Michael Voris’ chance encounter with pro-choice senator Carl Levin at the airport
Hello Senator…I’m one of your constitutents from Michigan.
Hello, how are you?
Fine. I wanted to tell you that the votes you have cast all these years in the US Senate in favor of your party’s abortion policies have a lot to do with why the economy is in the shambles it’s now in.
What policies…oh, abortion policies.
Yes. Your votes have resulted in at least 50 million not being in the economy right now… buying and selling and boosting the economy.
Hrrmphh!
~ Michael Voris describing his encounter with democrat Senator Carl Levin from Michigan (pictured above) at the Detroit airport, Real Catholic TV, June 20

Well I guess you could change the title of the post to “most embarrassing quote of the day.”
It’s not women’s job to have children to boost the economy.
I agree with him. 50 million people missing from the economy is a big deal any way you look at it. The missing Social Security payments all by themselves are a big deal. As time goes on I am sure that we will see many repercussions from killing off 50 million of our own.
Yeah all those tax payments to go toward welfare for mothers who had no choice but to fall into poverty because they had an unintended pregnancy. If you think that simply packing 50 million more people into the united states would boost the economy simply because of the increase in social security payments, then you are very very short sighted.
Recently, part of the recommendation to save the west from economic collapse is to be more productive and export more goods. However, in a society that embraces the myths of overpopulation this naturally becomes counterintuitive. A population actually needs to produce in order to be productive. A substantive population needs to exist in order for there to be a workforce and a workforce needs to exist in order to export.
The other part of the equation is that the jobs that we do have for the population in existence is the one thing we’re good at exporting.
Jane,
And you clearly have a very, very wrong view of economics.
Well that’s an impressive show of economic illiteracy and bad logic. And in the presence of a United States senator too.
Right libertybelle, you caught me.
Simply adding 50 million people to the US population wouldn’t guarantee economic success.
Plus, all this talk of women having children to support the greater economi good smacks an awful lot of….wait for it….SOCIALISM!
You all love socialism.
You all love socialism.
Jane, have you ever been educated in the socialist platform? I am guessing not due to your comment above. Socialism and Marxism were very influential in the legalization of abortion. Look it up.
Socialists and Marxists love abortion.
Hi Jane,
So women have a choice when it comes to the life or death of their baby but they don’t have a choice before that baby is conceived and they also have no choice whether they are poor or not unless they exercise their right to choose??
Jane,
Well, that depends on your view of a person’s role in the economy. Of course it won’t *guarantee* fiscal success, but it would not be a detriment either. In a free-market economy, people are assets. But if we’re coming at this from two totally different schools of thought on economics (which I suspect we are), then we are at an impasse and I don’t think I’ll convince you on this comment thread.
And no, I hate socialism. Let’s not stray from the point that those 50 million weren’t just not born, they were murdered. It’s not that they never existed – they did exist, but never had a chance to live and exist in society. And of course we care about society and community – pretty much every single political/social philosophy recognizes the value of some form of community and society but that does not make them socialist.
Joan,
What makes a senator more important than anyone else? Just wondering.
One of the reasons I love Natural Family Planning (NFP). With enough signs [information] you can make a pretty educated guess as to when you’re most fertile and least fertile.
I was just teasing. personally, I believe that aspects of socialism are really great.
yes – even the fact that women are pregnant helps the medical community, the furniture industry, the baby industry etc. Every baby born needs some type of medical care, clothes, etc. And as that child grows, those children need teachers, food, transportation and everything else. As the economy collapses due to no demand for goods and services, the jobs are lost, housing shrinks, and the economies of scale shrink, making the cost of production for goods and services higher. That in turn gets passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices, and limited selection and of goods themselves.
People are good. They are good for the economy, good for educational institutions, medial institutions, agriculture and any goods and service. One of the reason European societies are struggling is that they do not have a strong population and to fill the gaps, many countries have immigration where those populations are having trouble assimilating into the culture.
We are missing 50 million people, who some would be in welfare and need extra help from the state – but most would be normal people within families – normal consumers that help create jobs, pay taxes, invent things and help others.
You know what else would boost the economy and still let women retain their rights??
gay marriage!!!!
no it wouldn’t
Lol okay, why is that
Jane… that has nothing to do with abortion… and little to do with the economy.
I’m all for government getting out of marriage period, though.
You made the statement so the burden of proof is on you to defend why gay marriage would boost the economy. I’m honestly curious as to your answer.
Jane,
The topic of this thread is regarding abortion and the economy.
If you have a difficult time participating in that topic due to your lack of understanding regarding the concepts outlined on your behalf above, try not to change the subject. It only serves to discredit your position.
Joyfromillinois and Libertybelle gave you an excellent outline in response to you. Care to comment on the actual topic at hand?
