« Liars' Figures | Main | The President's deficit 'reduction' speech »

Death Benefits, 2010 Edition

I have often said I don't like writing about abortion, but I do enjoy playing with numbers. Just over threeyears ago, I took a look at the number of abortions Planned Parenthood performed in 2006 -- 289,650, up from 264,943 in 2005.

Well, the numbers for 2010 are in, and now it's 324,008.

I'll let others assign values and terms to what that number represents, and limit myself to the purely mathematical.

That number shows an increase of 34,358 more abortions in four years, or a percentage increase of 11.86%. In the same time, the US population rose from 298,431,771 to 309,050,816 -- a percentage increase of 3.56%. So the abortion rate rose at roughly 3.3 times the rate of population.

Next up, let's put the Planned Parenthood abortion count up against a clock and a calendar. The general rule of thumb -- especially for those of us who like our math tidy and simple -- are that there are 250 working days in a calendar year, and 8 hours in a working day. Running that total number through those numbers gives us 1,296 abortions per day, or 162 abortions an hour.

Now to compare that number to a couple of numbers the liberals love to cite: American deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan. The most recent total are 4,447 in Iraq, 1532 in Afghanistan since the invasions in 2003 and 2002 respectively.

That means that on an average week, Planned Parenthood performs the same number of abortions as the total number of Americans killed in Iraq by around noon on Thursday -- and shortly after lunch on Friday, adds in the total number of Americans killed in Afghanistan.

That's every week, pretty much.

Let's look at that hourly breakdown once again. According to this source, an abortion procedure takes about an hour. The actual abortion part is 5-15 minutes, depending on how far along the pregnancy is. Let's toss in before and after prep and scrub time, and say that the doctor takes half an hour per patient. That means that a doctor can perform 2 abortions an hour.

Planned Parenthood performs 162 abortions an hour, which they need 81 doctors working all day, every day, doing nothing but performing abortions to keep up that rate.

Looks like the wages of sin can be pretty damned rewarding.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/41422.

Comments (63)

Well JT, it's not like they... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Well JT, it's not like they are killing 'humans'. Any number of those fetuses could turn out to be ducks, or dogs, or cats, or......

What? More deaths then Iraq... (Below threshold)
914:

What? More deaths then Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya combined?

The lack of 'body bags' must be why the shamestream ignore this? That and the fact that they worship at the altar of Baal.

That means that on an av... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

That means that on an average week, Planned Parenthood performs the same number of abortions as the total number of Americans killed in Iraq by around noon on Thursday

Great post, but could use some editing for clarity:

"That means that on an average week, Planned Parenthood performs the same number of abortions by around noon on Thursday as the total number of Americans killed in Iraq

We also won't look at the c... (Below threshold)
mpw280:

We also won't look at the color and political persuasion of the mother either. Wouldn't want to appear racist while slaughtering future liberals would we. mpw

Stop abortion? If Roe v. W... (Below threshold)
Chico:

Stop abortion? If Roe v. Wade were overruled, how many state legislatures would impose criminal penalties on women having abortions? On doctors, nurses?

What would be the penalty? Ten years in prison? Twenty? 30 days?

And how many places could you get a jury of 12 to convict? Maybe a handful of counties.

So, abortion would just move to other states and counties.

Get real. There will be states and jurisdictions where abortion is legal in the USA long after you're dead. Deal with it.

Chico, Oddly enough, as of ... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

Chico, Oddly enough, as of this writing no one said "Stop Abortion," in the post or the comments.

As long as we have any say in the matter the money for those abortions we must "deal with" won't be forced out of our pockets against our will.

Deal with that.

Chico, I don't want tax dol... (Below threshold)
mpw280:

Chico, I don't want tax dollars used to fund it here or in other countries. Why should the US taxpayer fund the murder of children in other countries as per Obama's first presidential order funding abortions in Mexico. mpw

Chico has a problem. He wan... (Below threshold)

Chico has a problem. He wants abortion to remain legal, but freaks out whenever people actually start talking about it, even in clinical, detached terms like my statistical breakdown...

J.

