- Feb 18, 2002
- 10,450
- 1,449
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Presbyterian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Thinking about infant mortality rates in the US, in 2015, the infant mortality rate in the US was 589.5 per 100,000 live births [1]. In 2015, the rate of abortions was 188 per 1,000 live births (or 18,800 per 100,000 live births). Including abortion, infant mortality rates are significantly higher, and on par with places like Angola, Somalia, and Afghanistan [3]. With a total of 638,169 abortions in 2015 and a population of 321 million, that gives an abortion death rate of 198 per 100,000 population. This puts abortion as the leading causes of death in 2015.
Considering this, I think it's helpful to consider what are the larger costs to society by considering the counterfactual. On it's face, an abortion is a subtraction from future population - an aborted baby is a person who will not be present in society in the future. This is a future person who will not be a productive, contributing member of society. Ceteris Paribus, this is a subtraction from future productive activity, future tax revenues, and future innovation. The costs of this will be hard to measure since we don't have observable access to the counterfactual world where these people would have been present, but several studies may be illustrative as to the costs.
One way of considering the economic costs to society would be to make comparisons with the costs of places with high infant mortality rates since the outcome of an abortion and infant death are the same. In 2013, the WHO conducted a study of 47 African countries and estimated the economic costs of high infant mortality as a % of GDP:
A study out of the University of Huston estimated that declining infant mortality (so the opposite of higher infant mortality due to abortion) led to increased human capital investment
Typically, there is an inverse correlation between national income (GDP) and infant mortality rates [6][7]. This correlation is not only observable across countries, but can be observed within countries where lower incomes are correlated with higher infant mortality [8]. Likewise, this relationship is observable among abortions as well where the number of abortions are inversely correlated with income levels (lower income, more abortions) [9]. This seems to be suggestive, that lower abortion rates might be correlated with higher levels of economic output at all levels from the individual to the country level.
I think data shows a positive relationship between economic output and infant mortality and I think this relationship can probably be extended to include abortions as a subset of infant mortality. Abortions, like infant mortality, subtract from future economic output as an aborted baby is a person who will not be present in the future to contribute to economic activity. Abortions, like infant mortality, disproportionately occur among populations with lower economic output. This may also show that abortions are simply a functional substitute for infant mortality.
At least for the US, given where economic output is, think of how high it could have been had productive members of society not been absent? Think of where investment in human capital, health care, tax revenues could have been had those productive members of society been present.
Thoughts?
[1] Products - Data Briefs - Number 267 - December 2016
[2] Data &Statistics - Reproductive Health | CDC
[3] Infant Mortality Rates of Countries
[4] Counting the cost of child mortality in the World Health Organization African region
[5] https://www.demogr.mpg.de/Papers/workshops/001011_paper05.pdf
[6] Child & Infant Mortality
[7] https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/82751406.pdf
[8] https://www.russellsage.org/sites/a..._Economic Inequality and Infant Mortality.pdf
[9] Abortion rates by income
Considering this, I think it's helpful to consider what are the larger costs to society by considering the counterfactual. On it's face, an abortion is a subtraction from future population - an aborted baby is a person who will not be present in society in the future. This is a future person who will not be a productive, contributing member of society. Ceteris Paribus, this is a subtraction from future productive activity, future tax revenues, and future innovation. The costs of this will be hard to measure since we don't have observable access to the counterfactual world where these people would have been present, but several studies may be illustrative as to the costs.
One way of considering the economic costs to society would be to make comparisons with the costs of places with high infant mortality rates since the outcome of an abortion and infant death are the same. In 2013, the WHO conducted a study of 47 African countries and estimated the economic costs of high infant mortality as a % of GDP:
"The estimated total expected non-health GDP loss ascribed to child deaths of Int$ 150.3 billion is about 6 % of the combined 2013 GDP of the 47 African countries [37]. This estimate denotes the expected loss in potential GDP in the future from the 2 976 000 child deaths revalued relative to the base year 2013, i.e. present values." [4]
A study out of the University of Huston estimated that declining infant mortality (so the opposite of higher infant mortality due to abortion) led to increased human capital investment
"Higher life expectancy implies a higher rate of return on human capital investment and hence, declining child and youth mortality provides an important incentive to increase investment in the education of each child. Researchers have emphasized the role of human capital investment as the prime engine for economic growth but they have not rigorously investigated this channel, where declining mortality promotes growth by raising human capital investment." [5]
Typically, there is an inverse correlation between national income (GDP) and infant mortality rates [6][7]. This correlation is not only observable across countries, but can be observed within countries where lower incomes are correlated with higher infant mortality [8]. Likewise, this relationship is observable among abortions as well where the number of abortions are inversely correlated with income levels (lower income, more abortions) [9]. This seems to be suggestive, that lower abortion rates might be correlated with higher levels of economic output at all levels from the individual to the country level.
I think data shows a positive relationship between economic output and infant mortality and I think this relationship can probably be extended to include abortions as a subset of infant mortality. Abortions, like infant mortality, subtract from future economic output as an aborted baby is a person who will not be present in the future to contribute to economic activity. Abortions, like infant mortality, disproportionately occur among populations with lower economic output. This may also show that abortions are simply a functional substitute for infant mortality.
At least for the US, given where economic output is, think of how high it could have been had productive members of society not been absent? Think of where investment in human capital, health care, tax revenues could have been had those productive members of society been present.
Thoughts?
[1] Products - Data Briefs - Number 267 - December 2016
[2] Data &Statistics - Reproductive Health | CDC
[3] Infant Mortality Rates of Countries
[4] Counting the cost of child mortality in the World Health Organization African region
[5] https://www.demogr.mpg.de/Papers/workshops/001011_paper05.pdf
[6] Child & Infant Mortality
[7] https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/82751406.pdf
[8] https://www.russellsage.org/sites/a..._Economic Inequality and Infant Mortality.pdf
[9] Abortion rates by income