Could a Basic Minimum Income for all Americans decrease abortions?

• Among women who obtained abortions in 2015, 41% had no prior live births; 45% had one or two prior live births, and 14% had three or more prior live births (CDC).
• Among white women, 10% of pregnancies currently end in abortion. Among black women, 28% of pregnancies end in abortion (CDC).
• Black women were more than 3.5 times more likely to have an abortion in 2015 than white women (CDC).
• The abortion rate of non-metropolitan women is about half that of women who live in metropolitan counties (NAF).
• The abortion rate of women with Medicaid coverage is three times as high as that of other women (NAF).
• In 2014, 30% of aborting women identified themselves as Protestant and 24% identified themselves as Catholic (AGI).

WHY DO ABORTIONS OCCUR?

• In 2004, the Guttmacher Institute anonymously surveyed 1,209 post-abortive womenfrom nine different abortion clinics across the country. Of the women surveyed, 957 provided a main reason for having an abortion. This table lists each reason and the percentage of respondents who chose it.
  Percentage Reason
  <0.5% Victim of rape
  3% Fetal health problems
  4% Physical health problems
  4% Would interfere with education or career
  7% Not mature enough to raise a child
  8% Don't want to be a single mother
  19% Done having children
  23% Can't afford a baby
  25% Not ready for a child
  6% Other
• The state of Florida records a reason for every abortion that occurs within its borders each year. In 2018, there were 70,083 abortions in Florida. This table lists each reason and the percentage of abortions that occurred because of it.
  Percentage Reason
  .01% The pregnancy resulted from an incestuous relationship
  .14% The woman was raped
  .27% The woman's life was endangered by the pregnancy
  1.0% There was a serious fetal abnormality
  1.48% The woman's physical health was threatened by the pregnancy
  1.67% The woman's psychological health was threatened by the pregnancy
  20.0% The woman aborted for social or economic reasons
  75.4% No reason (elective)

WHEN DO ABORTIONS OCCUR?

• 89% of all abortions happen during the first trimester, prior to the 13th week of gestation (AGI/CDC).

Click to expand...

myst33 said:

Are money really the reason for abortions?

Click to expand...

"1. The first thing Moshiach does is do away with bad marketing."
"That's the
true villain that has held us back all these years. Ask anyconsumer electronics
or computer engineer. We could all own household robots todo our work. We could
be consuming less than 10% of the natural resources weconsume now if it weren't
for those nefarious busy bodies who market quantity rather than quality. Given
the true needs of most people and the productivity possible with modern
technology, we should all be working an average of 2.5hours a week. What's
responsible for the other 60+ hours?

BadMarketing."

"Moshiach's marketing people
will get people's minds back on the righttrack. Thinking about real quality of
life. About their relationship with theearth and with their bodies and their
souls and the people around them. Once that's done, just about everything else we
need to create paradise is here already." (Moshiach .com, "Sighting Moshiach).

Click to expand...

myst33 said:

Are money really the reason for abortions?

Click to expand...

Malthusianism is the idea that population growth is potentially exponential while the growth of the food supply is linear. It derives from the political and economic thought of the Reverend Thomas Robert Malthus, as laid out in his 1798 writings, An Essay on the Principle of Population. Malthus believed there were two types of "checks" that in all times and places kept population growth in line with the growth of the food supply: "preventive checks", such as moral restraints (abstinence, delayed marriage until finances become balanced), and restricting marriage against persons suffering poverty or perceived as defective, and "positive checks", which lead to premature death such as disease, starvation and war, resulting in what is called a Malthusian catastrophe. The catastrophe would return population to a lower, more "sustainable", level.[1][2] Malthusianism has been linked to a variety of political and social movements, but almost always refers to advocates of population control.[3]

Neo-Malthusianism is the advocacy of population control programs to ensure resources for current and future populations.[2] In Britain the term 'Malthusian' can also refer more specifically to arguments made in favour of preventive birth control, hence organizations such as the Malthusian League.[4] Neo-Malthusians differ from Malthus's theories mainly in their enthusiasm for contraception. Malthus, a devout Christian, believed that "self-control" (abstinence) was preferable to artificial birth control. In some editions of his essay, Malthus did allow that abstinence was unlikely to be effective on a wide scale, thus advocating the use of artificial means of birth control as a solution to population "pressure".[5] Modern "neo-Malthusians" are generally more concerned than Malthus with environmental degradation and catastrophic famine than with poverty.

Click to expand...

Abortion............15.5 million
Heart disease.....2,715, 416
Cancer ...............2,568,040
Accidents ..............447,803
Violent crimes .......354,392
AIDS .....................245,322

Click to expand...

The creation of money



“One of the most pervasive myths about the government deficit is that governments which spend more than they receive in revenue must borrow the difference, thus increasing the public debt.

“In fact, a government can choose to create the needed additional money instead of borrowing it from the banks, the public, or foreigners.

“Business and the conservatives in politics and the media are horrified by the suggestion that the government exercise its right to create more money. They claim it would precipitate another ruinous bout of inflation.

“But money creation is money creation — whether by a private bank or the Bank of Canada. And a government in debt only to the government's own bank is not really in debt at all. If it wants to go through the rigamarole of having the Treasury «borrow» from the central bank and later pay interest, that is a minor matter of bookkeeping. As long as the central bank's profits are returned to the Treasury, the results are much the same as if the Treasury had created the money itself.

“There is no reason why the growth of Canada's money supply (averaging about $22 billion annually in recent years) could not be more substantially created by the Bank of Canada. If that policy had been followed, the federal government would not have been obliged to add to its debts to pay interest on old debts. Instead, the Bank of Canada has produced barely 2% of the money added in recent years, while the chartered banks added the rest as they made loans to households, businesses, and all levels of government. At the very least, the Bank of Canada and the chartered banks should share the privilege of creating money on a 50-50 basis.

“Those who dismiss such a proposal as “inflationary” should be required to explain why it would be more inflationary for the government's bank to create $11 billion and the private banks $11 billion, rather than the present practice of having the government's bank create $0.7 billion and the private banks $21.3 billion!

“Clearly the current problem of the Canadian government's deficit is not its absolute size, or its size relative to the GDP, but the insane way it is being financed. A return to the policies of the World War II era, when the Bank of Canada produced almost one-half of the new money at near-zero interest, would do wonders for the economy, while greatly shrinking the deficit... The first order of business for a post-Mulroney-era government must be to regain effective control of the Bank of Canada and make it the primary source of money creation.

“It is ludicrous for the government to put billions of dollars into circulation by borrowing from the private banks, when it can create the extra money it needs, virtually free.”

(1) Harold Chorney, Concordia U.; John Hotson, U. of Waterloo; Mario Seccareccia, Ottawa U.;

Click to expand...

Heavenhome said:

My opinion only but I don't think money (lack of it) is the reason for most abortions. I think the main reason is inconvenience to the woman who gets pregnant.

Click to expand...

A significant number of American women who have had an abortion have felt subtle, or even substantial, unwanted pressure to abort, a recent study has found.

The study, published recently in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, found that nearly three-quarters (73.8%) of women with a history of abortion surveyed admitted that they experienced at least subtle forms of pressure to terminate their pregnancies.

More than half of the women reported that the perceived pressure was great enough to significantly influence their decision to abort. Of the 987 women surveyed, more than half (58.3%) indicated that they decided to abort in order to make others happy. Nearly 30% of survey respondents admitted that they were afraid that they would lose their partner if they failed to terminate their pregnancy.

Further underlining the fact that choosing abortion is contrary women’s natural instincts, the study also found that two-thirds of the women (66%) knew in their hearts that abortion was wrong. Many women (67.5%) said that the decision to terminate their pregnancies was one of the hardest decisions of their lives.

“These findings are alarming,” says Population Research Institute President Steven Mosher. “They suggest that a substantial number of women in America today who supposedly ‘choose’ abortion are actually being pressured into it by their husbands, boyfriends, or family members.”

Click to expand...

myst33 said:

But the article does not say that the fathers, siblings etc. were worried about money. They simply do not want the child, because they want to continue their selfish, independent, material lives.

The USA are one of the richest nations (not the richest, but I think the USA are in the top 10) in the world, but with one of the highest abortion rates. It will not be about money, it will be about wrong priorities.

Click to expand...

In 1972, the United States Treasury Department was asked to compute the amount of interest that would have been paid if that 400 million dollars would have been borrowed at interest instead of being issued by Abraham Lincoln. They did some computations, and a few weeks later, the United States Treasury Department said the United States Government saved 4 billion dollars in interest because Lincoln had created his own money. So you can about imagine how much the Government has paid and how much we owe solely on the basis of interest." (Melvin Sickler)

Click to expand...

paul1149 said:

I could see guaranteed income preventing some abortions. But unless you change the worldview of people nothing really changes. That same woman could have a kid or two, use up all the guaranteed income, then get pregnant again. Then what? Meanwhile you basically have an exponentially increased welfare system, with all those new mouths to feed on it. Where does all this money come from? Last I checked, it doesn't grow on trees.

I know the coming AI-robotics revolution is going to disrupt the employment market dramatically, probably beyond anything ever seen, but people need to work if they can if they're going to have dignity and self-respect. Put that amount of people on government handouts, and not only do you grow government to totalitarian dimensions, you suck the spirit out of the people.

Click to expand...

chevyontheriver said:

A big reason is that boyfriend demands it.

Click to expand...

myst33 said:

But the article does not say that the fathers, siblings etc. were worried about money. They simply do not want the child, because they want to continue their selfish, independent, material lives.

The USA are one of the richest nations (not the richest, but I think the USA are in the top 10) in the world, but with one of the highest abortion rates. It will not be about money, it will be about wrong priorities.

Click to expand...

An urge to pray



I believe that in November of 1974, through essentially the same process, I became attuned to the souls of the children whose bodies had been killed by abortion at the Vancouver General Hospital. One day near the middle of that month I felt a strong urge to pray. Although I felt that it had something to do with abortion I didn’t know exactly what. I knew though that it was important to pray fervently and immediately. I prayed, as continuously as I was able, for about two days. Prayer was an essential part of the attunement process, although at the time I was unaware of the precise nature of what was happening. At one point I asked our Blessed Mother Mary to help. I felt a calm, an assurance that my request would be granted. I continued to pray. By doing so I was able to follow what appeared to me to be a silver thread of light.

Click to expand...

com7fy8 said:

Love needs to be the reason.

Practically, if you pay a woman for each child, an addict can keep having babies and let neighbors give them handouts.

But there can be women whom this could help, I would say, not personally knowing every one.

Click to expand...

High Fidelity said:

Will be interesting to see how this is received. Most people are pro something until it affects them or their wallet.

My guess is that it won't be well received since the basic human right of healthcare is not free in the U.S. so there's no way this would fly.

Click to expand...

First, in order to cast discredit on the Greenbacks, the bankers persuaded Congress to vote, in February of 1862, the "Exception Clause", which said that the Greenbacks could not be used to pay the interest on the national debt, nor to pay taxes, excises, or import duties. Then, in 1863, having financed the election of enough Senators and Representatives, the bankers got the Congress to revoke the Greenback Law in 1863, and enact in its place the National Banking Act. (Money was then to be issued interest-bearing by privately-owned banks.)

This Act also provided that the Greenbacks should be retired from circulation as soon as they came back to the Treasury in payment of taxes. Lincoln heatedly protested, but his most urgent objective was to win the war and save the Union, which obliged him to put off till after the war the veto he was planning against this Act and the action he was to take against the bankers. Lincoln nevertheless declared:

"I have two great enemies, the Southern army in front of me and the bankers in the rear. And of the two, the bankers are my greatest foe."

Lincoln was re-elected President in 1864, and he made it quite clear that he would attack the power of the bankers, once the war was over. The war ended on April 9, 1865, but Lincoln was assassinated five days later, on April 14. A tremendous restriction of credit followed, organized by the banks: the currency in circulation in the country, which was, in 1866, $1,907 million, representing $50.46 for each American citizen, had been reduced to $605 million in 1876, representing $14.60 per capita. The result: in ten years, 56,446 business failures, representing a loss of $2 billion. And as if this was not enough, the bankers reduced the per capita currency in circulation to $6.67 in 1887!" (Alain Pilote)

Click to expand...

High Fidelity said:

Will be interesting to see how this is received. Most people are pro something until it affects them or their wallet.

My guess is that it won't be well received since the basic human right of healthcare is not free in the U.S. so there's no way this would fly.

Click to expand...