If de-funding abortion fede... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

If de-funding abortion federally wont stop abortions, and removing R v W wont stop it, what's your big beef Chico? Other than the money laundering that PP helps channel back into Washington.
unless you like all those minority babies getting aborted, you racist bastard

#5Looks like someo... (Below threshold)
914:

#5

Looks like someone forgot to flush again! Woop was it you?

Just think, if Barry had his way 50 years ago, his mother may have exercised a Womans right to choose in another country and we could have avoided this whole awful Presidency.

Effective use of birth cont... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Effective use of birth control reduces the demand for abortion.

Planned Parenthood devotes far more of its resources to preventing pregnancies than terminating them.

You people are weird.

"Planned Parenthood devotes... (Below threshold)
914:

"Planned Parenthood devotes far more of its resources to preventing pregnancies than terminating them."


That is 'our' resources not theirs.

Pathetic loser.

If you want to look at a mo... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

If you want to look at a moral issue in terms of crass cost-benefit--and of course you do, because you're a crass moron--consider this: insofar as those who get abortions are statistically more likely to come from poor economic circumstances, and to be single parents, terminated pregnancies save taxpayers money.

Crass. Moron.

Regarding oral con... (Below threshold)
epador:

Regarding oral contraceptives:
While some of the expensive brands wholesale for more than $30, there are many OCP's that wholesale for under $10 a month. The State and Fed programs pay about $15 a month per script to the organizations under various grants and programs. Without government support, a woman might have to pay a 10-15% markup from a "charitable" organization that supported women's health care. There are ways to ease the cost or oral contraception without requiring tax dollars to pay for it.

DepoProvera is way cheaper.

So the Planned Parenthood approach is not necessarily the most cost effective way to distribute women's health care and contraception.

Abortions make a lot of money, even with managed care reimbursements. THAT is the unspoken reason PP doesn't want the gravy train turned off.

Planned Parenthood devotes more of it resources to preventing pregnancies (but makes a hell of a lot more money terminating them).

By "making a lot of money",... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

By "making a lot of money", you mean "financing other parts of their operations", right?

PP isn't making anybody rich, right Dr.? They spend their money on staff and on service delivery?

They are making money for t... (Below threshold)
epador:

They are making money for their staff who deliver the services. Gotta figure on overhead you wanna throw out there to refute me?

JT, Death with Benefits a c... (Below threshold)
epador:

JT, Death with Benefits a catchier title.

hyper, I already quoted thi... (Below threshold)

hyper, I already quoted this on the other thread, but it bears repeating here. Your theory about "improved contraception cuts down on abortions" is a good theory, but it's utterly destroyed by reality:

That number shows an increase of 34,358 more abortions in four years, or a percentage increase of 11.86%. In the same time, the US population rose from 298,431,771 to 309,050,816 -- a percentage increase of 3.56%. So the abortion rate rose at roughly 3.3 times the rate of population.

Time to re-evaluate your theory there, chump...

J.

Right, so their staff are b... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Right, so their staff are being paid to provide a service. Why would I want to refute that? One should hope that medical professionals in the United States can still earn a living!

Anyway, it's not as though Planned Parenthood are in any shape or form responsible for the sour state of your nation's economy, right? I mean, an honest person would admit as much, right? They didn't crash the stock market, wipe out anybody's 401K, take any TARP funds, despoil the Gulf of Mexico, or hide any earnings in Switzerland or the Cayman Islands, right?

epador, I had to use the sa... (Below threshold)

epador, I had to use the same title from before... but I'm gonna try to remember that one, and steal it.

J.

Chico wrote:<blockquo... (Below threshold)
iwogisdead:

Chico wrote:

Stop abortion? If Roe v. Wade were overruled, how many state legislatures would impose criminal penalties on women having abortions? On doctors, nurses?

If the Congress has the Constitutional authority, under the guise of Interstate Commerce, to force everyone to buy health insurance (as the liberals claim it does) then the Congress also has the authority to make abortion a federal crime.

Chico, This is what your ta... (Below threshold) That's not much of an argum... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

That's not much of an argument, Jay Tea.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but here's what you're saying:

Planned Parenthood currently helps people with contraception; and yet: there are more abortions now than before. Ergo, Planned Parenthood has failed.

