-2 votes

How Religion has Failed the Fetus

Pro-Choice v Pro-Life

Pro-Choice Pushes
---Education: Sex is natural, never suppress, make conscious choices
---Contraception: use it, disease and unwanted pregnancy prevention
---Options to Abortion: Adoption - Keeping Child
---Abortions: Sanitized and 99% Safe

Pro-Life Pushes
---Education: Sex is Evil unless married, gays are made not born
---Contraception: is evil, obstain from sex (suppress urges)
---Options to Abortion: Adoption - Keep Child
---Abortions: You will go to Hell

Pro-Choice makes a better first argument; it begins with "choice"

Pro-Life means Forced-Pregnancy with no "real" Assistance from the Christian Community.

Pro-Choice -- 1.2M abortions per year -- averaging over over 1M per year since 1980.

The largest factors to the per capita reduction in abortions comes from the fact that Baby-Boomers moved outside the pregnancy years and Education (public school and entertainment making condem use more popular and available). This is largely the Pro-Choice arena.

Where Religions have failed is plain to see

Every religion (for the most part) is against abortion -- though they might not vote pro-life in all instances, as many Christians do not vote pro-life.

Voting will not end abortion.

Religious people have not effected the nominal number of abortions per year -- the number has been 1M since 1979-80.

There is no value in the fetus from the pro-life camp -- most of these women could be bought-brought to term. These women either pay or get free abortions -- if you offer them $20,000 per child born (limited one child per woman -- limited to 1.2M births per year).

That would be $22B per year.

If the religious are 95% of the working class that would be $125 per person per year. To save 1.2M births per year and give the women or young woman a chance at a college education or atleast pay for a semester or two.

So my question is not why the religious have not saved 100% of these kids, but why haven't they saved 10%.

The 10% cost would be $12.60 per child.

Who's having abortions (religion)?
Women identifying themselves as Protestants obtain 37.4% of all abortions in the U.S.; Catholic women account for 31.3%, Jewish women account for 1.3%, and women with no religious affiliation obtain 23.7% of all abortions. 18% of all abortions are performed on women who identify themselves as "Born-again/Evangelical".

The 23.7% who claim no affiliation are not necessarily "atheistic or agnostic" many people do not claim religion when surveyed (I know I don't).




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

the reason they have not saved 10% or 100% is because

we live in a society that doesn't value children. selfishness would even pressure most women into keeping their children if they thought about their own futures (children end up being assets rather than liabilities). most women having abortions nowadays do not want to be pregnant for even 9 months nor do they want a child that they have to make decisions regarding--whether it be giving him/her up for adoption or how to raise them. you cannot talk a woman who wants an abortion into keeping her child no matter how much help you offer her--believe me, i've tried.

Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html

If you understand how fetuses, children, and seniors

are HIGHLY valuable in a free-society AND that it does not come from "value" (see Mises "Value-Free" analysis) based on social constructs or religious mind-control / guilt-control.

The latter OBVIOUSLY does not lead to "value" in the Fetus -- because I (in my infinite wisdom -- hahaha) came up with the above in 7mins time what could "they" (the religious) come up after 40 years? Nothing.

The reason? Because they want the change to be forced via voting-lobbying war and owing to puritanical biblical-based "morality"

If I spent 14 mins on this, my model (above) would get better and for a time exponentially so -- what if we put 10 such minds on it?

Conclusion: The Religious do not care about the Fetus -- not because of a lack of biblical support for doing so, but because they will not look at the Ethical-Egoist (economic-individualist) arguments made by Mises -INSTEAD- they are waiting for God to take care of it.

Billions poured in Politics for 40 years now.
---Net result 0% reduction on the 30 year avg (1M per year).

The Houses Of Well Known Televangelists.

http://preesi.lefora.com/2010/10/25/the-houses-of-well-known...

Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
My ฿itcoin: 17khsA7MvBJAGAPkhrFJdQZPYKgxAeXkBY
http://www.dailypaul.com/303151/bitcoin-has-gone-on-an-insan...

The fact that you called it a

The fact that you called it a fetus in the title shows that you are ignorantly stupid of the WHOLE abortion debate.

There is no debate over choice. The SOLE point of debate with abortion is when life begins. PERIOD. Some people believe that life begins at birth. As in, right up to the point where the baby comes out of the vaginal canal, it is not a human life. Some people believe it begins the very second the sperm penetrates the egg. Still others believe it is sometime in between those extremes. (some may believe it is was the fertilized egg implants itself in the uterus, others say when the baby could survive outside the womb, etc.

People in the first group are OK with abortion all the way up to birth. People in the second group are not in favor of abortion ANY time, and are even against some forms on contraception that doesn't stop fertilization but only prevent the fetus from implanting. Those in the middle group have views on abortion consistent with their belief on when life begins.

Now...people's belief on this is NOT based on religion. There are plenty of doctors, scientists, ATHEISTS...etc who believe that life begins at conception.

Again..that is it. To argue ANYTHING else just shows how stupid you are. (And really..to argue at all is stupid since you are NOT going to change anyone's mind about when life begins on an internet message board.)

To the people who feel that life begins at conception (which is the largest group of people by the way) saying that abortion is OK is like saying that we should be able to murder YOU since you are as worthless as an unborn baby. If THAT life doesn't matter..then neither does yours. After all...at least the unborn baby MAY amount to something that their parents can be proud of. We already KNOW that you didn't. MAYBE the unborn baby will contribute to society. We already know you don't.

I can't believe you got "up votes" for this drivel -- Are you

drunk?

The OP Thread does not talk about "conception" -- this is not a trimester debate.

The OP Thread talks about a simple solution to reduce the number of abortions per year -- it took me 7 mins to think it up.

It "works" because this type of logic works everywhere else we want to use positive reinforcement to change or alter behavior or decisions.

This is not rocket science man.

In a Free-Market pregnant women, children, and seniors have tremendous value -- only in a mixed economy do they get treated like cattle during the most precious time of their lives.

I'm making a Misesian Argument (RP's mentor) -- do you read?

reedr3v's picture

IMO most people adopt their affiliations

and causes superficially, mostly by accident of the local or family culture they were born into. Few have any education in thinking policies through to the logical principles that underlie them.

Religions are mostly social constructs, so are political parties and ideologies. People wear Peace signs or carry ProLife signs or Choice signs who do not accept the Nonaggression Principle. People call themselves Christian or Republican/Democrat with zero understanding of the historic roots and changes these institutions have been through.

Yes religions have failed, but so have all dominant philosophies and ideologies. Schools failed to impart ethics and truth, governments failed to honor principles, families failed to take personal responsibility for the moral development of children and the valuation of individuals and therefore life itself except as some swarm of worker bees building a bigger, badder bureaucracy to attend to all details of said, sad. stunted life.

Reedr: Yes of course you are right

But the religious based their voting decisions on a politicians promise to fight to end abortion -- it's a 40 year failure.

Christians spend a lot of emotional and financial assets toward the "end of abortion"

What I'm saying is -- instead of the absolutist position (that we will only accept 100%) why not shoot for a reduction.

There's 10 - 20% of aborted fetuses that could be saved using the logic I presented above every year.

They wont do it though -- I've heard people use the "responsibility" argument -- so, my conclusion is they are fighting for the fetuses, they are fighting to fight.

Which is why I say ad-infinitum that "voting and lobbying is an act of perpetual war -- it is abdication and bribery respectively."

Again...you are just being

Again...you are just being ignorant or stupid of the whole ISSUE.

No...to people that think life begins at conception, it is NOT OK to allow 80-90% of the murders to happen without trying to stop them. Just like for some stupid reason, they think it would be wrong to murder someone as worthless to society as you are.

You made a pro-life straw man.

But the idea of giving money to those who want abortions sounds like it might work.

Can you sell your baby? You know, Ebay style?

.

Hear, O Israel: YHUH our God YHUH one. And thou shalt love YHUH thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

Jruss: Ebay plus somekind of background investigation

but yeah -- e-adoption could become popular, especially if the time to adopt is cut down from six months to two.

Responsibility for Choices.

If we overpopulate, planet Earth will do its own cleanse of the population through overcrowding and resultant disease, or starvation. Indiscriminate sex and over population have consequences. Better to provide contraception and educate children from a young age.

Let doctors offer abortion only under dire and necessary circumstances, and only when it is still an embryo before 6 weeks.

Paying people to have a child sounds like a Pandora's box of trouble.

Interesting solution.

I don't know if I trust the statics on religion. Is that the tradition they were raised or just a jab at Catholics or Protestants for a little fun? Or just the government exuding a little propaganda according to an agenda.

I DO think it is a problem for government to intervene on either side.

Even if it did, it can't solve cultural problems.

Free includes debt-free!

It's how the ladies identify when filling out the questionaires

Of course it's accurate -- there's 1.2M abortions per year, do you think that these numbers are cranked out by the less than 5% who identify as Atheist or Gnostic.

This is the problem with religion, when someone "in community" does something wrong it's always "oh, they are not 'true believers' otherwise they wouldn't do that"

Are they government statistics?

Are they statistics provided by federally funded facilities?

Can the numbers be independently verified?

It's odd that the reported results seems at odds with religious demographics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Religions_of_the_United_St...

Free includes debt-free!

MODS

While this is an interesting topic, does it really belong on the Ron Paul 2012 forum?

Thanks.

You have a contradictory premise

You have an unstated assumption that the urge to sex does not have a biological basis.

On the other hand you believe in the biological basis of behavior.

WHERE DO YOU THINK THE URGE TO SEX COMES FROM.

If you believe in evolution, was it because primates wanted to recreate?

Or is it the biological driver for propagation of the species?

(Duh.)

If it is the driver for propagation of the species, then the NATURAL state of affairs is sex for reproduction not recreation.

You just won an argument I never made (congratulations)

oh and I gave you thumbs up too *good job*

I don't care what the drivers for sex are.

The question I'm asking is, why haven't Pro-Lifers altered the nominal number of abortions per year -- by direct financial contribution. Instead of spending billions to not curb the yearly death rate one iota.

I can't be the first person to have thought of this.

I would argue that the reason is written in the OP Thread and let me rephrase it thus: "The Religious want people to not use contraception, to not have sex pre-marriage, and have something horrible perpetuated to gossip about."

My suggestion would be "buy those babies and adopt all the babies in the orphanage system" or create a far more dynamic orphanage system that drives those "un-wanted yet birthed" children toward a financially successful future with a strong emphasis on civic contribution.

All of what I'm suggesting could be done (saving at least 10% of that 1.2M yearly avg or 120,000 souls -- at minimum) with a donation of $13 per year.

In a free-society there is a powerful value on the young and the old.

Yes I understand this is a simplistic view

but regardless how drill-down we get on the topic for $10 to $100 per year the Religious Community could save 10% or more of these babies.

The profit from getting baby tissue or for performing the abortions (which ever is the prime driver) is outstripping the religious communities willingness to participate energetically/economically.

Instead Billions are spent on Regulation -- All of which has failed for every single year for 100% of all children born.

Voting and Lobbying can only GROW Gov't not Reduce it.
---Therefore Abortion marches on un-abated.

In a Free-Society there is tremendous value in Seniors and Children (thus fetuses) and businesses will help young mother's come to term -- the more consumers in a free-society the greater the savings, the greater the savings the better the borrowing capacity.

In a free-society the poor and middle class "own" the banks and the rich then come to the poor and middle class to borrow from, to invest in entreprenurial projects (the only fast money maker in a free-society).