You apparently missed my point completely. Sure, the 40+ million people who have been killed (starting in 1973) would "eventually be on social security" -- but the very first not for another 40 years yet. Meanwhile, they would have been paying taxes for the last 10 years and for the next 30-40 years. It's one reason for the imbalance of workers/retirees that is often ignored (shhh, not supposed to acknowledge or talk about it). And of course, this is just a snapshot from this moment in time, not even counting future abortions/births from this point forward. We can ignore the morality of abortion but I don't think we'll be able to ignore the economic consequences so easily. I thought it was a valid viewpoint on the posted video but sorry to have offended you.... and increased the numbers of people that will eventually be on social security.
Let's not get into pro-life/pro-choice issues.
Bullrat, you didn't offend me, you just completely missed my point as well. There are too many people that want and accept simplistic answers to complex situations, and that's what offends me. Think of it this way - have you ever seen the signs in public bathrooms that say electric hand dryers save trees and are good for the environment. Well That's a very narrow view. Where does the power for that electric hand dryer come from? It comes mostly from coal fired plants which means coal mining, sulfuric gases and other particulates from burning, acid rain. Now I'm not pretenting to say I know which is better but I do know enough to question the whole premise in the absence of any real numbers. In engineering terms, somebody has artificially defined the "system" to be just the impact of using paper in bathrooms, whereas the real "system" includes a lot more to be considered. There's a similar example in the current crop of hybrid vehicles relating to ignoring the costs of the batteries (both making and disposing of them).You apparently missed my point completely. Sure, the 40+ million people who have been killed (starting in 1973) would "eventually be on social security" -- but the very first not for another 40 years yet. Meanwhile, they would have been paying taxes for the last 10 years and for the next 30-40 years. It's one reason for the imbalance of workers/retirees that is often ignored (shhh, not supposed to acknowledge or talk about it). And of course, this is just a snapshot from this moment in time, not even counting future abortions/births from this point forward. We can ignore the morality of abortion but I don't think we'll be able to ignore the economic consequences so easily. I thought it was a valid viewpoint on the posted video but sorry to have offended you.... and increased the numbers of people that will eventually be on social security.
Let's not get into pro-life/pro-choice issues.