If that is indeed what you are saying, then it ignores the alternative: how many more abortions would there be if poor people didn't have access to contraceptives, from PP and other like-minded organizations? (There would be a lot more, obviously.)

Mighty Mouse, can you find a single example of a pro-choice individual defending that nightmarish clinic in Philadelphia? No, obviously, just as I'm not likely to find a single example of a Randian capitalist defending Goldman Sachs' undermining of the global economy for the sake of their own profit.

iwog, would you prosecute the woman seeking the procedure with murder? If so, you're a creepy misogynist; if not, you're inconsistent and lack the courage of your convictions. Either way, bite the bullet, creep/wiener (which is it?).

Until I am dissuaded of my ... (Below threshold)
iwogisdead:

Until I am dissuaded of my belief that human life begins at conception, I guess I'm a creepy misogynist (that is, if what you mean by "seeking the procedure" is the same as "completing the procedure."). It's that whole equal protection thing.

So come out and say it, the... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

So come out and say it, then: you would advocate for charging 16 year old women with murder if they seek to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

Creepy is right.

Here comes HYPER TO SAVE TH... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Here comes HYPER TO SAVE THE DAY!!!!!!

Yes the man who feels that under some circumstnaces it should be legal for doctors to commit infanticide, the man who feels that people should be able to chop off their own limbs if they want to, the Canadian who always defends the rights to Americans to have abortions no matter who what when were or how the word abortion comes into the discussion.

So come out and sa... (Below threshold)
iwogisdead:
So come out and say it, then: you would advocate for charging 16 year old women with murder if they seek to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

No. But if it were up to me, a 16-year-old voluntarily undergoing an abortion would be charged as a juvenile delinquent. The adult doctor performing it should be charged with murder.

The child in utero is a human being, and since an abortion kills that child, it is murder. In that sense, "unwanted pregnancy" as you use it is a false premise. The child in utero "wants" the pregnancy to continue, doesn't it?

Now, if there is a serious health matter at issue, it's a different situation.

You can only support abortion because you don't believe human life begins at conception. I can't see how you can think that, but I guess you do.


No figures on overhead hype... (Below threshold)
epador:

No figures on overhead hyper? Nothing to back up your lifted nose?

I'm not trying to be obtuse... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

I'm not trying to be obtuse, epador: what's your point? Is it just that they may not be the most efficient provider of contraceptives and abortions? Or are you implying that some people are in the abortion game to get rich?

iwog: if I hire you to kill someone, I'm the one who is ultimately responsible. Not the assassin, though they too are guilty of a crime. This is always the way: someone might think that they're staunchly in the camp of creepy misogynists, but when you poke at them a bit, and they admit that they wouldn't call the would-be mother a murderer, their lack of conviction is laid bare.

By the way, 'human being' isn't the same thing as 'person'. Fetuses don't want anything. It's in their interests for the pregnancy to continue, but that begs the question as to what entity's interests are of utmost importance.

You all know that abortion will never be made illegal in your country. Why not dedicate your respective energies to improving the lives of children, instead of possible children?

if I hire you to k... (Below threshold)
iwogisdead:
if I hire you to kill someone, I'm the one who is ultimately responsible. Not the assassin, though they too are guilty of a crime.

If a child hires me to kill you, the child is usually subject to prosecution as a juvenile delinquent. If a 21-year-old woman voluntarily undergoes an abortion, I believe she should be charged with murder. You were the one who made a point of a "16-year-old," but the point of my response must have flown over your head.

By the way, 'human being' isn't the same thing as 'person'.

You are astonishingly obtuse. Where did you find such mindless crap?

Fetuses don't want anything. It's in their interests for the pregnancy to continue, but that begs the question as to what entity's interests are of utmost importance.

Let me try again--the child in utero is an equal "entity" to the mother. Just as the child is at age 1 year, 1 month, 1 minute, or 1 second.

Fair point! That was dising... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Fair point! That was disingenuous of me. The age distinction is certainly germane, and as such you weren't being inconsistent.

Foetuses in utero aren't equal to the mother, though. That's simply false by virtue of common sense, but it's also false for more analytic (meta-ethical) reasons. I.e., mothers aren't by definition dependent on foetuses in order to survive.

