The FALSE side of Abortion Economics

Economics. It seems like such a safe subject, right? Think of the television commercials that look at the ‘cause and effect’ of being Phil Shifley – they show how the most unforeseen outcome can be the answer to a scenario; but Occam’s razor is a principle stating that among competing hypotheses, the answer is the most obvious [most sense or path of least resistance]. Essentially, unless the math doesn’t jive, it’s conjecture. The math of this abortion equation does NOT jive….how can this have possibly been calculated when ‘cause and effect’ cannot be totally determined. Incidentally, cause and effect are philosophical, not statistical.

The abortion economic question is this: Was abortion the answer to lower criminal activity BECAUSE of their mother’s present economic and social status?

The author of ‘Freakonomics’ wrote: “The very factors that drove millions of American women to have an abortion also seemed to predict that their children, had they been born, would have led unhappy and possibly criminal lives…….Perhaps the most dramatic effect of legalized abortion, however, and one that would take years to reveal itself, was its impact on crime. In the early 1990s, just as the first cohort of children born after Roev. Wade was hitting its late teen years—the years during which young men enter their criminal prime—the rate of crime began to fall. What this cohort was missing, of course, were the children who stood the greatest chance of becoming criminals. And the crime rate continued to fall as an entire generation came of age minus the children whose mothers had not wanted to bring a child into the world. Legalized abortion led to less unwantedness; unwantedness leads to high crime; legalized abortion, therefore, led to less crime.”

Also know that the author commented that having a swimming pool in your back yard makes your child more likely to die than not having a pool. I would agree to that….and add that having a way to harm a child close at hand, whether it is a swimming pool or an abortion practitioner, to be a very BAD DECISION and can result in a child’s death.

SIDENOTE: Is Obamacare the new ‘Freakonomics’….ponder that one.

Of course I have a HUGE problem with this scenario of abortion killing would-be criminals and particularly with the author [a term I use here LOOSELY]…because if his so-called research is correct, then every third-world child would never live outside the womb because they will always be in poverty, malnourished and ill. But then I remember that this was taken care of through people like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the like to curb who gets born in developing countries, simply because of the unborn child’s circumstances. Then I step back and look at how this has been developing since the birth of a woman that was so arrogant that she made herself judge and jury on who gets to live here in the U.S. – Margaret Sanger of Planned Parenthood.

Ah, cause and effect…it makes for interesting conversation but should NEVER determine the outcome of life and death for anyone that cannot testify on their own behalf.

 

One thought on “The FALSE side of Abortion Economics”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s