Obama fails to see abortion as an economic issue, much less a moral one. The effects of abortion--“The George Bailey Effect:  Abortion-on-Demand and the Implications for America’s Economic Future—illuminates in one movie. “A Wonderful Life”, dictates any life failing to exist would have affected multitudes had the person lived to adulthood.

A previous column appeared describing how many abortions have likely occurred in the history of mankind. Surgical and chemical abortions (abortifacients) were included. Chemicals and devices (i.e., Norplant, RU486, IUD, etc…) kill a live embryo, or very young baby with a soul usually before a mother can even see the baby she aborts.

The number of lives lost by abortion throughout history has been astronomical. All those souls waiting for our arrival in the afterlife, cannot be too pleased with the decision to abruptly stop their mortal life.

By the end of Obama’s 1st term, there will have been another 5.2 million known surgical abortions. Add the chemical abortions (7-12 million) done every year in the US [Birth Control Pill Causes Abortions -- Pro-Life America, Celebs ... ]. Simply put, over 10 million lives are snuffed out by chemicals each year. The grand total—surgical and chemical--over 11 million each year at 0-9 months are aborted in the US.

#5 in the 10 Commandments (not Suggestions) is: “Thou shall not kill”. The other side of the coin is not as bad, but represents a major hit our economy cannot take. The Obama administration seems ‘hell-bent’(no pun intended) on population reduction and ‘saving dollars’ with abortion. With a soul’s afterlife, can their outlook be more short-term?

Obama’s future outlook fails to reckon with the demographic and economic consequences. It’s known the US fertility rate is currently below the “replacement rate” of 2.1 children/woman. This decline is somewhat reduced by illegal immigration. But Mexico’s replacement rate is now at 1.98, when it was 3.2 in 1995. [UNdata | record view | Total fertility rate (children per woman)]

In [http://www.lifenews.com/2011/07/20/the-economic-cost-of-abortion-202-billion-in-lost-taxes/], it shows how painful the costs of abortions in the US are, especially during the 4 years of the Obama Administration.

Since the typical federal tax revenue supplied by each working US citizen is approximately $8,500/yr, the total US income the millions of “economic ghosts” (no longer earn an income) can easily be calculated. Hence, one can get the cost of abortion and taxes not paid into the system.

Lawrence F. Roberge - The Cost of Abortion: An Analysis of the Social, Economic, and Demographic Effects of Abortion in the United States demonstrates the steady erosion of US economic competitiveness.

The Social Security system will begin to go broke in 2017, now that only two workers only support each retiree. In 1945 there was 18 workers for each retiree. The USA Today recently stated: “If only one-third of those who have been aborted were available to start work on their 18th birthday, the demise of Social Security would be put off for decades.”

In the LifeNews link, and knowing 16.5% of the workforce has been aborted since 1973, their tabulation costs show [$350 billion/yr x 16.5%] = $57.8 b/yr lost to the government in taxes. Add to that, another [$185 billion/yr x 16.5%] = $30.5 b/yr lost on interest on debt not paid, do to missing taxes from those aborted. But wait. The list was ONLY for known surgical abortions.

If you add both surgical and chemical abortions in the US every year, one gets >11 million abortions/yr in the US alone. Including all the abortions in one year, the above dollar amounts should actually be multiplied by 10. That calculates to [$57.8b + $30.5b]10= $883 b/yr, that’s not getting put into the US economy.

In the next 5 years, two SC justices (Ginsburg and Kennedy) will likely relinquish their tenure on the Supreme Court. If Obama is re-elected, RoeVsWade will not be overturned for at least another 4 years. If Romney gets elected, he will likely choose a Republican nominee. That nominee will likely vote to eliminate Roe, but it will likely be left it up to each state to approve abortions.   

The results of one vote, by 9 people, in 1973, can be decimating…

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin Roeten can be reached at roetenks@charter.net.

