A partial answer to abortion questions.

[Zzyzx]

.
According to government statistics it costs about $250,000 to raise a child in today's US economy. Many couples realize that they do not have that kind of resources available.

Therefore, I propose that abortion opponents DONATE a quarter million dollars to EACH mother / couple to avoid abortion and raise another child.

That should increase population growth in the US by some portion of a million per year – 1.3 million abortions (half by Christians) – and 40 million per year worldwide.

What the Earth really needs is more humans, right?

[Peter]

More humans indeed! Currently, 400,000 new babies every day and only 200,000 deaths per day worldwide. C'mon people we need to even those numbers out.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

After all, abortion patients only ever do it to avoid monetary costs.


Though I wonder if that 150 (£) grand cost includes subsidised stuff.

[ten10ths]

.
According to government statistics it costs about $250,000 to raise a child in today's US economy. Many couples realize that they do not have that kind of resources available.

Therefore, I propose that abortion opponents DONATE a quarter million dollars to EACH mother / couple to avoid abortion and raise another child.

That should increase population growth in the US by some portion of a million per year – 1.3 million abortions (half by Christians) – and 40 million per year worldwide.

What the Earth really needs is more humans, right?

Maybe people who are against abortions shouldn't get them and stay out of the business of others who do instead?
In the meantime, anti-abortion people can put their efforts into educating others on how bad abortion is
But I guess it's easier to scream at people, calling them names and passing laws to hamper the FREE WILL of other people, ain't it

[Zzyzx]

.

After all, abortion patients only ever do it to avoid monetary costs.

Why would you assume that?

Though I wonder if that 150 (£) grand cost includes subsidised stuff.

That may vary with the society in question. UK may subsidize more than other nations. US seems to be trying to catch up in that regard.

There are many websites devoted to the cost and considerations of child rearing -- accessible with any Internet search engine.

[Elijah John]

.
According to government statistics it costs about $250,000 to raise a child in today's US economy. Many couples realize that they do not have that kind of resources available.

Therefore, I propose that abortion opponents DONATE a quarter million dollars to EACH mother / couple to avoid abortion and raise another child.

That should increase population growth in the US by some portion of a million per year – 1.3 million abortions (half by Christians) – and 40 million per year worldwide.

What the Earth really needs is more humans, right?

Nice try, but no one (except a rapist) is FORCING anyone to get pregnant, so therefore no one has an obligation to fund the raisin' of the child.

But once a child is conceived, one (both parents) takes up the responsibility of parenthood, and to raise the child and not kill it, no matter what stage of development said child may find themselves in.

What you are proposing is blackmail, saying "pay us a quarter of a mil or we will kill the child". Now THAT is coersion!

Whatever happened to the notion of "personal responsibility" of the woman AND the man who get themselves into the pregnancy situation in the first place?

[Zzyzx]

.

What the Earth really needs is more humans, right?

Nice try, but no one (except a rapist) is FORCING anyone to get pregnant, so therefore no one has an obligation to fund the raisin' of the child.

That seems to free males from financial obligation unless they are rapists.

But once a child is conceived, one (both parents) takes up the responsibility of parenthood, and to raise the child and not kill it, no matter what stage of development said child may find themselves in.

Under the law of the United States the parents CAN option to terminate the pregnancy. Agreed?

That you (generic term) try to impose some moral obligation that you champion upon other people who have different beliefs / opinions is BEYOND the law. What gives you the right to be above the law?

What you are proposing is blackmail, saying "pay us a quarter of a mil or we will kill the child". Now THAT is coersion!

A pound is about to euthanize some cats and dogs because they cannot afford to keep and feed the animals. People who have no involvements other than emotion say the pound should be obligated to keep the animals regardless.

I do NOT equate dogs with people but DO suggest "Put your money where your mouth is." Those who think the animals should be kept for a lifetime should fund that operation.

