Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
During her first stop in New York City, Ms. Clinton claimed that Roe v. Wade has been good for America’s economy because it enabled women to enter the workforce and contribute $3.5 trillion to the economy. And that alone, she asserts, should motivate citizens to cherish and support abortion.
Killed more Black Americans in 1 year than the KKK killed in 100 years.
13% of the population of the USA and declining every week.
Democrats will keep them from having a voice, one way or they other.
The next Obama was aborted last Tuesday.
Democrats believe that black women are quite capable of deciding whether or not they want to continue a pregnancy. You, on the other hand, seem to be in favor of restricting their choices and their voice.
Restricting freedoms does not raise one's voice, just the opposite.
this is the liberal final solution... kill 50 million, add 3.5 trillion to the GDP
liberal (Nazi) eugenics program has evolved
liberal eugenics in America... figures like sanger and gates are pushing the final solution
One of the original members of this crusade was Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood. Her unwavering support of eugenics as a means of achieving economic stability and improved public health
We who advocate Birth Control, on the other hand, lay all our emphasis upon stopping not only the reproduction of the unfit but upon stopping all reproduction when there is not economic means of providing proper care for those who were born in health. Margaret Sanger, “Birth Control and Racial Betterment” (February, 1919)
The propaganda of The Negro Project was that birth control meant better health. So, on this premise, the Birth Control Federation of America (later named Planned Parenthood) designed two southern Negro Project “demonstration programs” to show “how medically-supervised birth control integrated in to existing public health services could improve the general welfare of Negroes, and to initiate a nationwide educational program.” Tanya L. Green, The Negro Project: Margaret Sanger’s Eugenic Plan for Black America
In order for The Negro Project to succeed, Sanger emphasized the need to have influential black leaders and, especially, ministers, educated in the goals of the birth control movement.
Sanger knew blacks were religious people–and how useful ministers would be to her project. She wrote, “The minister’s work is also important and he should be trained perhaps by the Federation as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. We do not want word to go our that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” (Green, 4)
Backed by funding from the wealthy Rockefeller Foundation, The Negro Project was a success.
By 1949, Sanger had hoodwinked black America’s best and brightest into believing birth control’s “life-saving benefits.”
[Black leadership] certainly wanted to decrease maternal and infant mortality and improve the community’s overall health. They wholly accepted her message because it seemed to promise prosperity and social acceptance. … [However,] aside from birth control, she offered no other medical or social solutions to their adversity. Considering the role eugenics played in the early birth control movement…the notion of birth control as seemingly the only solution to the problems that plagued blacks should have been much more closely scrutinized. (Green, 5)
79 percent of Planned Parenthood’s surgical abortion facilities are located in or within walking distance of predominately African-American and Latino communities.
African-Americans have a disproportionately high abortion rate; though they make up 13 percent of the U.S. population, they comprise 30 percent of the country’s abortions (From Protecting Black Life. org)
Clearly, according to African-American pro-life leader, Dr. Alveda King, “Abortion is racism.”
So, who is majorly funding the New World Order’s mass eugenics mission?
the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, bill wants to cut the worlds population by 75%...imagine than gates want to see 4-5 billion people wiped off this beautiful earth
Democrats believe that black women are quite capable of deciding whether or not they want to continue a pregnancy. You, on the other hand, seem to be in favor of restricting their choices and their voice.
Restricting freedoms does not raise one's voice, just the opposite.
So Dems believe black women are capable of deciding to end a pregnancy but Dems also believe black women aren't smart enough to figure out how to prevent one... Dems most certainly believe that black women aren't smart enough to decide who they should vote for, we all know that one.
However, had the 50 million people who were aborted grown up and earned an average of only $ 30,000 per year they would have contributed 1,500 TRILLION to the economy. EVERY YEAR. PLUS, Social Security would not be in the state it's in.
The actual number you are looking for is $1.5 trillion, not 1500. That said, your number is indeed a very lowball, but ANNUAL average.
Here's the flaw in Clinton's reasoning - she assumes that absent abortion, these women would have unwanted children and thus negated their ability to contribute to the economy. At every job I have ever held I have worked with women who have kids. They do just fine adding to the economy, and hey lookie there, they produced more people (what we call "kids") who will also contribute to the economy.
Clinton, like her mom, dad and everyone like them, has no grasp of logic. She thinks the presence of the child removes 1 (parent) on net from the economy, when it is actually adding 1 on net. She's off by 2 per abortion. So since the history of Roe v Wade she cites, and using a geometric progression starting at 1973, adjusting +21 years for when they become contributing members of the society, and applying the $30k average, I get $6.89 trillion MISSING from the economy between the years 1994 (1973 + 21) and 2010, which was the year Clinton referred to for her "net positive."
That is just the total from the aborted children, and we have not factored in the amount the mothers would have still contributed. But let's take Clinton at her word (in theory anyway) and say that 2/3 of them really would have done exactly as she said and produced nothing after that birth of that unwanted child. Well, now we lose $2.34 trillion, but have gained $6.89 trillion, so on net, all of those kids being born is a $4.55 trillion gain. Therefore, not aborting kids has a bigger payoff, so using Chelsea logic, how can anyone not support outlawing abortion?
this is the liberal final solution... kill 50 million, add 3.5 trillion to the GDP
liberal (Nazi) eugenics program has evolved
liberal eugenics in America... figures like sanger and gates are pushing the final solution
One of the original members of this crusade was Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood. Her unwavering support of eugenics as a means of achieving economic stability and improved public health
We who advocate Birth Control, on the other hand, lay all our emphasis upon stopping not only the reproduction of the unfit but upon stopping all reproduction when there is not economic means of providing proper care for those who were born in health. Margaret Sanger, “Birth Control and Racial Betterment” (February, 1919)
The propaganda of The Negro Project was that birth control meant better health. So, on this premise, the Birth Control Federation of America (later named Planned Parenthood) designed two southern Negro Project “demonstration programs” to show “how medically-supervised birth control integrated in to existing public health services could improve the general welfare of Negroes, and to initiate a nationwide educational program.” Tanya L. Green, The Negro Project: Margaret Sanger’s Eugenic Plan for Black America
In order for The Negro Project to succeed, Sanger emphasized the need to have influential black leaders and, especially, ministers, educated in the goals of the birth control movement.
