The Cost of Abortion to My Generation

MW: Wow.

People rarely think ahead and count the cost. When you amortize it out over a period of time, the impact is staggering.

For a poting forum, I feel strangely....quiet.

"poting"? oops. meant posting.

Close, but you need to recognize that the aborted children are out of proportion minority unborn children.

Go back to your pictures. Now move the X's to lie over predominantly black and latino children.

1/4 sounds suspicious to me. What is your backup for that number?

paul: You're right, and I debated making that point as well, but decided against it. If anyone is interested, check out BlackGenocide.org.

Phelps: There have been more than 30 million abortions in the past 30 years (maybe even 40 million), and there are between 100 million and 110 million people in the under-30 demographic. In America alone, of course.

Strangely ,you count abortion as a cost to your generation,by wiping out the faces of those not aborted..Is the population of the US going down by 25%?? of course not...but nice propaganda twist..

Thanks so much...awesome post.

embutler: Does it only boil down to a numbers game? Population? Your point doesn't make sense - of course the US population isn't "going down" by 25%. Neither would the US population be higher by 25% either - parents would make different choices in the future. But, again, that isn't the point.

The point is those children who were not given a chance to live are forever lost. America was denied their contributions to society.

30+ million non-scholars, non-athletes, non-best friends, non-leaders, non-workers, non-bridesmaids, non-doctors, non-preachers, non-nurses, non-.355 lifetime hitters, non-kindergarten teachers, non-confidants, non-husbands, non-wives, non-parents, non-.........

Numbers. Sheesh.

Since you still want to throw uncited numbers around, I looked it up. It is 246 abortions to 1000 live births. A little math says that is one in five, not one in four.

The point isn't the numbers game. The point is honesty. If I can't trust you to give me solid numbers on an issue that you are holding yourself out to be an authority on, when can I start trusting you?

If it is a numbers game, you made it one with the graphics you posted.

My apologies to Michael about the 'numbers game'; I misread Barry's comment as coming from you. Mea Culpa.

Phelps: Based on the CDC data, the abortion ratio for 2000 was 246:1000, but as you can see from the data that ratio has been steadily dropping, from 311:1000 in 1995, and even higher in the late 80s. Spread out over the last three decades, I'm confident that 1-in-4 is pretty close to correct.

Anyway, does it really make a difference? Is murdering one-fifth considerably less heinous than murdering one-fourth?

No. And while I think that calling something murder that isn't is immoral, I don't consider it to be heinous. Just misguided.

Phelps: Well then why quibble over 5% (the difference between one-fourth and one-fifth) and denounce the entire post based on it? The point is the prevalence of abortion, and it's irrelevant that you think it's immoral for me to point it out, because your judgement presupposed its acceptability.

a couple of months ago CDC had it as approximately 45 million abortions since 1973

been listening to keyes' witness to black genocide,
that more black babies are aborted than make it to life.
don't understand how it can be so easily dismissed as not an issue worthy of being brought up,
not a wrong to be opposed by all races, with every opportunity at our disposal.
thanks for the post.

Phelps, your little math is a little off. 246 out of 1000 is a lot closer to 1/4 than 1/5. 24.6% rounded up is 25%, or 1/4.

Just saying...

Jack: if 246 are aborted and 1000 are actually born, that's 246 out of 1246 pregnancies ending in abortion, which is closer to 20% than 25%. Again, 5% is not much of a difference here.

... but wait. That's not counting "spontaneous abortions" (i.e., miscarriages) is it? It's hard to get the numbers on miscarriages, as so many occur so early in pregnancy, many women don't realize they are miscarriages. I assume there are far more medical abortions than miscarriages in this day and age (though, because women are trying to get pregnant at later ages, and are using more fertility techniques, I wouldn't be surprised if miscarriage rates had also increased.)

Actually, I would think there are far more spontaneous miscarriages than abortions. Especially for the reason you cited - that so many happen early in pregnancy, and are never really even detected.

Jack, it is 246 abortions PER 1000 live births. That makes the total 1246 (246 abortions plus 1000 live births). Even at that, it isn't the total number of fertilized eggs -- that is what we are concerned with, right? -- which is a much higher number, because a lot of fertilized eggs don't make it to live birth without abortion. I'm exactly right. And the difference isn't 5% -- it is a 25% jump. In other words, delete 25% of the 25% that were marked out.

