Skip to comments.Abortion Effect: U.S. Seeing Slowest Population Growth Since 1930
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 Years Day, a 0.73 percent rise from last years estimate and 2.05 percent more than the most recent census count in April 2010. At the current pace, the nations 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 nations birth rate and immigration fell in the aftermath of the 2007-09 recession. Between 2000 and 2010, the Census Bureau reported the nations 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 doesnt take a world-renowned economist to figure out that when youre 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 isnt 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.
I think most of those in their childbearing years have figured out that you can’t own the lastest “smart phone” and have kids too. Not in ObamaNation.
let’s assess that loss of revenue on the only people that have total control whether they have an abortion. their bodies, their choice. pay up.
Here in the great American southwest, it feels like Mexico with no shortage of fertile women with plenty of offspring in tow. I can learn spanish just by visiting walmart. I hope ya’ll realize you’re being completely invaded at an alarming rate, and the media puts out these depressing stories to play interference.
I think that is exactly it, and we are not alone. I have read about the low birth rates in many countries, except for the birth rates of the immigrants. I also believe that as you said we have too many young adults who do not want to put off their pleasure to have children.
Welcome to Aztlan! We don’t need no stinkin immigration reform, our nation is being colonized right under our noses. The sad thing is though that they are turning us into the same cesspool they claim to be trying to escape.
¡Viva la Reconquista! /sarc
A vastly over-simplistic analysis.
Those 17 million people would also require government expenditures, so their revenue contribution has to be compared to their cost.
Abortion victims also come disproportionately from the less productive members of society, altering the cost-benefit analysis.
And we called Hitler a murderer or Mao or Stalin. They were pikers compared to the Liberal abortionists.
They are just doing what the white women here in America are too busy to do because they have careers or feel that raising children is too much work.
Actually, Hispanic birthrates in the US, have gone down as well, albeit still higher than other ethnic groups. Moreover, the birth rate in Mexico itself is now down to 2.1 and falling.
This, pragmatically, is why the Republican party keeps trending towards amnesty for illegal immigrants, I believe. We can’t fund the entitlements with a declining birthrate, unless we import more taxpayers. Give 20 million people amnesty, every 20 years or so, and maybe the jerks in Washington can pass the unfunded liability grenade on to the next generation, instead of fixing the problem now and facing the electoral consequences.
“They are just doing what the white women here in America are too busy to do because they have careers or feel that raising children is too much work.”
This issue is much more complex than just abortion; because of the welfare state “white America” is being taxed to feed, clothe, shelter, and school the Bronze Horde (as well as our native-born welfare underclass, which comes in all colors). We have also distorted the legal system so that many white women can’t even get impregnated (or married - as more men realize what they risk/lose if they oblige); especially in this economy we have more women than ever without careers/work who have plenty of time for families.
While abortion certainly impacts the US birthrate, I think it plays a much smaller role than the other issues.
“We cant fund the entitlements with a declining birthrate, unless we import more taxpayers.”
That is true, and it goes beyond that; we can’t have a robust housing market if there are more houses than people. Finally, in a global economy, we’re a small fish (300 million) compared to Asia’s monster fish (India & Red China, with 1 billion+ each). They have 7X the consumers we have; we don’t just want illegals here to work, we want them to shop. Not just at Wal-Mart, either; we need them as “consumers” of public education, police/fire protection, etc.. This is why public school teachers, though they are employees of “the state”, refuse to be involved in verifying documentation for students; whole districts would shut down due to lack of students if illegals were filtered out.
“I also believe that as you said we have too many young adults who do not want to put off their pleasure to have children.”
I agree with you. Someone close to me had an abortion in her twenties—her boyfriend pressured her into it—even though she had always wanted children. He got her a bowl of ice cream as she recovered—as if she had a cold.
It makes me sad, how life is treated so cheaply today.
And now women are paying for delaying childbirth by having trouble conceiving when they finally decide they are ready.
Marriage started out as an religious institution- but the government stepped in and took it over for the sake of ‘raisign revenue for the government’ (IE man and woman have children who grow up get jobs, have more kids who in turn grow up get jobs, pay taxes etc etc etc) and it was the reason the governemnt did not allow homosexual marriage (they didn’t oppose homosexual marriage based on moral issues [which they should have if they were goign tro uphold the religious sanctity of marriage- but apaprently our governemtn is no logner interested in upholdign ANY religious morality], they opposed it based on financial issues- gay peopel DO NOT produce children and are NOT a good financial incentive for the governemnt to support and infact are at risk of becoming dependances upon the government moreso than any other group of people
now we see our governemnt / supreme court allowing and even encouraging abortion? The whoel premnise of the government supporting anyhtign is for the government to make money off of future revenue- but they are murderign millions of potential tax payers? For the first itme- we’re at risk of not having enough children to keep the population going (A country MUST have a certain number of children each year in order to keep from going extinct)- I don’t understand hte rationale being used by the governemnt as they encourage abortions and fight tooth and nail to be allowed to continue murderign innocent lives (whom by the way, they’ve taken oaths to protect- but appareently oaths mean nothign anymore- a person’s word no longer means anything- swearign oaths to God no logner mean anything-)
The 1930s, the 1930s, it seems I remember hearing about that time. Perhaps what we are seeing is depression era birthrates brought on by the Obama economy.
The Roe effects would suggest more conservative kids who might be expected to have a higher birthrate. Immigration would suggest higher birthrates too. So this seems more economic than anything.
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. :)
“were a small fish (300 million) compared to Asias 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.