I think most of those in their childbearing years have figured out that you can’t own the lastest “smart phone” and have kids too. Not in ObamaNation.
let’s assess that loss of revenue on the only people that have total control whether they have an abortion. their bodies, their choice. pay up.
Here in the great American southwest, it feels like Mexico with no shortage of fertile women with plenty of offspring in tow. I can learn spanish just by visiting walmart. I hope ya’ll realize you’re being completely invaded at an alarming rate, and the media puts out these depressing stories to play interference.
A vastly over-simplistic analysis.
Those 17 million people would also require government expenditures, so their revenue contribution has to be compared to their cost.
Abortion victims also come disproportionately from the less productive members of society, altering the cost-benefit analysis.
And we called Hitler a murderer or Mao or Stalin. They were pikers compared to the Liberal abortionists.
This, pragmatically, is why the Republican party keeps trending towards amnesty for illegal immigrants, I believe. We can’t fund the entitlements with a declining birthrate, unless we import more taxpayers. Give 20 million people amnesty, every 20 years or so, and maybe the jerks in Washington can pass the unfunded liability grenade on to the next generation, instead of fixing the problem now and facing the electoral consequences.
Marriage started out as an religious institution- but the government stepped in and took it over for the sake of ‘raisign revenue for the government’ (IE man and woman have children who grow up get jobs, have more kids who in turn grow up get jobs, pay taxes etc etc etc) and it was the reason the governemnt did not allow homosexual marriage (they didn’t oppose homosexual marriage based on moral issues [which they should have if they were goign tro uphold the religious sanctity of marriage- but apaprently our governemtn is no logner interested in upholdign ANY religious morality], they opposed it based on financial issues- gay peopel DO NOT produce children and are NOT a good financial incentive for the governemnt to support and infact are at risk of becoming dependances upon the government moreso than any other group of people
now we see our governemnt / supreme court allowing and even encouraging abortion? The whoel premnise of the government supporting anyhtign is for the government to make money off of future revenue- but they are murderign millions of potential tax payers? For the first itme- we’re at risk of not having enough children to keep the population going (A country MUST have a certain number of children each year in order to keep from going extinct)- I don’t understand hte rationale being used by the governemnt as they encourage abortions and fight tooth and nail to be allowed to continue murderign innocent lives (whom by the way, they’ve taken oaths to protect- but appareently oaths mean nothign anymore- a person’s word no longer means anything- swearign oaths to God no logner mean anything-)
The 1930s, the 1930s, it seems I remember hearing about that time. Perhaps what we are seeing is depression era birthrates brought on by the Obama economy.
The Roe effects would suggest more conservative kids who might be expected to have a higher birthrate. Immigration would suggest higher birthrates too. So this seems more economic than anything.
The Morlocks in the big liberal cities aren’t reproducing. Meanwhile, the population is growing in the conservative Bible belt. Patriots and conservatives now control 30 states, which is up from 25 in 2010. That represents more than half the population in the United States. The leftist demographers don’t want to talk about that.
Families are having babies, but not in the liberal hellholes. Seattle, for example, has more dogs than children. Surveys show that families with children are leaving big cities by the millions and are moving to exurbia. That’s the area that Bush II tapped to win reelection in 2004.