Skip to comments.America’s Silent Killer: 48.5 Million Americans Lost
Posted on 10/11/2006 11:02:24 AM PDT by MBA4Life
It may sound like a scenario from a super-secret nuclear contingency plan, but a silent killer has eliminated a population equal to that of America's 60 largest cities. Forty-eight and a half million Americans have vanished without a trace! According to Dennis Howard, who heads The Movement for a Better America, "that's not some imaginary nuclear contingency plan. It is in fact the cumulative impact of nearly 34 years of abortion on demand.
MT. FREEDOM, NJ - September 29, 2006 -- It may sound like a scenario from a super-secret nuclear contingency plan, but a silent killer has already eliminated a population equivalent to that of America's 60 largest cities.
According to a regular annual review by The Movement for a Better America, a non-profit, pro-life education organization headquartered here, "Forty-eight and a half million Americans have vanished without a trace."
"This is not some imaginary nuclear contingency plan. It is in fact the cumulative impact of nearly 34 years of abortion on demand, says Dennis Howard, a former investigative reporter and market researcher who heads the organization and who has been tracking the nation's abortion statistic since 1992.
"What's amazing," Howard says, "is that the vast majority of Americans hardly seem to notice."
His organization doesnt make these numbers up. They are all based on data collected by the Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of Planned Parenthood. We simply take the most recent data and project it through the current period. Otherwise, there is always a 2-3 year lag in the estimates.
Howard asserts, "The fact is that nothing has inflicted more permanent damage on our society than abortion. 48.5 million abortions is 43 times more than all the fatalities from all the wars in our nations history, including the ravages of the war on terrorism and the tragedy of September 11. Yet these numbers never seem to make the headlines.
Howard, who began his career as an investigative reporter and later directed market research projects for major corporations, blames the media for their self-imposed censorship on the abortion issue. A handful of casualties in Iraq will make the evening news, but the abortion industry will kill more people in two days than we have lost since 9/11, and that never gets a mention.
Imagine if we had lost 6,850,000 people in the so-called war on terror, he said. Thats how many children we have lost to abortion since 9/11."
Howard's analysis has uncovered a number of reasons for public apathy about the abortion toll:
Politics cant change things because of the extreme polarization between the two major parties, he said. That started when the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade by edict, instead of allowing normal democratic processes to deal with the issue.
Roe v. Wade effectively split the country in three left, right, and confused middle. So now we have politics by media sound bite and bumper sticker cliches instead of healthy, honest political dialogue.
In some ways, were like the good Germans during World War II who never seemed to realize that there was a brutal holocaust going on, Howard said.
Howard blames public apathy on the fact that the abortion industry operates behind a veil of protected secrecy. Unlike the Germans, we dont have industrial-scale concentration camps operating two miles out of town. Only 1 in 15,000 American women have an abortion on any given day, so no one notices. But if you multiply that by 365 days a year for 34 years, the total becomes astronomical.
Howard has been tracking the economic impact of the abortion toll since 1992, when the count first reached 30.5 million. Since then, an estimated 18 million more babies have been aborted.
The economic loss may be the least of our problems, he said. Abortion has also desensitized the culture to sex abuse, violence, and predation against children. Just look at what we see on television every night."
Nevertheless, Howards market research background led him to conclude that the trend had the economic impact of a major nuclear war.
The human loss from abortion is the same as if all of our major metropolitan centers had been lost to a nuclear attack, said Howard. The only difference is that a nuclear war would be a dramatic, cataclysmic event, while abortions take place one at a time in the sanitized privacy of a medical clinic.
The long range impact on America's human resources is no different, he said. We measure the economic impact of other things like this all the time -- from alcoholism and drug addiction to AIDS and cancer. But the economic impact of losing a baby is far greater than when someone dies after a long life.
A list of the top 60 cities with a population equivalent to the loss from abortion can be found on MBA's website: www.movementforabetteramerica.org
A few of the more obvious repercussions include:
Social Security: If half of the 48.5 million kids we aborted were working today, they would be contributing an additional $88 billion a year into the Social Security trust fund.
Taxes: The downstream loss in future tax revenues from abortion currently exceeds $18 trillion dollars. Someone else will have to pay those taxes.
The end of the Youth Market. The 30% bite that abortion took out of the youth market is a major reason for the drop in daily newspaper circulation as well as increased competition for young audiences by other media. By supporting abortion on demand, the liberal media are killing off their own future audiences. Pro-choice politicians are doing the same thing. Thats why they have such a hard time winning.
Labor shortages: There is a looming shortage of labor in critical fields such as nursing, teaching and even the armed forces. Were raiding countries like the Philippines for nurses today, and using citizenship as an incentive for immigrants to fill the ranks of the military. Where will that leave us in a major military crisis?
Immigration: The labor vacuum created by abortion is also related to the immigration crisis, Howard claims. Ross Perot had it wrong: The giant sucking sound was really the sound of illegal immigrants crossing the border from the south, not just jobs heading the other way. Right now, apples and peaches are rotting on the ground in Oregon and Washington because there arent enough workers to pick them.
As the Pete Seeger song says, Howard concludes, When will they ever learn?
It's a good question and I don't know the answer but I will observe that a large factor seems to be where you live.
You said -- I just know that sometimes there are some good posts here from new people, We have all neen " new"
Yeah, and certainly we all were "new" at one time. We'll see if this is one or not. My initial suspicion is that it is (a "hit and run" troll). BUT, there's only one way to tell -- sit it out and see if you *ever* get a response or not. That's how you tell.