Jack: Yeah, P is right in that it's a "ratio", not a "rate" as it's normally used (and my earlier numbers reflect that).

Phelps: Again, that's for the year 2000, if you're looking at the same data I am. Abortions have been dropping considerably recently, and I'm quite confident in my numbers over the whole course of the last three decades. Also, 5% is only 20% of 25%, not 25% of 25% -- but it's still only 5% of the total, which is what makes my claim of one-fourth significant, and one-fourth isn't much different than one-fifth, as you yourself admitted in your previous comment regarding heinousness. So this is a silly thing to quibble over, even if my initial numbers (spread over the three decades) were wrong, which they weren't.

I figured that somebody must have made an abortion counter by now, and sure enough they have: http://www.enyart.com/features/clock.shtml

Interestingly, that site claims that the 46 million figure is specifically children killed by abortionists, not just all conceptions that don't survive birth.

If you want to play with the numbers, consider that abortion has been legal long enough for the overall population effect to compound: Many of those aborted in the mid-seventies would have had children by now.

Michael, I like your comparison of abortion to child sacrifice. I remember learning that the Aztecs performed human sacrifice because they thought that their gods would punish them if they didn't. We kill far more children so that we can have irresponsible sex more conveniently.

The issue is perhaps not as objective as you make it. What kind of life would a child have growing up in a broken home? Would that child be more likely to become a doctor? Probably not.

Check this out:
http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/1/abramsky-s.html

Brett: My parents are divorced. It's better than being dead, and I'm doing alright.

I'm sure if Donohue and Levitt used intelligent arguments like that, then no one would have any problems with their theory. (

Brett - Social mobility is extremely high in the US. If we were all a bunch of serfs, your argument might hold a little water but in today's US? Give me a break

It took me ten minutes, but maybe because I'm a slow reader. Did you actually read the article? It makes some interesting points.

Socially mobile people have some motivation to do so. The point of the theory is that an unwanted child who in pre-Roe v. Wade was more likely to join society, and consequently was more likely to commit a crime.

Why aren't they (unwantetd children) socially mobile like our friend Michael Williams? Who knows? The study doesn't tell us, and I'm not smart enough to make any thorough hypotheses.

Hitler had no problem eliminating the lives he decided were inconvenient to him. Fortunately Hitler was stopped by courageous people. Our society does not have the courage to stop the Hitlers of our time, who are purging our society of the inconvenient unborn lives. Let's not mix natural ending of the unborn' lives vs. the intentional self serving slaughtering of the unborn lives. If the right to life is just a matter of numbers and convenience, let’s just have our country vote on the number and a priority system for elimination of the excess. What is unfair with that? We have already decided as a society that the unborn go first, but who is going to be next in the slaughter line? Will these life ending processes be more humane than what we do to the unborn? Anybody care to answer these questions?

Your questions:
1)What's unfair is that the right to life is more than a matter of numbers and convenience.

What about a right to life in a safe & happy society? Do unwanted children make that more or less likely (did you read the article? did it process)?

2) No one is going to be next in the slaughter line. That's absurd.

3) Cruel and unusual punishment would prevent an inhumane death, even in your ludicrous proposal.

4) I'm probably the only choice advocate willing to respond this morning.

Brett: Try to be a lot less condescending and I'm sure you'll get along just fine here.

1. There's no such thing as a "right to safe and happy society". There are, among other things, rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

2. Well obviously more babies are next, and many people have been trying to get old people on the trains with euthanasia. It doesn't seem so absurd to me at all, and the next to do are probably going to be the mentally handicapped -- who make society more dangerous and less happy, which appears to be your criteria.

3. Huh? Purposeless death is de facto cruel and inhumane. Plus, I don't know if you're familiar with abortion procedures, but having your brain sucked out by a vacuum and being chopped into pieces doesn't sound particularly pleasant.

4. No, there are actually quite a few people who read this blog you are pro-choice. I'm not sure why you enjoy playing the pompous victim role so much.

Brett, what is a safe & happy society? If one is not living a safe & happy life in our society, where does their number come up in the slaughter (To kill in a violent or brutal manner) line? Or do we just slaughter their unborn children?