Some starter articles on how gay marriage would be an economy booster:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/gay-marriage-can-help-economy
http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm
http://www3.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/pdf/VT%20econ%20impact%20final.pdf
And I AM on topic: the topic was abortion and the economy, and I presented this as a way for women to retain their right to a safe, legal abortion while boosting the economy!!
Oh okay, so no other major social/economic/technological changes have happened in the last 50 years except for the legalization of abortion, got itttt.
Abortion Economics 101:
Bad economy–abortion!!!
Failing schools–abortion!!!
Predatory lending practices–abortion!!!
Deurbanization–abortion!!!!
Incarceration rate–abortion!!!!
Immigration–abortion!!!!
My toothache–abortion!!!
Where is Paladin when you need him?
Please do not feed the troll.
Gay marriage-associated economy boosters:
More weddings, more honeymoons
More purchasing of houses & other material goods
More adoptions
Wrongity mc wrong again.
I have a good friend who works in the wedding business. She’s totally liberal and though she supports gay marriage politically, she KNOWS that they just don’t have the numbers to make her business increase. Traditional marriage is where her money is because that’s who’s spending money and whose demographic is huge. None of her gay friends have paid her a dime for her services, though she’s as supportive as they could wish for.
Socialism? It’s an economic cancer. Subsidiarity is where it’s at.
Carla,
Duly noted.
the only people who get rich from abortion are abortion-providers and the abortion doctors. Politicians benefit if they support abortion because the abortion industry subsidizes them and helps them get re-elected.
Businesses who profit from people being born are: baby products, medical personnel, schools, transportation, furniture, services like insurance, legal, etc., housing services – building, maintenance, city planning, infrastructure, utilities, libraries, educational institutions including public and private and trade schools, charitable organizations and non-profits (servicing clients) in social work, counseling, fitness, grocery, food & beverage industry, agriculture, small businesses, trade unions, fit-it-up people like painters, plumbers, masonry, and house builders, entertainment industry, prisons (yes), agriculture and farming, weather services, cell-phone, cable and other information systems, computers, technology, tourism, shipping, freight handling, airports, trains, buses and other modes of transportation, mechanics, car and other manufacturers… And the list can go on and on.
And I have not even listed local, state and government agencies – all run by people for the service of people.
IF you have people to service, that is. And that is the crux of the point.
The most important people who benefit economically from abortion:
Women.
And what about those unborn women who are aborted , Jane?
I’m so sick of that terminology. Would you ever refer to an 8 year old or a 2 month old or a fetus as a “woman?” no, you probably wouldn’t.
It’s the mother’s body and her right to not carry a fetus/baby/”woman” if she doesn’t want to or if she can’t.
They might benefit from abortion economically in the short term, but since when is that a justification for murder?
And they though they may not have to pay for a baby, they will be paying emotionally/spiritually for the rest of their lives.
The most important people who benefit economically from abortion:
Women.
Yes. The pro-choice side always thinking women are “the most important people.”
It’s the mother’s body and her right to not carry a fetus/baby/”woman” if she doesn’t want to or if she can’t.
Abortion may be legal, but it isn’t a right in the true sense of the word. To be a right, the action must not violate the rights of others AND it must be universal. Meaning, it cannot be something for just some people and not all. Therefore, since abortion kills another human person it is violating that persons right to life which IS a FUNDAMENTAL right. Killing an unborn child may be legal, but it is not a right.
Sorry, Sorry… :) Real life intruded, for several days, and still keeps me hopping. But here you go:

Jane, seriously: you are, at least at the moment, a full-blooded troll. Go haunt some other bridge, will you? That, or morph into a thoughtful commenter…
Kris says:
June 22, 2011 at 2:24 pm
“Abortion may be legal, but it isn’t a right in the true sense of the word. To be a right, the action must not violate the rights of others AND it must be universal. Meaning, it cannot be something for just some people and not all. Therefore, since abortion kills another human person it is violating that persons right to life which IS a FUNDAMENTAL right. Killing an unborn child may be legal, but it is not a right.”
Agreed, especially since the rights of those in the medical field not wanting any involvement in abortion are having their rights ignored.
I am not trolling, for the last time. I’m discussing. Or is someone just trolling because you don’t agree with them?
“I’m so sick of that terminology. Would you ever refer to an 8 year old or a 2 month old or a fetus as a “woman?” no, you probably wouldn’t.”
No, but unlike you, we see the potential… and just because a 2 month old or an 8 year old is not a “woman”, are they any less human, or have less worth? No. Neither is that human at the fetal stage of developement.
Ok, this is my last handful of breadcrumbs for the trolls (tuppence a bag):
I am not my mother’s body, nor have I ever been a component of my mother’s body. I have my very own body, thank you very much.
I absolutely call boy babies “little man” and girl babies “little lady”. Here, I’ll use it in a sentence:
“Who’s my little man!? Look at your cute little toes!”
Once while babysitting, the older child corrected me saying, “His name is Billy, not Little Man!” LOL!! Gosh, it’s hard to believe they’re all grown up now. Billy is in college!
And yes, Mary Mary Quite Contrary, constantly commenting on a blog where you have the exact opposite opinion of the subject of that blog IS the interweb definition of trolling. But then again, abortion fans have a lot of trouble with vocabulary…Such as calling murder for hire “choice.”
Abortion-minded persons walk around with the assumption that children cause poverty. Their solution to poverty is contraception and abortion.
They do not see that children are our investment for the future, both for our nation and for individual families.
(Using round numbers for illustration) — Should we spend $500 for an abortion, or $100,000 to raise the child? Seems like an easy economic choice….
Bur what do you get for that $100,000? The typical person earns about $1 million over a lifetime. Adding $1 million in productivity, paying taxes, living and spending $1 million in economic growth. Most children invest in more children, multiplying the economic growth.
The economic boom of the 80’s an 90’s was primarily our reward for the children of the Greatest Generation — the Boomers hit the job market. but the Boomers didn’t have children, and the economic growth has stopped. Not enough young people working to pay the pensions for the retiring Boomers.
And what do we get for the $500 abortion, or the $30 packet of birth control pills? Nothing. That money is gone forever…. and the economic worth of the missing children is gone too.
Ignoring the injustice and the pain for a while….. abortion doesn’t even make good economic sense.
I like you, Del.
Thank you!
If I could, I would “like” Del’s post 10 times. :)
Thank you, Del. Children are a blessing and an inheritance. They are not the cause of poverty or oppression.
Jane, I’m so sick of the argument that it’s the mother’s body so she can decide and all that crap. It’s not the mother’s body being dismembered and suctioned into a bag and marked “medical waste.” It’s not the mother’s life being ended forever. The child in the womb is not an extension of her mother’s body. Women’s bodies have wombs that were designed for nurturing the life of a new person — deal with it. That’s not a design flaw or defect. It’s an amazing and profound ability. Women’s choices need to be considered long before there’s a new person in the mix. No one, not even a woman, has the right to kill another person just because their existence is deemed “unwanted” at the moment.
Just admit it already: you just want the “right” to kill a baby. That’s what the mythical abortion “right” is. The legal permission to kill a baby. It’s not terminating a pregnancy — it’s terminating a baby. Just admit it! No one is fooled by the euphemisms and sophistry.
I’m not trolling though, because I actually care about the issue. Trolling would be me coming in here just to stir the pot for lols
The value of children far exceeds the cost of raising them and the payback is incalculable. As architect, Herb Schaal, wrote, “The fountain of youth lies not in the waters but in allowing children to awaken our playful spirits and sense of wonder”.
In Michigan, children represent 19% of Medicaid costs (compared to 26% for the elderly and 40% for the disabled).1 Over 45% of single parent-headed households are on Medicaid or other public assistance; whereas less than 15% of married couples with children receive any public assistance.2
I feel sad for the children in Children’s Protective Services who must deal with caseworkers who do not like children. Feel like a number.
1“Distribution of Medicaid Payments by Enrollment Group (in percent), FY2007”
The Urban Institute and Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, based on data from Medicaid Statistical Information System (MSIS) and CMS-64 reports from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services CMS, 2010
2“The Uninsured in Michigan: A Profile” by Michigan Dept of Community Health (The_Uninsured_in_Michigan_a_Profile_2010FINAL_329679.pdf)
joy, don’t forget:
toy companies also benefit since they make the toys that babies play with or are entertained with
some greeting cards since there are baby showers (never been to a fetus shower, only baby showers) and birth announcements and congratulations cards
You (Jane) just don’t care one jot about our views, or about respectful dialogue or persuasion, or about anything other than using us as a “steam-release”–a sort of internet punching-bag on which you can take out your frustrations… as per your own words. If you don’t think that qualifies you as a “troll”, then I really don’t know what to tell you.
Seriously: if your stated purpose is to use us exclusively as a sort of “collective whipping boy” on which to take out frustrations, why on earth should anyone (aside from some initial attempts to get through to you) do anything other than ignore you? Nowhere did we sign up for that sort of nonsense… nor would you, I suspect, if the roles were reversed. Have some sense.
“In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.” – Wiki
Sounds awfully like your behavior, Jane.
How bout 50 million unemployed? Do you folks seriously believe that in a bad economy, having more children is the answer? If parents are unemployed and barely able to afford the rent, do you think that more babies are a “blessing?” Are you not aware of the correlation between overpopulation and poverty in third world countries? Do you know that children are living in the streets of third world countries, where birth control is unavailable, because their parents can no longer care for them? Have you any clue as to how overpopulation strains natural resources and can then cause political instability? (The CIA does and has published tracts on this issue) Countries that control their fertility are the most prosperous. Women in these countries are empowered. But women who have unfettered fertility are not empowered. But disempowering women is really what the pro-life movement is all about.
Liz – thank you! I completely forgot, since my two are now 24 and 17! Hey, in that vein – what about sporting equipment (Ski/swim/bike/football/soccer/la cross/tennis/ball/baseball/softball/skating/surfing/skate boarding/kite-making/hiking/rollerskating/basketball/volleyball/badminton/beach sports/gymnastics/dance/aerobics etc!), gift-wrap, play yard companies, books and art materials, gardening material, school-sports equipment/facilities/coaches etc./ doulas; birthing coaches, exercise for pregnant and post-birth moms; fast food toy manufacturers, and the list can still go on and on!!
Yep – those kids are a drag on the economy.
Not to mention, when done at least 1/2 well – parents are less selfish and more attune to helping others, since their focus is not on me, me, me – but you and us and others. A nice thing, I would think. ;)
CC,
This should help clear those questions up that you have.
http://overpopulationisamyth.com/content/episode-4-poverty-where-we-all-started
Tonka, Hot Wheels, the Pixar Movies (like Cars movie toys), it goes on and on…
Barbies, Disney Princesses toys and clothes, Cabbage Patch dolls, play doh,
There are still a few toys made here in the USA including the Little Tikes Cozy Coupe toy car.
Seems children HELP the economy!
I DEFINITELY trust “overpopulationisamyth.com” to provide unbiased facts.
Oh wait.
Jane,
The information is not from overpopulationisamyth.com -they only are providing you with the information from The World Bank. The statistics from The World Bank are cited all over that article. Or did you just not read it?
cc, please provide proof of your asserstions regarding countries and communities that have aborted their way to prosperity. And please, don’t be a hypocrite: NO PRO ABORTION SOURCES!!! Your links MUST be from unbiased sources.
Waiting…
Every time this topic comes up I have to remind you guys that abortion doesn’t significantly change the number of children women have, just the timing. I’ve posted links to the studies in the past, don’t have time to find them right now.
I have been pregnant 7 times with 7 different children. I have four that live with me right now.
No study is going to change that truth.
Hi Carla. I’m just saying, there is no basis for saying “50 million abortions” means “50 million less taxpayers.”
Well pick a number, Hal. Any number.
Millions of children could right now be tax paying citizens if they hadn’t been aborted.
Easy Peasy.
Hal doesn’t get it. 50 million babies were destroyed. That comes to 50 million fewer people. And as for taxpayers: No, not all of the 50 million would be taxpayers, yet, if they had been allowed to live but all would be consumers.
Furthermore, the babies aborted in the in the first 25-30 years of R v W would now be having their own children (and in some cases grandchildren) so the real number is actually millions higher. Everywhere you look there are multiplier effects when it comes to the negative effects of abortion, not the least of which is in our faltering economy.
Paladin:
Trolls are an interesting species. It kind of takes me back to some Twilight Zone episodes where what was really normal was considered as the abnormal.
What makes them tick? You would think that they would be frustrated by their inability to win over a single convert but yet they keep coming back for more and more rejection, never learning and always trying out new angles in their arguments.
And yet they accuse us of not being open minded!
Jane: “I’m so sick of that terminology. Would you ever refer to an 8 year old or a 2 month old or a fetus as a ‘woman?’ no, you probably wouldn’t.”
No, but pro-choice leadership has been known to refer to even prepubescent girls as “women” when it comes to contraception, apparently believing that the public will be less incredulous regarding their bypassing of parents if only the girls are understood to be “women” and, hence, veritable peers of their mothers who ought to have the independence to submit to the tutelage of their school’s or neighborhood PP contraceptive mentors…
Jerks. They just view girls as rutting sluts who need a constant supply of condoms to keep the boys happy (’cause we all know that “no” doesn’t really mean “no” — it means some bozo’s foisting an abstinence curriculum!).
Jane: “I DEFINITELY trust ‘overpopulationisamyth.com’ to provide unbiased facts.” So obviously you are suspicious to the point of paranoia of any claims made by pro-choice organizations or web sites. Nice to know!
Some crazy speculation in this thread. Well on a different subject, how about this? Well? Why not? Isn’t it just a distributionist way of extending the franchise beyond just the well-heeled banks? ;-)
CC don’t make the mistake of mistaking correlation for causation.
Third world countries are not third world because they are overpopulated. If they had better infrastructure/economies, they’d be much better off.