Skip to comments.This map gives a great visualization of the devastation abortion has left on America
Posted on 02/21/2014 12:42:11 PM PST by The Looking Spoon
According to this graphic abortion has claimed the number of lives equivalent to the combined population of the states in red.
...and moving eastward with each passing day.
A liberal would say, “Good! Fewer carbon feet on the ground. Now we need to eliminate the rest of them!” “Uhm, Heather, do you want to die?” “Of course not, don’t be silly. I’m just talking about the useless eaters.”
(That’s actually pretty close to a conversation I had once. It didn’t go much farther as I seldom spoke with Heather after that.)
Gee, we certainly could have used those citizens to help us pay for all the entitlements the past three generations have voted for themselves. When the money runs out, we’ll really miss the contributions they never made.
Oh, and by the way, much as driving habits change when cameras are put up at intersections, people’s habits change when the rules change also. Eliminate easy abortions and the actual number of births wouldn’t have been close to 56 million. Maybe a few million. Like the drivers change how they drive, men and women would change how stupidly they act.
Warning labels on alcohol would read, “Danger. May be a major factor in getting pregnant.”
And now you know why the Left is frantic for immigrants...slaves to pay for the welfare state.
Slaves that the Americans never bore.
But a little problem....the new immigrants seem to be welfare consumers, not welfare producers.
More the better! The remaining remnant American populace will be put to work feeding them.
Sort of an unsustainable future, to use EnviroLeftistSpeak
Yet, we have arrogant Americans, born in liberty, and viewing themselves as "intellectuals" and "progressives," who have embraced socialist ideas over the ideas of liberty and are determined to impose its deadly limitations on a once-free people. They accomplished this through many misleading schemes, including clever use of semantics, and outright falsehoods about their intent.
Note the following 19th Centure writer's warning that the "scheme of socialism is wholly incomplete unless it includes the power of restraining the increase of population."
From the Liberty Fund Library is "A Plea for Liberty: An Argument Against Socialism and Socialistic Legislation," edited by Thomas Mackay (1849 - 1912), originally published in 1891, Chapter 1, excerpted final paragraphs from Edward Stanley Robertson's essay:
"I have suggested that the scheme of Socialism is wholly incomplete unless it includes a power of restraining the increase of population, which power is so unwelcome to Englishmen that the very mention of it seems to require an apology. I have showed that in France, where restraints on multiplication have been adopted into the popular code of morals, there is discontent on the one hand at the slow rate of increase, while on the other, there is still a 'proletariat,' and Socialism is still a power in politics.
"I have put the question, how Socialism would treat the residuum of the working class and of all classesthe class, not specially vicious, nor even necessarily idle, but below the average in power of will and in steadiness of purpose. I have intimated that such persons, if they belong to the upper or middle classes, are kept straight by the fear of falling out of class, and in the working class by positive fear of want. But since Socialism purposes to eliminate the fear of want, and since under Socialism the hierarchy of classes will either not exist at all or be wholly transformed, there remains for such persons no motive at all except physical coercion. Are we to imprison or flog all the 'ne'er-do-wells'?
"I began this paper by pointing out that there are inequalities and anomalies in the material world, some of which, like the obliquity of the ecliptic and the consequent inequality of the day's length, cannot be redressed at all. Others, like the caprices of sunshine and rainfall in different climates, can be mitigated, but must on the whole be endured. I am very far from asserting that the inequalities and anomalies of human society are strictly parallel with those of material nature. I fully admit that we are under an obligation to control nature so far as we can. But I think I have shown that the Socialist scheme cannot be relied upon to control nature, because it refuses to obey her. Socialism attempts to vanquish nature by a front attack. Individualism, on the contrary, is the recognition, in social politics, that nature has a beneficent as well as a malignant side. The struggle for life provides for the various wants of the human race, in somewhat the same way as the climatic struggle of the elements provides for vegetable and animal lifeimperfectly, that is, and in a manner strongly marked by inequalities and anomalies. By taking advantage of prevalent tendencies, it is possible to mitigate these anomalies and inequalities, but all experience shows that it is impossible to do away with them. All history, moreover, is the record of the triumph of Individualism over something which was virtually Socialism or Collectivism, though not called by that name. In early days, and even at this day under archaic civilisations, the note of social life is the absence of freedom. But under every progressive civilisation, freedom has made decisive stridesbroadened down, as the poet says, from precedent to precedent. And it has been rightly and naturally so.
"Freedom is the most valuable of all human possessions, next after life itself. It is more valuable, in a manner, than even health. No human agency can secure health; but good laws, justly administered, can and do secure freedom. Freedom, indeed, is almost the only thing that law can secure. Law cannot secure equality, nor can it secure prosperity. In the direction of equality, all that law can do is to secure fair play, which is equality of rights but is not equality of conditions. In the direction of prosperity, all that law can do is to keep the road open. That is the Quintessence of Individualism, and it may fairly challenge comparison with that Quintessence of Socialism we have been discussing. Socialism, disguise it how we may, is the negation of Freedom. That it is so, and that it is also a scheme not capable of producing even material comfort in exchange for the abnegations of Freedom, I think the foregoing considerations amply prove." EDWARD STANLEY ROBERTSON
And they would have provided markets for lots of goods and services and would have filled the labor rolls, to say nothing of their missing contributions to the arts & sciences. Think about their contributions to Social Security — we’d all be better off.
Can’t we just abort California and New England?
The abortionists and the Libs who support them see this as a good thing. It’s all about choice and population control dontcha know.
The map would have an even larger effect if they left out California and colored in a whole bunch of other states instead
As a nation we will be held responsible for this, someday.
The number of babies killed, the number 56 million is the number supplied by the abortion industry. The problem with this number is that the abortion industry had not been audited by the IRS or any state since 1978. Now think about it, if you knew you were not going to be audited, no matter what you did on your tax form, would you report cash?
Since no abolitionist or slaughter house has been audited, why would they report the murders of babies in the womb that were paid for with cash. Next comes how many abortions are paid with cash? Well, how many older men do you think bring their young mistresses in and use their family plan to pay for her abortion? How many teen old boys bring their girl friends in and put it on dads health plan? How many young girls come into planned parenthood and use their families plan to pay for the abolition? No most if not all are cash.
My guess would be that at least half of all abortions are paid for with cash. Those cash murders are not reported. Therefore the number is probably closer to 120 million, not 56 million.
If there had been no legal abortions, you wouldn’t want to abort California. It would be nice enough to keep.
It would have been full of children who are citizens, and their parents, who actually would have to vote for things that ensure the well-being of families in this generation and the next. One of those things would have been protecting the borders so that their children would have jobs, and supporting normal American civic life, so that their communities would be in better shape for their children.
And remember that Californians tried to get tough on immigration, but it prop 105 was not allowed. They tried to defeat gay marriage, but the courts did not allow that either. They actually recalled a Democratic governor, but Schwarzennegger didn’t pan out as a replacement. They also have a really big anti-abortion march in SF every year, which gets minimal press coverage. There are a lot of decent Californians who have gotten thwarted at every turn. And they still have some fight left in them. (Ok, I’m feeling feisty, anyway.)
seems like racism to me,
since more than half of N.Y. black babies are murdered due to abortion.
When the likely increase in population among those dead children who would have come of age is considered we have a number approaching the total population of the country.
Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness...in that order.
I don’t find it particularly useful to think of such things. The benefit a sovereign human being may or may not provide to a government program or an economy is only relevant if humans were to be subjects or serfs existing for others or for a government.
The argument is best framed in terms of that sovereign human’s right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness endowed by their Creator. Their utility to others is irrelevant.
Had a similar conversation with a militant vegan once.