Posted on 01/01/2013 5:05:21 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
After almost 40 years of legalized abortions throughout the United States — and longer in states that okayed abortions pre-Roe — the U.S. population has been decimated to the point that the nation is seeing the lowest population growth since the 1930s.
Abortion has destroyed not only one generation of Americans but a second as well — people who should be boosting the fertility rate in their childbearing years now who were victims of abortions in the 1970s and 1980s. In total, more than 55 million Americans are been victimized by abortions and millions more were never born because their parents were aborted.
Bloomberg News has more on how the U.S. fertility rate is at historically low levels, though abortion is never mentioned as a cause, of course.
The Census Bureau estimates there will be 315.1 million people living in the country on New Year’s Day, a 0.73 percent rise from last year’s estimate and 2.05 percent more than the most recent census count in April 2010. At the current pace, the nation’s population will grow by 7.3 percent during the decade, the lowest level since the 7.25 percent increase recorded between 1930 and 1940, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
The slow rate of growth during the first part of the decade indicates the U.S. continues to emerge slowly from the worst economic downturn since the 1930s. The nation’s birth rate and immigration fell in the aftermath of the 2007-09 recession. Between 2000 and 2010, the Census Bureau reported the nation’s population grew by 9.7 percent.
Bloomberg blames the economy but ignores how abortion has adversely affected the economy. As one analysis at LifeNews has noted:
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Social Security Administration, Guttmacher Institute, and National Center for Health Statistics, if abortion had never been legalized in 1973, more than 17 million people would be employed, resulting in an additional $400 billion from those workers, with $11 billion contributed to Medicare and $47 million contributed to Social Security. Although it is important to also reduce government spending, these added incomes would nevertheless help the country.
It doesn’t take a world-renowned economist to figure out that when you’re decreasing the youth from abortion and with all the baby-boomers retiring, Social Security is going to eventually run out if we continue with abortions and the amount of spending by the federal government. Even though Social Security cannot last forever with the amount of federal spending today, not having abortion would help Social Security last longer, assuming that the amount of federal spending is the same.
In population studies, at least 2.1 kids per household are needed to maintain stable population. The average number of kids per household today is about 2.0 in this country, which isn’t even meeting the replacement level of 2.1 needed to maintain the population for future generations to come. The slow growth in the United States population seen in recent years is due to immigration and people living longer.
Another analysis shows similar problems:
As a result of removing that staggering number of lives, the population – and tax base – are far smaller. If we assume a fairly steady rate of abortions since the last year of reporting (2008), then there have been almost 56M aborted babies in this country – nearly the population of California and Texas combined. Given an average federal tax revenue of approximately $8500/citizen, and assuming that those aborted between 1975 and 1990 (approx 23,782,000 lives, based on Guttmacher estimates) would now be productive taxpayers, the U.S. economy is losing roughly $202 billion per year in tax payments as of 2012.
Actions have consequences. This is one of them.
Chickens are coming home to roost!
They are using the average rate stats here, so you’ll have to prove that this is the case.
Yep, which is why the immigrants themselves are going to dry up, but don’t tell people this - they will call you a liar. :)
“we’re a small fish (300 million) compared to Asia’s monster fish (India & Red China, with 1 billion+ each).”
Remember the one child policy? Even if you take every single available extra person in all of Asia - it will *just* cover their yearly manpower losses.
I have no plans to produce a cost-benefit ratio for abortion, insofar as it affects the federal budget.
I merely pointed out that one should be performed before claiming that the aborted children would alleviate our present fiscal mess.
Then you concede your argument. :)
Who would want to bring a child into this country which is so badly adrift? I am glad I have had the honor of having been here when the U.S. was once a great nation. I am nearing my end of years and have great pity for the yet to be born.
I’m not making an argument, merely pointing out that the article makes no effort to show that its argument is valid.
“pointing out that the article makes no effort to show that its argument is valid.”
Their argument is that every child aborted would have contributed as much on average as the children who were not aborted.
Seems a reasonable premise to me.
Yes, but in our present system is each additional person a net asset or expense to society, speaking financially only of course?
Given our present deficit situation, I think it is highly dubious to claim that we would be saved if only we had more people. It is true only if the additional people would be a net fiscal benefit to society, which is what the author made no attempt to prove.
The Morlocks in the big liberal cities aren’t reproducing. Meanwhile, the population is growing in the conservative Bible belt. Patriots and conservatives now control 30 states, which is up from 25 in 2010. That represents more than half the population in the United States. The leftist demographers don’t want to talk about that.
Families are having babies, but not in the liberal hellholes. Seattle, for example, has more dogs than children. Surveys show that families with children are leaving big cities by the millions and are moving to exurbia. That’s the area that Bush II tapped to win reelection in 2004.
Sherman Logan to JCBreckenridge
“Yes, but in our present system is each additional person a net asset or expense to society, speaking financially only of course?”
On average? Without a doubt.
“Given our present deficit situation, I think it is highly dubious to claim that we would be saved if only we had more people. It is true only if the additional people would be a net fiscal benefit to society, which is what the author made no attempt to prove.”
If people on average consumed more than they produced, society’s productivity would be zero.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.