Whatever happened to the notion of "personal responsibility" of the woman AND the man who get themselves into the pregnancy situation in the first place?

I am all for personal responsibility. If an unwanted pregnancy occurs take responsibility to have an abortion.

[Elijah John]

.

What the Earth really needs is more humans, right?

Nice try, but no one (except a rapist) is FORCING anyone to get pregnant, so therefore no one has an obligation to fund the raisin' of the child.

That seems to free males from financial obligation unless they are rapists.

But once a child is conceived, one (both parents) takes up the responsibility of parenthood, and to raise the child and not kill it, no matter what stage of development said child may find themselves in.

Under the law of the United States the parents CAN option to terminate the pregnancy. Agreed?

That you (generic term) try to impose some moral obligation that you champion upon other people who have different beliefs / opinions is BEYOND the law. What gives you the right to be above the law?

What you are proposing is blackmail, saying "pay us a quarter of a mil or we will kill the child". Now THAT is coersion!

A pound is about to euthanize some cats and dogs because they cannot afford to keep and feed the animals. People who have no involvements other than emotion say the pound should be obligated to keep the animals regardless.

I do NOT equate dogs with people but DO suggest "Put your money where your mouth is." Those who think the animals should be kept for a lifetime should fund that operation.

Whatever happened to the notion of "personal responsibility" of the woman AND the man who get themselves into the pregnancy situation in the first place?

I am all for personal responsibility. If an unwanted pregnancy occurs take responsibility to have an abortion.

I did not let men off the hook, dispite what you are suggesting in the first line of your response. I answered that in the last comment I made in that post.

Of course, many abortions are (unfortunately) LEGAL in this country, but moral is another question. I give the benefit of the doubt on the side of life, so unless a woman's life is threatened or she is raped, I fight, argue, vote and strive to protect the unborn baby.

Regarding your animal pound comparison, not even close, imo. As much as I love cats and dogs, the issue of responsibility does not enter the equation. Animals reproduce without regard to issues of support, that is their nature.

Humans should know better, and again, men and women should be prepared to accept responsibility for their actions.

By the way, I am for no-kill shelters for animals, and wish they were all that way, so I am consistent with innocent life.

Let me ask you this, do you consider a society that protects the unborn a backwards society, (like you seem to regard theistic socities), and like Ireland was until a few years ago?

If abortion on demand is a sign of an advanced, civilized society, you can have it, (and in that regard anyway), let me have primitivism instead.

If I believe in my heart that abortion on demand is wrong, that it is in effect, homicide, am I not morally obligated to fight it by every LAWFUL means?

[TheGreatDebate]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

According to government statistics it costs about $250,000 to raise a child in today's US economy. Many couples realize that they do not have that kind of resources available.

Therefore, I propose that abortion opponents DONATE a quarter million dollars to EACH mother / couple to avoid abortion and raise another child.

Since you promote unwanted children being a drag on society (ancient Rome aborted up to 2 years of age), I promote everyone providing 62k for each welfare recipient and 15k for each student in the country or we put them to death. It's not like they are doing anything good for society anyway. You know, just living and stuff.

If you don't want a child, THEN DONT HAVE SEX. Children are the result whether you like it or not. You act like it is your right to avoid the consequences of your own actions. And not even in the sense that their are no consequences. You realize there are and you expect others to pay for them. Irresponsibility leads to utopia!

Although I do have to admit, our society has caused the market for this. Children used to be a help for the family, now they are a burden. Reasons: abandoned God = humanism.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 5 by Zzyzx]

It wasn't to be taken seriously, just that all but one of the questions address the finances of the aborting family (and overpopulation could probably be solved with money too).

According to the Guardian, an average child in the UK costs 200-240 grand ($320-390k)
About £72k ($115) of that is education alone, which is almost entirely subsidized. (Eg £27k tuition fees for University, £10-20k grant for Uni/higher ed, etc)
Not sure about the rest.