The ‘left’ must be shaking in their boots to see the latest trends of the pro-life juggernaut. More and more people consider themselves pro-life, and favor more restrictions on abortion. The lean towards being pro-life is growing, especially with the young adult.

They understand babies begin sometime, and realize the most obvious answer is at conception. Men, especially, know if they’re in the woods hunting deer and they hear something, prudence dictates to wait and make sure it’s a deer. But it’s already known to be a baby if a woman’s pregnant.

The now commonplace practices of birth control, abortifacient use, late-term abortion (all 3 can be abortion), same-sex marriage, and sterilization were not typically thought of 100 years ago.

With birth control, the uterus is always made inhospitable for implantation, whether the fertilized embryo comes for a visit or not. If the fertilized embryo does visit, it usually can’t implant and is aborted. With same-sex marriage and sterilization, there’s only one purpose--and it’s not population generation.

All mentioned procedures cull the population. Each woman has a set number of eggs she can offer to become children. During the fertile years fewer than 500 of these eggs will be released into the fallopian tubes. Age, or other variables, can dictate how many eggs are left. Previous abortions will affect the number available, especially if it has spurred the onslaught of breast cancer, which will shorten the woman’s lifetime. AIDS/HIV, and the elimination of DDT (tens of millions get malaria without repulsion or death of mosquitoes) count for millions of deaths each year.

Things will get more dramatic, and time will seem to accelerate. People will start to realize that population could actually top out in the year 2050. Remember the eighties, when everyone thought world population would spiral out of control? But Defusing the Population Bomb | Stephen Moore | Cato Institute ... factually obliterates “Bomb”—with the latest population information.

One can physically see that a woman’s fertility rate must be at least 2.1 babies to just replace existing population. The global fertility rate was 6.0 in 1970, but in 2000 it was only 2.9. In WORLD POPULATION TO 2300, the UN says the population will top out (stop increasing) in the year 2050. Now, all that’s changed.

In 2009, the UN revised its population forecast to show a 2.05 fertility rate for the US. By 2050 the US “medium variant” will be 1.85, and the world’s fertility rate will be 2.02 [UNdata | record view | Total fertility rate (children per woman)]. That’s the believed likely scenario, not the worst. And that’s below the minimum replacement rate of 2.1.

Very recent information dictates population will peak at around seven billion in 2030, and then begin a long descent, essentially within the UN Population Division's (Nov ‘96) “low variant” prediction.

When population tops out or maximizes, growth completely stops. Unfortunately, after that, it will begin to spiral downward. One does not realize how contraception, an ageing population, and usual treatments for AIDS/HIV and malaria accelerate a falling fertility rate. If one is using contraception, sex is only a toy, and there’s no intention to increase population.

Abortion in the US peaked in 1990 (1.6 million fewer lives/yr). Even though abortions dropped to 1.2 million thanks to pro-lifers, PP abortions doubled. For 15 years straight, the number of abortions has risen at PP from 8% to 27%. Their plans usually don’t involve parenthood, and their number of abortions-to-adoption referrals is 340-1 (www.NRLC.org; 2/2011 edition). Yet they take >$360 million/yr of taxpayer money.                       

Already, most European countries know their dilemmas, and know their populations are dying off. Even Russia is paying their citizens to go home and have babies.

As one ages, possibilities of conception become dimmer. With abortion and life longevity increases, there are much fewer able to conceive. With AIDS/HIV and malaria prevalent, there will be significantly fewer people available, and even fewer able to conceive in upcoming years.

Steve Mosher reiterates parts of the above in Too many people? Not by a long shot. Peoples and countries already exist now that know the problem of low fertility rates, but will not do what needs be done to increase population. But by time they realize the actuality of population extinction, it’ll be too late. 

We know that our minds extending fifty years into the future can be accomplished. The difficulty is changing the way we do things in twenty. That, will be a monumental leap.              

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin Roeten can be reached at roetenks@charter.net.