Do you justify the elimination of unwanted children because they are inconvenient to society? Same reasoning Hitler used. By the way, what are your thoughts on Hitler’s theory of eliminating unwanted people? How does that differ from abortion, just a matter of timing?

Unfortunately, it is more a reality than ludicrous; our society allows the elimination of unwanted children as a matter of convenience and in the most inhumane and disgusting procedures. Where are you on that Hitler process of elimination? Not OK to incinerate but ok to suck their brains out and rip their limbs off?

There are unwanted children in the slaughter lines Brett. Why do you find that so hard to believe, when you yourself advocate the Pro-Choice position? What part of reality am I missing?

And Godwin's Law strikes again. I'm done with this one.

P: Right, because every comparison with Hitler is completely spurious!

I think this one goes well beyond "spurious" and into "gratuitous."

P: I don't think you know what spurious and gratuitous mean.

Actually, I looked them up on dictionary.com before I hit send. I meant gratuituous, in that he thought that as long as he agreed with your position, there would be no cost to him on it.

Looks like he was right, since you are now defending him.

P: Oh, I must've been confused because I thought we were talking about something else.

If your objection to abortion really is numbers, what about all those couples out there who are just deciding to not have children? They're just as guilty as those who abort their children. These people who are abstaining from sex or using birth control are robbing America of the contributions that their children could have made!!!

You know what the real issue is, there's no need to confuse it with other nonsense.

JR: The issue is numbers, in the sense that the numbers represent people who are being murdered. I'm not sure what other real issue there is. I'd say that being murdered is pretty different from not being conceived in the first place. I don't think my argument was what you perceived it to be, but perhaps that's my fault due to presentation.

O.K. I just wanted to make a point because I am pro-life and seem to have a different perspective than most people.
I had a difficult childhood. My parents aren't bad people but they were seriously misguided. I suffered from physical and emotional abuse. Physical abuse was limited to being beaten with a belt for long periods of time. (This is where someone usually tells me that this is what all parents do, but since none of the other little girls in gym class had welts all over their back, I assure you not all parents behave this way.) It wasn't bad all the time. I'm really not trying to make this into a victim story. My childhood was certainly not as bad as some. I'm sure many people could have come out of it and still been pretty much mentally healthy. My sister did, as a matter of fact. But I didn't. I have a serious problem with depression and anxiety. I have crappy insurance that does not cover mental health care, and I can not afford treatment. I have nothing going for me in this life and I have no reason to believe that things are going to change. I am constantly resentful that I can not commit suicide because of the pain it would cause to my "friends" and family. The very same people who do not take my mental illness seriously because I am not "suicidal", would certainly at least feel guilty, or possibly just angry, if I was to do myself in.
Furthermore, I definitely do not want to ever get pregnant. It sounds like absolute hell to me. The pregnancy, the birth, all seem like something that I can certainly do without. If I ever did become pregnant, I would, of course, have the baby, but I would bitch about it the entire time. I would think it was distinctly unfair.
But I didn't come up with the system. Unfortunately for girls like me, babies are conceived and grow inside our bodies. Even if we don't want them, there they are. They are living creatures, organisms composed of human cells. They are not part of the woman's body, they are a presence inside the woman's body. And to destroy them is to take a life which is not yours to take. It is not your place to decide whether or not they are better off dead. It is not your place to say that you must destroy them for the good of society. Whether or not there is a God, whether or not humans are basically good or bad, I can not think it's crazy to have this one rule. People should not kill eachother. How ever many things people disagree on, how can this be the one that divides people so completely? Should killing, especially in cold blood, not be avoided at all costs? Sadly, many people will say no. Even as I write this, I know that my arguement changes no one's mind. Those who are pro-choice will choose not to listen. They will swath any new arguement in their old lines, hide any new idea from themselves until it goes away and they don't have to think about it anymore. I'm not trying to be condescending or insult you here. I think everyone does this, about all kinds of issues. I just happen to think it's a shame that a little light can't be allowed to shine at least on this one issue.
And that's why it is such a sad, hopeless sort of world. And from where I'm standing, bringing a child into it is not such a great thing to do. But it is even worse to bring a child into the world and then destroy it. That is only contributing to the downward spiral we are all heading down.

