Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Abortion's lost generation: what it might have accomplished
Fairbanks Daily News miner ^ | 1/23/05 | Debbie Joslin

Posted on 01/25/2005 8:44:17 AM PST by qam1

Several years ago I had an elderly neighbor who would always tout the benefits of legalized abortion. To him, it was simply a matter of cost efficiency. He would quote me the cost to the state and federal governments of raising a child to adulthood and beyond on public assistance and incarceration of a certain percentage of these folks. The figures were truly mind-boggling, for we were talking of tens of millions of aborted unborn babies. My neighbor was correct about the initial costs. It will always be cheaper to kill the unborn than to have a baby.

While it may seem crass to argue the pro-life perspective from the economic impact on our society, it does bear looking at. We have discussed this subject every which way, and at this point, only the very ignorant would contend that the unborn are not people. Those who deny the personhood of the unborn do so out of loyalty to the cause of "reproductive choice" or inability or unwillingness to admit their part in killing innocent lives.

My neighbor's hypothesis assumed all of these children would be born to single women or at least families on public assistance. He assumed they would all grow up to be on welfare for the rest of their lives at best and incarcerated at worst. There are a few things wrong with that assumption.

Statistically, at least some of those aborted and missing from our tax roles today would be on the dole or even possibly locked up. But certainly most of these would be productive members of society. The oldest would be in their early 30s; getting married; having more children; buying houses; some moving up the corporate ladder; some with low-paying, hard-to-fill jobs; some nursing their elderly parents; and paying Social Security. Our colleges, high schools and grade schools would be bulging at the seams. We would need bigger buildings, more teachers and more everything. But that would be OK because we would have more tax dollars to pay for these expenses. We would certainly have more soldiers and more doctors and more nurses and more workers in just about every category. In fact, there might not be a need for illegal immigrants if we had not callously extinguished an entire generation.

But what of the women who would have birthed these babies? Wouldn't the financial impact of choosing life have been negative for them? Choosing life doesn't mean they would be forced to parent the child. The waiting list to adopt American infants is many months and sometimes years long. A tremendous number of couples choose to adopt foreign infants to fill the supply/demand gap. Even for infants with special needs, there's no lack of empty arms waiting eagerly to assume the role that the birth mother may not be able to fulfill. Perhaps if some of the energy and dollars currently being routed to protect "a woman's right to choose" were instead funneled into programs to support and encourage her right to be a mother, many of those women would choose to parent their children.

Post-abortion women have an elevated risk of substance abuse and a higher incidence of smoking than women with other reproductive outcomes. Women are six times more likely to commit suicide following an abortion than following childbirth. There is substantial evidence that induced abortion is an independent risk factor for breast cancer in women. Tens of millions of healthier, happier women surely would be good for our economy.

Just imagine the effect of 50 million more babies using disposable diapers, consuming formula and baby food, getting medical care, clothing and other assorted "baby" things.

Now, imagine 50 million more wage earners paying Social Security and fueling our economy. There, now doesn't that make you feel bullish on America?

Debbie Joslin is president of Eagle Forum Alaska and is a former national committeewoman for Alaska to the Republican National Committee. She lives in Delta Junction.


TOPICS: Extended News; US: Alaska
KEYWORDS: abortion; genx
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-32 last
To: qam1

> imagine 50 million more wage earners paying Social Security

Well, that's a shudderful thought, regardless of the source.


21 posted on 01/25/2005 9:15:46 AM PST by orionblamblam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: k2blader
What a truly sick attitude to take. We shouldn't oppose abortion for such socialist and selfish reasons. We should oppose abortion because it's wrong. Period.

You've pointed out a symptom of something more general in our society. Our culture is unwilling to state that something is right or wrong, good or bad. Whether intentionally or not, we've instead slipped into a de facto utilitarian moral mindset. We see it in a lot of places other than this sort of abortion discussion.

For example, our free market friends -- especially those of the libertarian religion -- love to invoke The Market as a moral arbiter. Social mores have degraded into various versions of "whatever feels good." And of course, the major argument for abortion reduces to an appeal to the sacrosanct convenience of the mother.

