What is the true economic cost of abortions, i.e., lost life-time
contributions, to Social Security's Solvency?

---

Request for Question Clarification by pafalafa-ga on 26 Apr 2005 11:58 PDT

You seem to be assuming an economic "cost" to society.  But individual
social security recipients tend to take more money out of the system
than they put in.  Are you willing to entertain an answer that
quantifies a savings?

---

Request for Question Clarification by pafalafa-ga on 26 Apr 2005 12:51 PDT

dgallo51-ga,

I can't speak for all my GA researcher colleagues, but for myself,
this question and the comments you've added to it seems to be so
loaded with political and social preconceptions, that I don't think an
honest, objective attempt at researching it would really give you the
answer you want or expect.

Perhaps others will feel differently about it, but I'm going to give it a pass.

Thanks for your understanding...


paf

You are assuming that aborted fetuses would become productive members
of society and not criminals.

You have some hard data on what percentage of all aborted babies would
be criminals or drags on society? Sounds on the surface somewhat
racially biased, given the current make up of our prison population.

Seems like a plausible hypothesis and should be able to discount the
birth rate in select demographic areas (a la investment banking
models) to get a decent approximation. Nothing racially based in your
question at all, to me. Seems like legitmate public policy question
and someone with time and smarts should be able to give a reasonable
answer with good grounding.

If one accepts the thesis that individuals tend to take out more than
they pay into Social Security, how can anyone claim that doesn't
represent a crisis? With regard to 'savings to society' in allowing
convenience abortions on demand would seem to suggest a 'whiff of'
eugenics.

Assuming a lifetime of 'average' Social Security Contributions times
the number of abortions over a given period represents how much of a
loss in revenues to the system? If you can quantify the savings to the
system in not having to pay benefits, be sure to figure in the added
cost to working contributors in order to acheive said savings.

If you can't consider the social cost of aborting potential taxpayers
when there are serious questions about systemic long term viability to
the present guaranteed benefits, how can you expect to find real
solutions?

Yes the question is pregnant with controversy. I'll accept that it's
too hot for some to handle, but that still leaves me with questions
that beg for answers.

Racially biased?  Not at all, I judge people based on socioeconomic
factors, but not on race.  The fact that there may exist a correlation
is not my fault as an individual.  We are all responsible as a
society.

Does The World Bank or United Nations maintain a data bank on what per
cent of unplanned/unwanted pregnancies end up becoming great
influences on Civilizations?

Maybe you have access to more recent data, but?In 1996? The abortion
rate was 55.5 per 100 live births for black women, 20.2 for white
women, and 36 for women of other races? so when I hear how abortions
are saving Society from future criminals, the short hairs on my next
snap to attention. Call me a reactionary.

It is wrong to cast a moral issue in economic terms.
That is main reason why your 'question' is dubious.

If you would apply such reasoning to very old - instead to 
very young - you would see immediately it is wrong.

On somewhat less ideological plane, there is an 'optimal population density':

 Until about 1914 US (and some others) were 'immigration countries' since
 there was a clear benefit in having more people (of certain type).
These days, most countries discourage immigration - and some promote
Zero Population Growth or negative growth.

This, still ideological for many religions, perhaps can be looked at as
economic issue - but is not related to the way by which population 
growth is controlled.

Abortion is complex issue - moral and religious with some science mixed in
(when does the life start, or conscious life starts) but it is not
issue of economics or of population growth.

Population growth is directly, inescapedly related to economics. Since
it is the younger generation who gets stuck paying guaranteed benefits
to my generation while their guarateed benefit is anything but seucre,
it would seem they are entitled to know how much 'Choice' is costing
them in reduced guaranteed benefits and or increased 'contributions',
or BOTH. There is a direct economic cost to abortion. How many Bill
Gates, Steve Jobs, Henry Fords, Franklin Roosevelts are being
extinguished? Not having their contributions are an implied cost to
Society. Isn't it fair to ask what are those costs? If we were talking
Tanks or Aircraft Carriers, people wouldn't have any problem weighing
their costs to Domestic Spending Programs.

"If you would apply such reasoning to very old - instead to 
very young - you would see immediately it is wrong."

And I say if you will apply such reasoning to the very young, what's
to keep you from applying it to the very old?