 An issue which rages on, takes precedence for some in every election and a set of ideals which supporters believe are fundamental to their being, abortion, begets the question for those who have deemed themselves “pro-life”. The question is - “Who's life are you in favor of?” It would be hard to argue that a fetus isn't life. By all modern definitions of science it surely is. The question focuses more on whether being the voice of the voiceless is a choice made when weighing all of the sides of the issue. By supporting the birth of unwanted children, are you also supporting the burden on society as a whole that goes along with it? Do pro-life supporters really ever stop to consider the fact that there are over half a million births every year in the U.S. to teenage mothers? There are people looking to adopt, but when you consider that there are over 15 million births worldwide every year to parents who didn't plan on it and really can't afford it, there aren't that many looking to adopt. So what happens to these children? Do they...
...grow up to be overly productive citizens? Usually not. Statistics show that about 80% usually grow up in poverty and remain there as a drain on the public welfare system for most of their lives. Of course it would be hard for most people to put a dollar amount on a life, but what about the drain on the rest of society and the value of the life that is already existing? Is it a fair statement to say that if you value life, you would have to take into consideration the lives of millions of people with whom the burden of supporting these unwanted children is left? It doesn't seem like pro-lifers benefit from discussing this issue much. So where do we draw the line? Is there a way to come to a balance and still give both sides what they want? Well, there is, but the cost to pro-lifers would be astronomical. The answer is to open orphanages worldwide that are funded by pro-lifers. These homes for unwanted children would have to prove beneficial in the lives of the children, making sure that it was not just one more system through which children often fall through the cracks and bureaucracy rules the roost. The cost of raising one child, according to the U.S.D.A. (and I'm not sure why they're the statistics collectors for this) is about $10,000 per year for a low income family. That figure takes into account that the child already has a home, so based on estimates of community housing, we could add about $2,000 a year to that for children being taken into community homes. Given the 2002 estimate of about three quarters of a million children, multiplied by 18 (the amount of years raising them) and we're left with a pool of about 13.5 million children in need of these homes. That's around $1.62B in costs yearly just for U.S. children. Spread this out over the 50 million or so pro-life voters and they can each pay $3,000.00 per year for this system. This would unburden the rest of the tax payers, and doesn't even include the people who aren't teenagers who would also be a burden on this system. Without getting far off topic, it's fair to say that people who support a public healthcare system could also foot the bill for themselves at a staggering $2-300 billion price tag. It could be said for a lot of things. The point here is that too many pro-lifers seem to ignore this fact completely when they rant and rave about the value of a life. Arguing the value of the one over the value of the whole is pretty much going against all ideals of society. Even dictators argue that what they're doing is for the best of their nations. In case anyone was wondering, I'm against abortion, but I believe in a woman's right to choose. I'm also against people getting pregnant to begin with if they can neither afford nor want a child.
Forum Here
Recommend this article...
|