Hyper, given that PPS books... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

Hyper, given that PPS books are not open to me, could you point me to the evidence that far more of their resources provide contraception and that it in turn has cut down on the # of abortions?

As I read more comments, I ... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

As I read more comments, I see that Hyper is once again competing with Richard III to see who can best paint chameleons.

One-week-old infants are de... (Below threshold)
iwogisdead:

One-week-old infants are dependent on somebody to survive. Do their caretakers have license to kill them off?

SCSI: just use your most co... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

SCSI: just use your most conservative assumptions. If PP prevented, say, 10,000 unwanted pregnancies by giving out birth control pills/condoms/etc., you can assume--conservatively--that hundreds of those unwanted pregnancies would have been terminated.

It's logically possible that the assumption is incorrect, but it's a statistical certainty that it isn't.

iwog: I would submit that one week old infants are also not persons, but we have other compelling reasons to care for, respect, and protect them. They lack the capacity for rationality, but their lives are valuable in a way that unwanted foetuses are not: both instrumentally (valuable for the parent and for society); and valuable to a greater extent than foetuses as they do not impose on any particular person for their material welfare.

Wow, if you keep moving fas... (Below threshold)
epador:

Wow, if you keep moving fast it seems like there is more than one of you, and it makes it harder to strike back.

"...to strike back."<... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

"...to strike back."

I never took you as one of the clowns who considers arguing with people on a frickin' blog to be THE WAR OF GOOD AGAINST EVIL! CONCEPTUAL RED DAWN!, but perhaps there is an insufferably humourless buffoon in even the most reasonable conservative.

iwog: I would subm... (Below threshold)
iwogisdead:
iwog: I would submit that one week old infants are also not persons, but we have other compelling reasons to care for, respect, and protect them. They lack the capacity for rationality, but their lives are valuable in a way that unwanted foetuses are not: both instrumentally (valuable for the parent and for society); and valuable to a greater extent than foetuses as they do not impose on any particular person for their material welfare.

Wow. And you call me creepy?

Where do you stand on death panels? How about special education children? When do children become "persons"? One month? Six? Two years? These are rhetorical questions, of course. Say--if you don't know what a "rhetorical question" is, are you a "person"? What if you misspell the word "fetuses" more than once?

Never mind. But, thanks for a glimpse into the liberal thought process.

"...just use your most c... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

"...just use your most conservative assumptions. If PP prevented, say, 10,000 unwanted pregnancies by giving out birth control pills/condoms/etc., you can assume--conservatively--that hundreds of those unwanted pregnancies would have been terminated"

One would first have to assume that if not for PP, and their attendant abortion business, these people would not have had anywhere else to go. PP merely filled a void at a point in time and was able to establish a strong connection with individual congress people to procure funding. They simply have little competition in the way of serving low income people.

One would have to wonder (and I don't have to wonder too much here) that if someone did set up business offering all manner of planned parenthood (small p in both words) services which excluded abortion, if the government (and by government I mean Democrats, big D) would be so eager to lavish them with funding.

I often think maybe we should just leave them alone and let them abort themselves into oblivion. But something inside me tells me that it is not mentally healthy for me to wish extinction on them.

So hyper, you cannot point ... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

So hyper, you cannot point to evidence of either
A) they spend more of their resources on contraceptive services than spent on abortion and related services
B) that the resources spent on A reduces the # of abortions substantially

You mistaken assumptions for facts again.

Foetuses in utero aren't... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

Foetuses in utero aren't equal to the mother, though. That's simply false by virtue of common sense, but it's also false for more analytic (meta-ethical) reasons. I.e., mothers aren't by definition dependent on foetuses in order to survive.

Love the logic. Let's extend it a bit, shall we?

Welfare recipients aren't equal to taxpaying citizens, though. That's simply false by virtue of common sense, but it's also false for more analytic (meta-ethical) reasons. I.e., taxpayers aren't by definition dependent on welfare recipients in order to survive.

You're right - it works!