That helps to explain why Christianity is under attack, too: it leads us to the idea that right and wrong are real things that exist outside of what's convenient for us.

22 posted on 01/25/2005 9:23:17 AM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: k2blader
We should oppose abortion because it's wrong. Period.
I know that, but telling that to a lib doesn't make any sense to them at all. It's got to be explained in the context of consequences to them. Because to a lib, it's all about them.
23 posted on 01/25/2005 10:31:03 AM PST by nicolezmomma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
We tend to forget that people, by and large, are a country's greatest resource. This may not be the case in some areas of the world where superstition and hate are the order of the day, but a well educated public is worth its weight in gold. There is some surface logic in fetacide for stupid people, or those whom we think will be stupid when we study the parents. However, when we allow the State to cease protecting the most vulnerable of us all, we open the Pandora's box of unintended consequences, chief among them the disappearance of a continued Democrat voter base. Forgive my lack of eloquence today.
24 posted on 01/25/2005 11:07:27 AM PST by ashtanga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: qam1; 2nd amendment mama; A2J; Agitate; Alouette; Annie03; aposiopetic; attagirl; axel f; ...
Awesome post, Qam. An exceelent analysis of the economic impact of abortion.

ProLife Ping!

If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.

25 posted on 01/25/2005 12:31:13 PM PST by Mr. Silverback (Women need abortion like a fish needs a bicycle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
Not if we didn't do it retroactively. Babies aren't all that expensive--kids and seniors are. If we aborted every single baby in the U.S., we'd still have to pay social security and other "entitlements" that the Great Society managed to put into place. We'd have to kill everyone under the age of 18 and over the age of 62 to really make a significant dent, I think. :)

Why do I feel like I'm writing a "Not too brite!" article?

26 posted on 01/25/2005 2:37:40 PM PST by LibertarianInExile (NO BLOOD FOR CHOCOLATE! Get the UN-ignoring, unilateralist Frogs out of Ivory Coast!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: HostileTerritory

You can even it out by taking into account the women made sterile by an abortion.


27 posted on 01/25/2005 2:44:34 PM PST by stands2reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: r9etb

You do know there are Freepers who have had abortions right?


28 posted on 01/25/2005 2:45:12 PM PST by stands2reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: stands2reason

I don't see how that evens it out... of course there's going to be some population difference, because many women who had abortions won't have had children.


29 posted on 01/25/2005 3:10:41 PM PST by HostileTerritory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: stands2reason
You do know there are Freepers who have had abortions right?

I know of at least one who has. Doesn't affect the larger (statistical) point....

30 posted on 01/25/2005 3:27:53 PM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: qam1

The Democratic party is being punished by God today for its stance in favor of abortion in the 1970's. In a nutshell, abortion cost the Democrats the presidency in 2000 and 2004.

How, do you ask?

Democrats tend to have abortions at a higher rate than Republicans.

Children tend to grow up to have political beliefs similar to those of their parents.

Abortion was made legal nationwide by Roe vs. Wade in the mid 1970's.

Individuals born in the mid 1970's would be eligible voters in the 2000 and 2004 elections.

The 2000 and 2004 elections were both extremely close - so close that a couple million aborted would-be-Democrats could easily have tipped the scales.

Like I said, the Democratic party is being punished by God for its stance on abortion.


31 posted on 01/25/2005 3:31:37 PM PST by LaBradford22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: qam1
My neighbor's hypothesis assumed all of these children would be born to single women or at least families on public assistance.
I have always taken this argument personally because I grew up on welfare thanks to a deadbeat dad and it's like hearing people say I should have been aborted. I'm a taxpayer now, and I take care of my elderly Mom in law. I guess now all these bleeding hearts would say.."Oh, now your ok, your valuable now." I hate hearing I'm special, that not everyone turns out like me. It's well meaning but also so ignorant and cruel and above all arrogant and elitist Babies should get a chance, poor or not.
32 posted on 01/26/2005 9:56:46 AM PST by KPfromDerryNH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-32 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson