Maybe you should actually read the study you cite. It does not support your conclusion. In fact, it counters the conclusion provided by the conservative anti-gay Family Research Institute. "The Family Research Institute presented the lower mean age at death (by 22–25 years) for persons in same-sex versus heterosexual marriages as evidence that persons who married heterosexually “outlived gays and lesbians by more than 20 years on average.”6(p13) Elementary textbooks in epidemiology warn against such undue comparisons between group averages because they lead to seemingly common-sense yet seriously flawed conclusions.28" In other words the FRI used invalid analysis to draw their conclusions.

I simply question your point. Really, your original question, "Which one of these makes money?" That is irrelevant. They're not stock investments. How much monetary return do you get from the food you buy? zip. But if you don't eat a healthy diet you're going to pay more in the long run. For some investments we make it's not the immediate return it's the long term benefit, one that we may never be able to put a dollar figure on. All of those original programs I cited provide that. "Which one makes money?" Why is that a relevant question?

Define "make money." That suggest an immediate measurable financial return. You won't always see that. But we can make inference from data we have. For instance we know that about 90% or so of the people incarcerated in prison are there due to drugs (supporting their or someone else's habit), We also know that it costs more to house them for life than it does to rehabilitate, or better yet, intervene when they are young to keep them off drugs in the first place. So what is the true cost of early learning programs and youth intervention programs? The dollar cost of the program or the cost minus the savings for every child that doesn't grow up to be a drug addict or dealer? That second one is very hard to measure, and most people can't understand the concept let alone the mathematics involved. As a result we have "3 Strikes" laws and put more people in prison for life. Seems pretty counter productive to me. But I don't know of any arguably accurate numbers that can say how many people are guaranteed to be saved by any given program.

Murder: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. (HINT: Unlawful being the operative word. Now go back and read your little oxymoron, to paraphrase "It is legal, and it is murder."
And just what does the ultrasound show when the chemicals used to abort the fertilized egg or embryo in the first trimester? How much fighting is that grape-sized embryo doing.
The problem with the ignorant emotion-laden argument of the anti-abortion crowd is that you take one extreme case and try to make that the basis of your argument. It's irrational and stupid as an argument and any reasonably educated high school student can see right through it. I'm all weepy, but I'm not convinced.

No one but you has made that distinction. No anti-abortion rhetoric is calling for banning only late -term abortion. No anti-abortion legislation has been proposed that even included protection for the woman's life in the late-term case except where there was enough opposition to force such a mandate. I have no problem with a ban on late-term abortion except where medically necessary to save the mother's life. But don't insult my intelligence and try to argue that that is the only case being discussed.

You don't make the case for the whole by arguing the case of the extreme few. If that were the case we could argue that, using Charles Manson as a guide, all Christians are lunatic murderers, or, using some of the posting here, all conservatives are uneducated ignoramuses.

If you would like to argue that abortion and the holocaust have anything in common I recommend you go find a mirror and argue with someone even less competent than yourself.

chumstick Father/Son/Spirit - metaphor used to both describe the idea of Jesus to people of the first century who had nothing even close to our modern day understanding of nature and as a means to tie Jesus' life into the tradition that those people grew up with so they could better sell them on the idea of transitioning from the old way (The book of Moses) to the New Way, the teaching of Jesus. Jesus - human being, not god until writers used the concept some 30 years after he died. Born in Nazareth not Bethlehem, Mother was not Mary, (Mary comes from a story in the Book of Moses and was selected by the biblical authors to help tie the life of Jesus to the stories of the Old Testament prophets. Jesus had two brothers and possibly a sister, oops, there goes the virgin birth story. He may also have been married (there is strong evidence for this, but it hasn't been proven yet). The God that Jesus spoke of was the essence of being human, hence his argument that it is not any man's place to judge another with respect to their human worth (he walked among all the outcast classes). There is a wealth of scholarly work on the bible that will open your eyes to what Jesus was really all about if you have any interest in learning.
I agree with your conclusion, and there are plenty of modern day churches claiming to be christian but not following anything close to what Jesus taught.

Nothing gives me the right, I'm a man, I don't have babies, and I'm not telling anyone that they can or cannot have an abortion. But a woman does have the right to choose whether she will or will not bring a pregnancy to term, that is just basic human morality, Her body, Her choice. I would argue that that choice should be made with care and as early in the process as humanly possible, but it is still her right to choose, not mine and not yours.
And don't kid yourself, or try to pretend otherwise, this is all about religion, what "moral authority" says that it's not right? What "moral authority" says you can dictate to any woman what she will do with her body?
The "tremendous doubt" you're talking about is a direct consequence of religious organizations insisting on "abstinence" as the only way, ignorant puritan notions about sexuality, and rules that bar their followers from using contraception. As long as you have such a large force fighting open discussion and education there will always be doubt, but that doubt is not driven by those who work to educate and provide contraception and open discussion, it comes from those who insist on fighting it.

If you really wanted to know you would look it up and educate yourself. If you want to cling to your ignorance that's your choice, but unless you can provide counter data you really don't contribute to the discussion. Here's a place to start:
" A University of Washington-led research team studied a group of 95 chronically homeless alcoholics and found that in one year, they cost taxpayers more than $8 million in hospitalizations, detox center treatments and incarcerations.

When the same group spent one year in Seattle's Housing First program -- residences where they are allowed to drink -- the same group cost $4 million in taxpayer money, according to the study, which was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association."