contributed 17 trillion dollars to the US GDP. Many would probably be born into bad home situations and may end up needing government support to get by. That would cost taxpayer money, which I assume you are against. You can't use average GDP per capita numbers to produce how much an aborted fetus would have contributed to the economy. Do you also assume that a homeless man, or a family on welfare and foodstamps also have an "average" GDP per capita contribution? When you simplify a complex issue, its a lose-lose for you and anyone that you can convince (which I hope never happens) with your simpleton logic. This world is not black & white like many politicians would like you to think. Critically think!

Hey Anonymous, your ignorance is showing. If you want to criticize numbers, do it with numbers. If you look at abortion statistics by income ( and cross reference that against US census data ( you'll find that most abortions are performed on women in the top 40% of household income.

Looking at abortion as a way to get rid of the unwanted poor, you are mistaken. Critically think yourself!

Post a Comment