P.S. -- I actually see that this is probably a poster either associated with the website (that is referenced), or has similar opinions to that web site, or is the webmaster (or founder) himself. BUT -- there is *no article* that matches what is put in here.
And it is *referenced* as coming from there. I simply *cannot find* the complete article -- as listed here. So, that's another problem with this poster.
You're referencing something on the main page of that web site, that you have for a "link" in this article. BUT, I *do not* see it there. Where is it?
And it appears that the item you have (for the first paragraph, which is italicized) is there, but is *not* part of an article -- at least not the one that is included here.
AND THEN, it appears that it is part of an article (*somewhere* maybe) but we don't have the link for the article. We only see a dateline for the article. Where is that article?
If you are the one making the comments, then make it clear that it's your comment. If you are quoting a part of a web page, them make that clear. If you are quoting *another* newspaper article (somewhere) -- then -- include that link, so we can see it. I can't make "up or down" of where you got what from your material included here.
what's the difference? isn't the content of the article that is the more important? The number of surgical abortions per year is a fact that can be easily found on the net.
Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
You said -- "what's the difference? isn't the content of the article that is the more important?"
It's by referencing links to verifiable sources (or even some source), as opposed to "vanity posts" that one is able to evaluate the veracity of claims made.
As it stands, I don't know if this poster made this up or made a vanity post, or is collecting information from a variety of sources, some trustworthy, some not.
So, in this case, it's more important to know the source in order to know if the content is correct or not.
When you put it in perspective and by the numbers, you gasp.
This article is from one of the pages on the website posted.
For a direct link, click here:
I don't know what your objection to the article is.
You said -- "I don't know what your objection to the article is."
Here's my objection -- it does *not exist* at that web site. That's what the problem is!
Take a look at this first paragraph. Let's just look at the byline -- for example --
You asked -- "have you ever read an article in a newspaper or posted on the FReerepublic from WND, NewsMax, National Review, etc.?"
Yes, I have -- and when I see that I can also *go to* that link and find it there -- *word-for-word* exactly as it's given here. If someone is changing something -- OR -- if they are posting something as from a web site AND IT'S NOT FROM THAT WEB SITE -- then that's FORGERY or misleading or lying. I haven't found out *where* that article is from *yet*. And the original poster is apparently a "hit and run" poster and not answering and *not* clarifying the issue.
So, that's a *real big problem* for me -- and I think it would be for anthing posted on Free Republic. Whatever we post here doesn't have to be *accurate* in terms of what the *original source* says -- BUT -- it had better be *EXACT* as far as *what* they say -- word-for-word *exactly*.
That's a big problem with this article.
Did you bother to click on the link in my post? The article is right there.
I don't find this article at this web site. There is some *general information* that matches the "idea" of the article -- BUT -- *not* the article. If they are referencing this, I want to find the original source and this web site appears to *not* be the source for what was referenced and posted here on Free Republic. I would expect that *at least* we can reference *where* something came from. This appears to be an article from "somewhere else" -- but it's not from this web site, even if the "ideas" are similar.
P.S. -- The original author is not answering so it appears (at least to me) to be a "hit and run" post, and they just signed up today. Perhaps they don't know how to post things at Free Republic. Or, perhaps they are stirring the pot, or giving some misleading or false information. I don't know what it is. I just want to find the original source for the *exact quoted article* as given here.
You said -- "Did you bother to click on the link in my post? The article is right there."
I click on it and all over the web site. I do not find that date and byline on anything on the web site.
Also (once again) -- "Did you bother to click on the link in my post?"
This wasn't your post, either...
P.S. -- At least not by name...
And once again -- Just try this *only* --
"MT. FREEDOM, NJ - September 29, 2006"
Do a "search" on every page for *just* this alone. You won't find it anywhere!! It does not exist.
Is this a published article? Who is the author? Is it published in a newspaper and then referenced *in the web site*? Is it *only* from the web site and *not* published anywhere?
None of this is answered -- by means of the false way in which this was posted here on Free Republic!
Your were answering my post, #28 above, so I would have thought you saw the link.
Here it is, again:
the link was provided, so what's the problem?
here's a link from newsmax, no show me where anything is back up as you said.
You said -- "Here it is, again: http://www.movementforabetteramerica.org/greathuecry.html
I already went to that page and it did not have the *very first few words* of what you posted here!
There is no date (there is a date included with this Free Republic posting. Where did that date come from? Did you add it?
AND, before we even go further down the line on the issue, *your* name is *not* the poster's name -- AT ALL!
And continuing, the byline is not there *at all* on the web site, but it is indicated here on Free Republic. Where did that come from??!! Are you adding things, just to throw things in -- or -- are you quoting something from a web site (or not??)?
What we are supposed to be including here is an *exact quote* of what is included somewhere else.
AND, is this from a newspaper article (as it's supposed to be *misleadingly* indicated here in this Free Republic article)??
AND, where is the author of the article? Who is it? It doesn't indicate it here (on Free Republic) and it "seems" to indicate that the author is someone *vague* ("apparently" associated with the web site).
From the article posted *here* on Free Republic, one might guess (from its formatting) that it's a newspaper article posted. If it is -- then include the name of the paper, the date, and the author of it. If it's not -- then make that clear and don't *add* things that *ARE NOT* on the web site.
You're changing content when you do that. That's called lying and -- therefore -- one can conclude that your other information is just as invalid, by reference to what you've done here.