Apologies for the long post and poor grammer.

lifegirl: You said "Unfortunately for girls like me, babies are conceived and grow inside our bodies. Even if we don't want them, there they are." and I understand your point about women carrying babies; we can't change that they are people and we carry them.

But they don't just 'happen' to us, it isn't unfair. If you have sex, you could get pregnant. That is unfair to me in that I have sex all the time with my husband and can't get pregnant. But it wouldn't be unfair to you, because you put yourself at risk for pregnancy.

I'm sure you know this and didn't mean to make the point that women have no choice in getting pregnant or not. I just wanted to bring up that women have free choice whether or not to risk pregnancy (except for rape, in which case I still can't justify killing the innocent baby).

If babies are so unwanted, why are all these people having sex?

You say not being conceived is better than being murdered which is a fair point. But the high rate of abortion must be due in part to lack of birth control and is often in the poorest families in the country. It is also a question of survival. With several children it becomes harder to give each one the nourishment, care and attention they deserve. People throughout history have abandoned, given away or even killed children for which they were unable to care. Abortion is perhaps one step better than this. Even better would be better education, availability and in come cases,cultural acceptance leading to more widespread of birth control. Abortion is now commonly used as a method of birth control which is very sad.

I'm not completely sure how I feel about abortion. I don't think we can evaluate the "cost" to our generation. Our generation may have aborted many Einsteins and Hitlers. Also as population grows, natural resources stay the same, while human resources grow.

I can say, I don't think that the death of someone isn't always a bad thing. I think suicide should be an option.... for some I think it's the honorable thing to do. Maybe with required counceling first? I dunno... Weak, sickly people shouldn't be "forced to live." Of course for some, this is a religious issue and I my arguemnts would still be wrong.

(and to be fair, take out the pictures that don't belong in your generation, and add random picture from a prison)

I notice that all the pro-life arguments here are based on the logic of 'abortion is wrong therefore abortion is wrong'. Stop and ask: what is abortion? Termination of pregnancy, sure. But what are we aborting? That is where the argument lies.

You assume that a foetus is a person and therefore will always conclude that abortion is murder. What is a person? At what point does a collection of cells with human genetic code become a person? The argument should be focused on what point this happens. You assume this is at conception yet offer no argument as to why this should be the case. Assuming the moon is made of cheese, it will be nice to eat. If the only argument you can put forward to support to assumption is religious, then as someone else said we may as well end discussion here. The most you can say is that your God says abortion is wrong, not abortion is wrong.

Similarly for the pro-choicers, they resort to 'abortion is OK because abortion is OK' style arguments. It is fine for me to end this pregnancy since I am only rejecting a collection of cells, not a person. The appropriate assumption slips in.

Trep: I don't see why you assume that I haven't defended my position that life begins at conception. See the article I link to at the end of this piece, for instance.

Michael, the article you quote is merely someone else assuming that life begins at conception. There is not a single word justifying their position, and by extension yours. If the courts assume the moon is made of cheese, does that make it nice to eat? We are told that "this legislation establishes significant facts that the courts will not be able to ignore," but are not given the slightest glimmer of information as to how these 'facts' have been procured.

Trep: Sorry, I'll try to be more clear. Go read this, which is the article I linked to at the end of the post I pointed you to.

Michael, apologies for the misunderstanding. Thanks for the link, I'll have a good read of it!

Here are a few more things to think about:
1. Republicans are probably in the majority now because abortions are much more likely to be a liberal's child.
2. Planned Parenthood was founded by a know Eugenicist.
3. Studies repeatedly show that most abortions are the result of pressure on the woman from the aborted child's father, the parents, or friends.
4. Women who have abortions commonly experience post traumatic stress syndrome to varying degrees for the rest of their lives.
5. There are other victims in an abortion. Sometimes the father and grandparents are not in favor of the abortion.

this is the biggest piece of crap attempt to say how wrong abortion is. ha ha idiots

i don't know when life begins and don't think i want to be guessing and hoping that i'm right. if life starts at conception then hitler will have nothing on the abortion docs. i just cannot understand the need for this. rape...but the child had nothing to do with it. health...must be rare for a birth to lead to a death because i'm in the health field and don't recall ever hearing of a case at any hospital i have worked at. it seems it is just a matter of conveniance. sad....