The normalization of abortion has reshaped how my generation understands life, responsibility, and long-term national stability. That shift carries measurable demographic and economic consequences that extend far beyond the moral debate itself.

One of the clearest indicators is generational imbalance. Millennials number roughly 74 million in the United States, while Generation Z — despite being the younger cohort — is approximately five million smaller. The older members of Generation X, at around 65 million, are already approaching retirement age. Under normal demographic patterns, each successive generation should be larger or at least comparable in size, particularly in a country with steady population growth. That pattern has broken down.

Social Security, Medicare, and other entitlement programs rely on a stable or growing base of younger workers to support an aging population. When a smaller generation is tasked with sustaining a larger one, financial strain becomes unavoidable. Fewer workers must generate more tax revenue to fund retirement and healthcare obligations for a larger retiree population. Without significant policy reform or a reversal in demographic trends, this imbalance will place increasing pressure on federal spending and long-term economic growth.

Labor force dynamics present a second concern. As Generation X retires and Millennials eventually follow, Generation Z will be expected to fill critical roles across the economy. A smaller cohort entering the workforce reduces available labor supply, which can slow productivity, limit business expansion, and constrain long-term economic output. Sustained population decline affects wage growth, innovation, and national competitiveness.

Abortion trends are part of this broader demographic picture. Between 2020 and 2024, reported abortions increased by more than 10%. Regardless of one’s position on the issue, a sustained rise of that magnitude signals a cultural and behavioral shift with long-term population effects. Fewer births today translate directly into fewer workers, consumers, and taxpayers in the future.

The fact that about one-third of my generation has been lost to abortion reflects a broader concern about how life is valued and protected. If current trends continue, future generations may face even more significant demographic contraction, further intensifying the economic and structural challenges already emerging.

For decades, abortion has been framed primarily as an unquestioned individual right rather than a subject of ongoing moral and policy debate. The Supreme Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade established a nationwide standard that shaped how multiple generations approached the issue. Generation X grew up under that framework, followed by Millennials, and now Generation Z has inherited a cultural environment in which abortion is often treated as an inherent right rather than a contested legal and ethical question.

Education and institutional messaging have reinforced that perspective. In many classrooms, the overturning of Roe v. Wade is presented primarily as a limitation on women’s rights rather than as a constitutional shift that returned regulatory authority to individual states. That framing influences how students interpret both the law and the underlying ethical considerations. When one viewpoint is consistently emphasized, the scope of debate narrows, and meaningful engagement with alternative arguments declines.

From personal experience, I have yet to encounter someone my age who is disengaged from politics and still believes abortion constitutes murder. Among those who follow politics closely, that belief is more common, largely because they are willing to question prevailing assumptions. The overwhelming majority of Generation Z, however, is not politically engaged and tends to adopt the dominant cultural narrative, particularly when that narrative is widely normalized.

Reversing these trends will require a broader cultural reassessment of how society values family formation, long-term stability, and the responsibilities tied to individual choice. Charlie Kirk, before his tragic death, worked to challenge a culture that normalizes the destruction of life. His influence will endure, but his efforts alone are not sufficient. More must be done.