There is a runoff
-
You can now go vote at the Minnehaha County Administration office Downtown
Sioux Falls at 6th and Minnesota Avenue. Your choices are Mr. Jordan
Deffenbaugh...
1 day ago
This blog printed on 100% recycled electrons.
Thursday, November 2, 2006
Four Million Dollars Saves a Lot of Babies... or Does It?
This morning's Argus Leader reports that the two main groups battling each other on the abortion ban, Vote Yes for Life and the South Dakota Campaign for Health Families, have raised almost four million dollars. (Vote Yes for Life has taken the lead, 2.2 million to 1.8 million, which suggests it costs more to get doctors to lie.) Now imagine if, instead of ads and posters, these groups had put their money into a fund to support the children of any women who otherwise would have had an abortion. About 800 abortions a year, divide those into 4 million dollars... presto! $5,000 per saved baby. That would cover a lot of pre-natal check-ups and maternity costs. But instead of directly helping women, we throw our money at media campaigns.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I've been thinking about these facts about all campaigns. If all these politicians would donate most of the money they waste on their campaigns to help low income people and the homeless, it would be better spent and we wouldn't have to listen and see them on TV all the time, plus seeing their hideous signs all over town.
ReplyDeleteI've been thinking about these facts about all campaigns. If all these politicians would donate most of the money they waste on their campaigns to help low income people and the homeless, it would be better spent and we wouldn't have to listen and see them on TV all the time, plus seeing their hideous signs all over town.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your basic premise that this is probably a gargantuan waste of money.
ReplyDeleteI don't think there's a correlation between the money raised, and the cost of paying off doctors. That seems like an unwarranted dig, although from a state away it's hard to understand the context of that.
If anything, I'm surprised the vote no folks have raised nearly as much as the vote yes campaign.
I would think survival of the fittest would slowly weed out all the families that teach their children that because it's not murder it's ok. I wonder what the statistics are for birth rates between Pro-Life and Pro-Choice couples.
ReplyDeleteEvolutionary forces in the US pushing population growth only in specific sectors of religious faith (mormon and catholic in particular) and the hispanic immigrant population pretty much predetermine that pro-life will eventually win out over the long term . I don't agree that it is murder, but it isn't a good thing either and I wouldn't be very upset. I think the wisest thing would be to recognize it as a trajic loss of a potential life, which isn't the same as a human life. It is only the potential and while the ability to end it should be legal, it should be recognized as diminishing the value of life and a destructive blow to the woman. best to discourage it without banning it.