Sanger knew blacks were religious people–and how useful ministers would be to her project. She wrote, “The minister’s work is also important and he should be trained perhaps by the Federation as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. We do not want word to go our that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” (Green, 4)
Backed by funding from the wealthy Rockefeller Foundation, The Negro Project was a success.
By 1949, Sanger had hoodwinked black America’s best and brightest into believing birth control’s “life-saving benefits.”
[Black leadership] certainly wanted to decrease maternal and infant mortality and improve the community’s overall health. They wholly accepted her message because it seemed to promise prosperity and social acceptance. … [However,] aside from birth control, she offered no other medical or social solutions to their adversity. Considering the role eugenics played in the early birth control movement…the notion of birth control as seemingly the only solution to the problems that plagued blacks should have been much more closely scrutinized. (Green, 5)
79 percent of Planned Parenthood’s surgical abortion facilities are located in or within walking distance of predominately African-American and Latino communities.
African-Americans have a disproportionately high abortion rate; though they make up 13 percent of the U.S. population, they comprise 30 percent of the country’s abortions (From Protecting Black Life. org)
Clearly, according to African-American pro-life leader, Dr. Alveda King, “Abortion is racism.”
So, who is majorly funding the New World Order’s mass eugenics mission?
the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, bill wants to cut the worlds population by 75%...imagine than gates want to see 4-5 billion people wiped off this beautiful earth
Most of your Sanger rant is taken out of context and none of it is relevant today.
Does the fact that the US Government is guilty of practicing eugenics and slavery in the past accurately reflect the US of today?
FACT: No one is forcing black women, or women of any color, to abort against their will.
Do you think black women are so feeble minded that they decide to abort a wanted pregnancy just because there is a PP in their neighborhood? If that is what you think, YOU are the one guilty of racism, not Planned Parenthood.
And, this beautiful earth does not have the resources to support an infinite amount of people. If we do not wisely manage our population growth, mother nature will do it for us.
Conservative's final solution: Pollute and overpopulate the earth until ALL life ceases to exist.
So Dems believe black women are capable of deciding to end a pregnancy but Dems also believe black women aren't smart enough to figure out how to prevent one... Dems most certainly believe that black women aren't smart enough to decide who they should vote for, we all know that one.
Dems know all BC has a failure rate, including sterilization. Dems know many poor women, no matter their color, face difficulties accessing BC methods with the lowest failure rates as they are also the most expensive forms of birth control.
Dems would like to see every woman in this country have easy access to the most reliable forms of birth control.
Dems know black women are quite capable of deciding who has their best interests at heart, too bad for you.
Democrats believe that black women are quite capable of deciding whether or not they want to continue a pregnancy. You, on the other hand, seem to be in favor of restricting their choices and their voice.
Restricting freedoms does not raise one's voice, just the opposite.
The actual number you are looking for is $1.5 trillion, not 1500. That said, your number is indeed a very lowball, but ANNUAL average.
Here's the flaw in Clinton's reasoning - she assumes that absent abortion, these women would have unwanted children and thus negated their ability to contribute to the economy. At every job I have ever held I have worked with women who have kids. They do just fine adding to the economy, and hey lookie there, they produced more people (what we call "kids") who will also contribute to the economy.
Clinton, like her mom, dad and everyone like them, has no grasp of logic. She thinks the presence of the child removes 1 (parent) on net from the economy, when it is actually adding 1 on net. She's off by 2 per abortion. So since the history of Roe v Wade she cites, and using a geometric progression starting at 1973, adjusting +21 years for when they become contributing members of the society, and applying the $30k average, I get $6.89 trillion MISSING from the economy between the years 1994 (1973 + 21) and 2010, which was the year Clinton referred to for her "net positive."
That is just the total from the aborted children, and we have not factored in the amount the mothers would have still contributed. But let's take Clinton at her word (in theory anyway) and say that 2/3 of them really would have done exactly as she said and produced nothing after that birth of that unwanted child. Well, now we lose $2.34 trillion, but have gained $6.89 trillion, so on net, all of those kids being born is a $4.55 trillion gain. Therefore, not aborting kids has a bigger payoff, so using Chelsea logic, how can anyone not support outlawing abortion?
Perhaps they had the amount of kids they could support and that additional kid would push them over the threshold. Maybe they aborted that additional pregnancy.
Maybe they have a husband with a higher income. What is the demographic of the average women who chooses to abort? Is she happily married middle to high income with a supportive husband and 2.5 kids.
Recently we have had two married women with working husbands at my place of employment who quit due to pregnancy. After doing the math they came out as well being a SAHM. Over the years we have had many females who dropped out of the work force after they married and had a child. They were able to do this because they had income generating supportive husbands. For women who have no partner and low income jobs a baby very likely forces them out of the workforce and onto government assistance.
I dont know about the numbers but it makes perfect sense to me that legal abortion has made it possible for many women to remain in the workforce.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
