In the 50s there were 33 workers for everyone collecting social security. Now there are almost 3 workers for everyone collecting social security. We have lost a couple generations of potential wage earners due to abortion.
2006-09-27 08:40:06 · 21 answers · asked by ? 7 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
What they are saying is that when we move away from God's way we always lose.
We would not need 15 Million Illegal workers, and who knows what great things these dead children may have invented or what sicknesses they may have cured had they been allowed to live.
It is a sad society that will not protect the most vulnerable among us.
Mothers, don't kill your babies, they are all a gift from God.
Peace!
2006-09-27 08:47:21 · answer #1 · answered by C 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Last time I checked, the total abortions in the USA since Roe v Wade totaled over 38 Million. That is like the population of the entire state of California. That's 38 million who will never buy your product, contribute to Social Security or discover a cure for cancer.
The only thing keeping the population in check is the influx of illegal aliens. Think about that.
Moving right along, the founder of planned parenthood was a racist. Minorities get most of the abortions.
BC
2006-09-27 08:56:49 · answer #2 · answered by Bad Cosmo 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The Baby Boom Generation, longer life expectancy and a declining birth rate are the real reasons behind the decline in workers paying into SS--not abortion.
2006-09-27 09:32:50 · answer #3 · answered by East of Eden 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
no longer a nasty theory, even though it gained't artwork. a million) the pro-lifers gained't undertake each and every of the youngsters that already choose adoption. 2) I truly have a project with raising a touch one outdoors the womb. a touch one's mind is a equipment deal of rigidity. The womb alongside with the moms heartbeat and all - the completed surroundings is reassuring and calming to the toddler even as it develops. i'm wondering without that, there will be better beginning defects and perchance better mind complications or psychological complications of babies "grown" in such an surroundings. till the womb will be mimicked thoroughly. yet besides, all of us comprehend this can in no way ensue. wonderful attempt although.
2016-12-02 04:44:36 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ah, and your solution is to let all potential abortions, NOT happen, and we can all end up with a Grotesque Gene Pool from all the incest, and ravage rape cases.
You make the worst impression of a smart person I've read today.
.
2006-09-27 09:07:22 · answer #5 · answered by twowords 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
You aren't counting the aborted fetuses who'd have grown up to be crackheads and rapists and who'd need paying for their stay in prison. In pro-life-land, every unwanted baby grows into a loveable cherub who calls everyone "Sir". And all without any help from pro-lifers' tax dollars.
2006-09-27 11:57:34 · answer #6 · answered by Bad Liberal 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
You are fooling yourself if you truly believe abortions were not taking place back then... the difference is, it was much more dangerous for women then, and they were forced to sneak around and go to people that weren't doctors, in conditions that were not sterile... Look. Abortion has not killed off generations of people. I am really glad you are taking an interest in issues that affect your future. Please work hard to educate yourself on issues properly... you cannot believe everything people say or write. Use your head. This question is CRAZY.
2006-09-27 08:54:31 · answer #7 · answered by stillstanding 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Haven't you ever heard of the baby boom? Well the next generation isn't small due to abortion, it's smaller due to the fact the baby boomers put off childbirth for careers. The generation after gen X will be large. You really find a way to make your beliefs stretch to cover something that has no relation what so ever.
2006-09-27 08:46:12 · answer #8 · answered by genaddt 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Wow you are stupid.
The baby boom is the reason retiring seniors seriously outweight current workers.
It has nothing to do with abortion.
Btw your entire argument is pathetic and immoral. You would suggest that women are forced to have children just to cover the social security of the retired?
2006-09-27 08:53:45 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
LOL. Nope. Think contraception. Think not having kids while having a career. So, I'm going to blame Women's Lib. LOL. I'm also going to blame all those doctors who prescribe things which make people live longer than 60 years. So -- shame on the medical and pharmaceutical professions!
2006-09-27 09:01:31 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