Well, for starters it's more expensive to support and educate a kid up to 16 yo than an old fart for 50 years. The early ages of a person is when more resources are needy.
Then, Social Security is a ponzi scheme, no doubt about it, however you're missing the nature of money, and money is actually nothing. You see central banks buying most of bonds, meaning the issuer is taking debt on what itself somewhat "produces", but they do this to prevent devaluation for a while. Unlike bitcoin, that is controlled by the whole community and has a supply celling, money issuing is controlled by a few and has no limit on it. The whole attempt of money is to represent and limit resources access. And it isn't linear;
"oh, but with 1 million euro you can buy 1 ton of gold (assuming 1Kg of Gold is 1000€)"... Surprise! You don't! As you start buying the price will go up as the physical resource is being depleted more and more of your virtual resource will be needed to buy it. The same will happen for whatever limited resource you may try to get with your virtual money.
So don't get too much attached to money, you'll miss the big picture. The contribution to the system isn't so much about deficit I/O, but to prevent it from giving money for nothing, giving money for nothing will make a society to self-destruct with so many lazy people as well as devalue the currency to zero.
Back on topic;
I understand abortion for medical issues, it's senseless to put the woman life to risk, rape or severe formation issues with the baby. On demand, just until it isn't a viable baby, pass this point is plain murder.
But again, how is it set to be a women decision? What data provides us that figure? How about external pressure - social, family, the father of the child - to abort? Is it still a "woman's choice"'? Or is it just convenient to pass it that way?
I suppose you were addressing my posts, so please quote me next time.
1) No, it's most expensive to educate people in government schools, however if they were going to private schools, it would be more cost effective
EX: Not learning biology and other useless subjects when you will become a car mechanic anyway. Efficient learning is cheaper, and more productive later on to society.
2) Even if a child is more expensive to raise, he still has the whole life of him to ROI. In other words, if you raise a kid for 16 years, and at 16 he cames up with a revolutionary idea, and becomes a millionaire, then that is very good for you as a parent, because you know that your golden ages will be secured by your kids' money.
EX: Like how Vitalik invented Ethereum as a young guy, he made a lot of money, and his parent are probably satisfied with him.
3) An old person doesnt really generate any more ROI, because his best ages are behind him, however if he would have been a good investor, he would already be rich by then.
You know I am not against old people. I just dont like leftists, and leftist economics.
The way society would work is, that by the time you get to retire, you should be rich enough to support your own late ages, without having to rely on pensions.
I actually want people to succeed in life, but the guy above you probably just thinks that I am an evil person that doesnt care about old people, whereas I actually want old people to be rich.Tell me something ,do old people really like to live on pensions? I doubt it. But what the fuck have they done all their lives that they dont have money? Where is the fruit of their labor of their entire life? What do they leave behind to society?