Ellington

This morning I was playing on the "Focus on the Family" Website. I like to get on there and see what they are ANGRY about. (This also includes why I have started watching the 700 Club and have personal surveillance on Jerry Falwell to make sure he isn't stringing up gay people in his free time.)

Anyway, I get into their section on abortion. (This is the "pregnancy" section listed on the bottom of the left tool bar.) They have a PDF file containing an article and chart comparing the estimated costs to society of aborting a child against the estimated costs of a woman giving birth.

Now, in my professional opinion, this chart is bullshite.

I'll tell you why.

Instead of just using figures of what abortion costs society against what society pays for the birth of a child below the poverty level and throughout its life...they factor in these medical costs for the women who undergo an abortion concerning breast cancer, cerebral palsy, and premature births. This is based on evidence that women who undergo abortions have a slightly elevated risk for these three. Now, when I say "slightly" I mean...well, SLIGHTLY.

The American Cancer Society puts out a lists of risk factors for breast cancer and debunks BAD science at the end of the article addressing "alledged factors that increase risk of cancer" and states that the abortion/breast cancer risk has been proven to be untrue.

Now, beyond me having NUMEROUS issues with Focus on the Family using bad science to attack young women making the hardest choice of their life, they are actually promoting this shite to the rest of the country.

In including these medical costs of breast cancer, premature births, and cerebral palsy in their chart to prove that abortion costs more than giving birth to a child they are LYING to women and their families. Beyond that, when they calculate the costs of a child living below poverty level they factor in the difference between a one bedroom and a two bedroom home in MILITARY HOUSING as the cost acrued for having another child. They also ONLY add the jump in TANF benefits from one to two children in the state of Colorado as their cost for "living". Beyond public education and medical costs for a child that is LIVING-which they do not factor.

They then assume a lifetime salary for this child as the BENEFIT cost of this child paying taxes throughout its life to show that it actually BENEFITS society to have the child.

THEN, as if that isn't enough, they have an article that tries to convince me that America does not have enough human capital to do all the "producing, inventing, buying, and caring" that all of us Americans need.

I beg to differ. I think we're doing enough producing and buying. But, that's just me.

This is about them.

If you remove the BAD SCIENCE from the article and argument you find that the societal cost of aborting a child far outweighs the benefits an unwanted pregnancy and subsequent birth has on society.

This concludes your Sunday morning sermon of TRUTH.

Previous Comments

ID

103138

Comment

Sometimes I scare myself...I JUST realized what that "more" section was on the posting format. Forgive me. I'm blonde and ANGRY. ;)

Author

Lori G

Date

2005-10-09T10:46:43-06:00

ID

103139

Comment

That's OK. I should have told you directly. But I figured you'd figure it out. Angry blondes are smarter than people give them credit for. ;-)

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-10-09T10:47:55-06:00