You beat me to it, and with graphics, no less!
CALLER: I noticed the national media, you know, they talk a lot about the loss of revenue, or the inability of the government to fund Social Security, and I was curious, and Ive read articles in recent months here, that the abortions that have happened since Roe v. Wade, the lost revenue from the people who have been aborted in the last 30-something years, could fund Social Security as we know it today. And the media just doesnt never touches this at all.
BENNETT: Assuming theyre all productive citizens?
CALLER: Assuming that they are. Even if only a portion of them were, it would be an enormous amount of revenue.
BENNETT: Maybe, maybe, but we dont know what the costs would be, too. I think as abortion disproportionately occur among single women? No.
CALLER: I dont know the exact statistics, but quite a bit are, yeah.
BENNETT: All right, well, I mean, I just dont know. I would not argue for the pro-life position based on this, because you dont know. I mean, it cuts both you know, one of the arguments in this book Freakonomics that they make is that the declining crime rate, you know, they deal with this hypothesis, that one of the reasons crime is down is that abortion is up. Well
CALLER: Well, I dont think that statistic is accurate.
BENNETT: Well, I dont think it is either, I dont think it is either, because first of all, there is just too much that you dont know. But I do know that its true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.