"insofar as those who get a... (Below threshold)
laughingattrolls:

"insofar as those who get abortions are statistically more likely to come from poor economic circumstances, and to be single parents, terminated pregnancies save taxpayers money." Good Grief! Hyperbolist is actually the reincarnated Margaret Sanger, Hitler's favorite eugenics theoretician and Planned Parenthood founder. A sample of Sanger's thinking: "It [charity] encourages the healthier and more normal sections of the world to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others; which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of human waste. Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant" [The Pivot of Civilization, 1922]. 324,008 down and only a few more billion of those icky poor, brown people to go, Margaret. Keep up the good work!

While Guttmacher Institute ... (Below threshold)
dsc:

While Guttmacher Institute is definitely pro-choice, they're widely regarded as providing the most accurate statistics on abortions in the U.S., and have been quoted by both pro-choice and anti-abortion forces. According to their carefully researched data, the abortion rate (at least for women 18-54), has been dropping since 1985. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

So, is it mysoginistic to a... (Below threshold)
Tim:

So, is it mysoginistic to abort female babies? Or do they not count as womyn?

dsc,If true, that wo... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

dsc,
If true, that would indicate PP is increasing their market share in a shrinking field.

By the way, 'human being... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

By the way, 'human being' isn't the same thing as 'person'.

Wha?

What else do we call 'persons'? Giraffes?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/person

1
: human, individual —sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes

b : the body of a human being; also : the body and clothing

hyperbolist sure is a big f... (Below threshold)
Jim Addison:

hyperbolist sure is a big fan of killing babies! Maybe he could kill them faster in one of those commercial food processors - just drop 'em in and hit "puree" for a quick snack for the ghouls.

Perhaps he can take heart that Obama is promising to save the government money by "eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse," so presumably he will be shipping all the Democrats to Canada.

Also, why does PP have to h... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

Also, why does PP have to have money to pass out condoms to people? Can't they leave that to those more qualified...like you average public school?

/snark

So hyper, you cannot poi... (Below threshold)
john:

So hyper, you cannot point to evidence of either A) they spend more of their resources on contraceptive services than spent on abortion and related services

35% of their services is contraception, while only 3% is abortion.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/what-planned-parenthood-actually-does/2011/04/06/AFhBPa2C_blog.html

If an abortion costs $3000 (seems high) and contraception costs $100 (seems low), then they spend %17 more on contraception than abortion. With more accurate numbers, that %17 would be higher.

Well, first off doctors def... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Well, first off doctors defintely do not work for free or even reduced rates. If there is money to be made, they will be drawn to it like moths to a flame.

When the two asian jounalists/investigators went into N.Korea and were captured. Many of us prayed for them and a lot of effort went into trying to win their freedom. Even though they chose to go there. They knew the risk going in but they did anyway. Well, even though we knew they should have known better, we certainly didn't want them to suffer. That was for two naive grown ups. That is the same caring and desire of pro life people (my self included) in regards to the baby that is terminated. The cavalier attitude of pro abortion people and women in particular to a life is alarming. Even though we know most of those women in later years constantly think of the life THEY ended.

This is 2011 and Rov v Wade was pulled out of the SCOTUS ass in 1974. Medical technology is so far advanced now that it can be demonstrated when a baby feels and responds in utero. That is what scares the pro abortionists more than anything. They do not want that proven. It is not because of a core belief, it is because there is money to be made.

And I have to end this with addressing Hyper again looking down his long snooty noses at us americans that only want people to have a chance to live. Canada is a anti semetic country. Justin Beiber wouldn't meet with Israeli children while over in the middle east. Telling. ww

The country is broke, we ca... (Below threshold)
John:

The country is broke, we can't cut funding to PP we can't cut funding to NPR we can't cut funding to the National Endowment for the Arts. Gee wonder why most people think DC is disfunctional. Who cares what percentage of services is abortion we can't afford to fund PP. If the donations are up great that's how it should work, if you believe they do good work give them YOUR money. I'll pass they provide no service that I feel obligated to fund in any way.

The country is broke, we... (Below threshold)
john:

The country is broke, we can't cut funding to PP we can't cut funding to NPR we can't cut funding to the National Endowment for the Arts. Gee wonder why most people think DC is disfunctional.

What's dysfunctional is people who think that cutting funding to NPR or PP is effective in cutting the budget, as opposed to purely ideological actions. If you want to be honest about what impact to the budget those cuts might have, Wizbang has a great post today that demonstrates that: http://wizbangblog.com/content/2011/04/14/a-visual-guide-to-our-budgetary-problem.php

JohnI said it befo... (Below threshold)
retired military:

John

I said it before and I will say it again.

Double all income tax revenue to the govt from folks making 67k+ AGI and you still wouldnt cover the budget deficit for this year.

We dont have a low tax problem. WE HAVE A SPENDING PROBLEM.

Say it as many times as you... (Below threshold)
john:

Say it as many times as you like. Neither the Democrats nor Republicans are proposing to cut spending in any significant way.

john, you miss the point.<b... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

john, you miss the point.
We know what they say the %s of the services are, but not the costs or the revenues for each.

I provide many services to my customers, but not all of those services are equal in value.

Using your own #s,
If there were only 100 services performed at your rates:
35 would be contraception, at a cost of $3500
3 would be abortions, at a cost of $9000
Then they spend more than 2.5 times the money on abortion than they do on contraception.

But neither of us have access to PPs books to know how they "charge".

Keep in mind that abortions become more expensive and more dangerous the further along the pregnancy is. I've heard $100 per additional week after the first 2 months.

"Neither the Democrats nor ... (Below threshold)
retired military:

"Neither the Democrats nor Republicans are proposing to cut spending in any significant way.
"

True but I refuse to add to the problem by willingly giving them more of my money to spend.

James: "person" might apply... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

James: "person" might apply to dolphins and certain primates (I would suggest that it does). Basically it has to do with capacity for linguistic (conceptual) reasoning. Just an FYI.

Willie: "Canada is a anti semetic country. Justin Beiber wouldn't meet with Israeli children while over in the middle east. Telling."

No: what's telling, sir, is that you get your news from the same place as my 14 year old cousins. Is your room also painted pink, ya weirdo? Bieber is supposedly some sort of evangelical Christian--and you have a problem with him? There's no pleasing some people...

hyper calls someone a wierd... (Below threshold)
retired military:

hyper calls someone a wierdo when he has stated his if for legal infanticide, killing 30 million unborn children, people cutting off their own limbs and declaring infants are not person but dolphins and other primates might be (unless he was being sarcastic about the dolphins and other primatees since with Hyper you cant really tell what is out of bounds of the imgaination).

What's an "unborn child"? I... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

What's an "unborn child"? Is that like a "circular square"? Quit fucking with the English language. It isn't yours.

RM: the word "person" in this context does not mean homo sapien. Want to figure out what it means? Go to the library and take out a book on contemporary bioethics. Personhood is not limited to humans, and not all humans are persons. If that doesn't fit with your contemporary worldview, I really don't care.

HyperOnly you woul... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Hyper

Only you would argue that "unborn child" is not a phrase.

Again, you are dehumanizing the victims of abortion. You do so to make yourself feel better. Serial killers, nazis, war criminals all have this in common.
f

Seriously man, shut up. The... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Seriously man, shut up. The majority of the Supreme Court, and the majority of the free world, have evolved past the point where they're trying to pass legislation that extends to the inside of a woman's reproductive system. Get over it. Go devote some of your spare time (and you seem to have some) to helping children, rather than trying to punish women for getting pregnant when they didn't intend to.

HyperI will not sh... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Hyper

I will not shut up. All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. Those who support abortion do wish that we would just shut up about unborn children being killed. Not gonna happen.

As I stated. Dehumanizing something makes killing/hurting it them makes it more acceptable. This happens in war (Japs, slant eyes, gooks), with racism (spics, micks, n*gger), serial killers (mutilation of the face, cannabalism, dismembering and/or mutilitation of bodies), slave holders (they arent people, they are barely human) and abortionists (not human beings, just fetuses, lumps of viable tissue). Truth hurts sometimes but it doesnt change that it is the truth.

.

Telling someone to shut up ... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Telling someone to shut up on a blog thread is moronic. Sorry.

Your view on this subject is evidently intractable and I suppose mine is too. C'est la vie.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy