President Obama won the 2012 election by approximately 4 million votes.
98% of black women aged 18-29 voted for President Obama in 2012.
There are tens of millions of women who have had abortions in America and their vote alone exceeded the margin of victory for President Obama’s re-election.
According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, the overwhelming reasons for abortion are rooted in financial concerns, including concerns about personal responsibilities, belief that the mother can’t afford the child, the child would interfere with school or employment, and the child would create relationship problems. 50% of all abortions are performed on women between the ages of 15 and 24. 85% of abortions are performed on women who aren’t married. 65% of women obtaining abortions are Protestant or Roman Catholic. 60% of abortions are done for women who are already mothers. 17 states (and the District of Columbia) use state Medicaid funds to pay for all (or most) of the expenses involved with the abortion. These states are predominantly “blue” with an electorate favoring Barack Obama for President. Two of the three “red” states that provide Medicaid funding for abortive mothers are Montana and Alaska, representing only 1.6 million people. Globally, almost all abortion deaths occur in less developed countries, yet US abortion advocates use fear-mongering in America that such a problem exists here when it does not.
Abortion is a business which targets the black population. The overwhelming percentage of abortions are done on black women. According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, black women are more than five times as likely as white women to have an abortion and black women have had about 16 million abortions since the Roe v. Wade decision of 1973. Charles Darwin, widely recognized as the father of evolution, expressed a racist philosophy in his book The Descent of Man where he postulated that “higher” races (whites) would survive while “savage” races (blacks) would decline if evolution were true. One of Darwin’s protégées, Francis Galton, started the eugenics movement in Great Britain to improve the quality of the general population. He advocated encouraging eugenic marriages by supplying able couples with incentives to have children. He believed that a scheme of “marks” for family merit should be defined, and early marriage between families of high rank be encouraged by provision of monetary incentives.
Margaret Sanger, the founder of what was to become Planned Parenthood, called blacks “human weeds” and immigrants “reckless breeders.” Sanger advocated abortion as a means of eugenics to improve the quality of the general population in America. Sanger retooled the Birth Control League in 1939 to become the Birth Control Federation of America. Under this new name, Sanger’s first goal was called the “The Negro Project,” intended to persuade black women to stop having children. It is ironic that the organization originally conceived by Sanger as a means to reduce the black population would enjoy overwhelming support from that same group of people. Sadly, blacks make up less than 13% of the female population yet black women have about 37% of the abortions. Latinos rank second in terms of abortion procedures performed. According to the Center for Disease Control, 22% of all abortions in America are performed on Latinos. Approximately 60% of all abortions in the US are performed on blacks and Latinos while US taxpayers fund almost $500 million (approximately 50%) of Planned Parenthood revenues. The US Government Accounting Office, GAO, published a report citing that approximately $1.3 billion of federal funds given to Planned Parenthood between 2003 and 2008 could not be accounted for.
A recent study examined the high correlation between a high concentration of the minority population and the location of an abortion facility. The study states “…[ there were] 116 ZIP codes with more than one [abortion or abortion-referral] facility. Of those, 84 were disproportionately black and/or Hispanic. What this means is that, when the American family planning industry places multiple facilities in a ZIP code, that ZIP code is more than two-and-a-half times as likely to be disproportionately minority as not.” It is clear that abortionists target their market at minorities while the federal government is also subsidizing the industry that does so.
A “sin” or Pegovian tax is a tax that is applied to a market activity which generates negative externalities. This type of tax is intended to mitigate the social costs imposed by the behavior. Tax dollars are often extracted from such “sin” industries as gambling, pornography, liquor, tobacco, and now even unhealthy food. Unlike the foregoing, the government overtly subsidizes the abortion industry despite possible negative externalities of higher health care costs for the abortive mother over the long term. The question arises as to why the abortion industry enjoys favored tax status? Some have suggested that it is a favored constituency of the Democratic party thereby assuring it of additional votes in every election.
Abortion is morally wrong with rare medical exceptions. The moral absolutist knows that arguments for abortion fail on moral grounds. The old maxim states “The real measure of civilization in any society can be found in the way it treats its most vulnerable.” Abortion is a moral failure, encouraged and financed by the secular state, and is a procedure performed on women who predominantly claim to be Christian. The Bible teaches that abortion is wrong. Apparently, many self-identified Christian women who have abortions must believe the Bible is correct in what it teaches except in the case of personal circumstance.
The moral relativist believes abortion addresses the mother’s need for economic or emotional wellness and therefore justifies the termination of the unborn. Moral relativism, the ethical attribute of the secularist worldview, is self-refuting. Moral relativists can not say anything is objectively wrong because morality is in the conscience of the beholder. Consequently, the moral relativist can not successfully argue that theft of their personal property is objectively wrong or that torturing babies for fun is objectively wrong, because it might be subjectively right to the one committing the act. Hence, the self-refutation of the moral relativist is clearly evident.
History confirms that some of the most heinous crimes against humanity have been perpetrated under the auspices of moral relativism. Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mussolini, Enver, Tojo, and Leopold II were brutal tyrants of the last 125 years; all were secular in their worldview and all were moral relativists in their ethical discipline. These tyrants were responsible for over 112 million deaths from genocide, justified by moral relativism. Moral relativism is plagued with a history of horrific failures.
The overwhelming majority of abortions represent a supreme act of selfishness rooted in moral relativism. Ectopic pregnancies and genuine “life-threatening” conditions of the pregnant mother are both serious and rare. An Ectopic pregnancy is one that occurs outside the womb. It is a life-threatening condition to the mother. The baby cannot survive. Approximately 1% of pregnancies are Ectopic. They are notable exceptions and should be excluded from charges of moral relativism. Arguments against the moral relativism of abortion include:
- Over 70% of Americans (and 65% of abortive mothers) claim to be Christian, the governing book of which (the Bible) clearly opposes the practice of abortion.
- The viability of adoption presents an alternative solution to those considering abortion.
- Medical reality confirms that some life is sustainable outside of the womb at four months, confirming that a second or third trimester abortion imposes death on a sustainable life.
- Science confirms that human life begins at conception.
- Post-Abortion Syndrome, PAS, is a condition that suggests a relationship exists between depression, stress disorders, etc. and abortive mothers.
- A new study from the Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention concludes that there is a relationship between abortive mothers and breast cancer.
- The US government creates a moral hazard by funding Planned Parenthood and compelling religious institutions to make abortion options available through their insurance programs. The government treats abortion and adoption differently, thereby encouraging abortion as the preferred option.
Moral relativism suffuses the abortion industry. Moral relativism is an intellectual disease. C.S. Lewis said “We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.” Moral relativism afflicts our government policies, the US Supreme Court, the abortion providers, the abortive mother, the media, and the Democratic party in their collaboration to support the abortion industry. The government is complicit in that it subsidizes an industry which may impose higher long term costs on the abortive mother (while reducing the population of what it believes may be a socio-economic burden on the broader population.) The US Supreme Court is complicit in the twisting of the law to ignore the sanctity of life enshrined in our Declaration of Independence. The abortion providers are complicit in their desire to make large amounts of money despite network externalities which can drive irresponsible behavior. There have been numerous examples of mismanagement of public funds, performing abortions on non-pregnant women, botched abortions, etc. that illustrate the incompetence and corruption of the abortion industry. The abortive mother is complicit because the most cited reasons for abortion are personal convenience and personal finance. The media is complicit because it discourages airing footage of the abortion procedure (although it shows graphic footage regarding other atrocities.) The Democratic party (with 72 million registered Democrats in the US) is complicit because it strongly endorsed abortion in its party platform and media messaging in the 2012 presidential election, all designed as an artifice to garner more women votes for their candidate.
It is clear that moral relativism is at the core of the abortion decision for all participants. They all have something to gain at the expense of terminating the life of the unborn. However, unintended economic consequences often arise from moral failure, e.g., abortion may actually increase the feminization of poverty.
The US government has engaged in the politicization of this behavior resulting in additional unintended consequences. Abortions negatively impact the total fertility rate, TFR, of a nation. The TFR is a hypothetical measure of the number of children a fertile mother would have over her fertility period, typically from ages 15-49. A population can replace itself (netting out birth and death rates) at 2.1 children per female. The US TFR peaked in the 1950’s at 3.8 and is currently below the replacement rate of 2.1 (for those who are native born.) When a nation falls below its replacement rate, it requires immigration to assure that the population is growing. The population needs to grow to support economic activity and provide the entitlement benefits demanded by the elder population. Immigration, absent assimilation, changes the cultural framework of a nation. As a nation fails to reproduce itself and it does not assimilate the increased number immigrants (to offset the reduced fertility rate) into its traditional cultural framework, the nation begins to reflect the multicultural composition of its immigrants. This can have negative consequences for the host country as has been articulated by leaders in the European Union. A TFR below the replacement rate can therefore negatively impact the current generation and the ones to come.
What kind of nation exalts life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness yet provides incentives so as to make termination of its unborn cheap and easy? What kind of nation exalts a woman’s “right to choose” abortion but holds harmless the men who repeatedly impregnate abortive (and, in many cases, multiple) women? What kind of nation subsidizes the termination of life with taxpayer dollars and now requires religious institutions to include abortion options in its health insurance?
The remedy. It is clear that the moral relativism of abortion has implications for the moral and economic health of the US. There are two remedies for the moral relativism of abortion. The first remedy is for the woman who has had an abortion. There have been approximately 50 million abortions performed since the landmark Roe v. Wade decision. Many of these have been done on women who have had multiple abortions. Consequently, we can say that (at the least) there are tens of million of women who have had an abortion in the US. Many of these women have suffered from emotional and physical maladies arising from the abortion. The most important thing to understand from committing a moral wrong is that there is forgiveness if there is repentance. The Bible teaches in John 1:9 “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.” Hebrews 8:12 states “For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.” The first step to forgiveness is repentance.
The second remedy is for the remainder of the society where abortion continues to impose a large cost. The US government is the most culpable actor in the failures of the national abortion policy. The passage of Obamacare will ostensibly provide additional support for the government involvement in the abortion industry. A government that endorses moral failures ultimately faces economic, if not divine, consequences which could threaten its very existence. The Bible is clear in its teaching that immoral behavior, e.g., moral relativism, is neither invisible to God nor does it escape judgment forever. Two of the three largest religions on the planet oppose abortion. Secularism, the third largest religion on the planet, aggressively supports the practice of abortion, particularly for certain people-groups. The role of secularist authority in world history is both bloody and evanescent. Every citizen who loves liberty should oppose the secular state when its policies violate objective truth. The preservation of freedom requires the responsibility for action.
An engaged citizenry may be the single most effective solution to address this problem.
Citizens should start by demanding that their representatives remove the favored tax status of the abortion industry. Such a decision honors the intent of our founding documents while assuring freedom and equality in its finest expression. There has been a significant sex education effort undertaken in the government schools which promotes sexual activity. A significant education effort needs to be undertaken in the opposite direction. Citizens should demand that the government produce public service announcements, PSA, which discourage the practice of abortion and encourage the act of adoption. November is national adoption month yet how many people know? Citizens should also demand that the government schools show what an actual abortion looks like. Engaged parents can either demand such remedies or enroll their children into private schools, home schools, etc. Parents must effectuate change at the local level.
There are about 50,000 adoptions annually in the US compared to about 1.25 million abortions, a ratio of about 25 abortions to one adoption. There are over two million prospective adoptive parents on the waiting list. Clearly, there should be additional incentives to address the oversupply of abortions and the unmet demand for adoption. A sound government policy that reflects the value of life would address this disequilibrium. An average abortion costs less than $1,000, takes about 15 minutes, but requires an approximately four hour appointment. The adoption process, depending upon the agency used, can cost tens of thousands of dollars (although the average is approximately $10,000) and can take months to over a year to complete. The administrative bureaucracy obviously needs improvement in the adoption process.
The moral relativism of abortion has not advanced the interests of our free and moral republic. The very least we can demand is that the government get out of the abortion business, remove the incentives that encourage abortion, increase the incentives for the education of alternatives such as abstinence, adoption, etc. and maintain a policy that celebrates the freedom and sanctity of all life.
The issue of abortion divides the country along moral grounds. It is not, at its core, a division between Republican and Democrat. It is not a division between young and old, rich and poor, or women and men. It is a division between the moral relativist and the moral absolutist. It is the moral relativist who has had the abortion that bears the burden of action. It is up to the moral relativist to reconcile science and morality with their action. Sooner or later, that reconciliation will require resolution. Let us pray that this reconciliation comes soon and to many.
 http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_34.asp#How many babies are adopted?