News-Letter

Originally posted by

Renee

I really, REALLY hope you are kidding when you say Roe v. Wade "is ultimately the only one necessary to understand the fundamental social issues that have plagued our nation in the latter half of this past century." So women being able to obtain safe abortions has caused all the social ills in the U.S. for the last 50 years? What a joke!!

==> Actually, it's really not that far-fetched to say that abortion is a major cause of the social ills in the last 50 years. For that matter, it can arguably be the worst cause of systematic racism if you look at the official data on the race/ethnicity of aborted fetuses.

* Let's put aside the philosophical debate on when life begins, as we can all agree that once fertilization occurs, there is potential for the zygote to naturally develop into a viable baby without outside influence. So, for the purposes of calculation, we can say that an abortion reduces the fetus's life expectancy from the U.S. average of 78 years to zero.

==> Back in 2000, the U.S. average of abortions per 1000 live births is about 250, or 1 about abortion for every 4 live births. That means the effective life expectancy of an American fetus is really 78*1000/1250, or 62.4 years. The problem is that, if you're only counting African Americans as a group, the rate is supposedly as high as 472 abortions per 1000 live births. If that were true, that means the effective life expectancy for a Black American fetus is down to at most 78*1000/1472=53, a 9.4 year difference from the national average.


==> And this is even before taking into account other health disparities-- some studies have already shown that a non-White American can have a life expectancy that is up to 7-10 years shorter than the national average. So, let's re-do the calculating using 71 instead of the national average of 78: 71*1000/1472=48.2, a whopping 14.2-year difference. (If that doesn't infuriate you, may I remind you that 48.2 years is the life expectancy of Somalia.) So, like it or not, Roe v. Wade has resulted in the unintended consequence of worsening existing racial/ethnic disparities (and thus, can be considered a greater evil given how much damage racism has done over the course of our country's history).


==> Given the above analysis, Palin was justified in her opposition of Roe v. Wade. Of course, you have the right to disagree.

Originally posted by

Renee

I really, REALLY hope you are kidding when you say Roe v. Wade "is ultimately the only one necessary to understand the fundamental social issues that have plagued our nation in the latter half of this past century." So women being able to obtain safe abortions has caused all the social ills in the U.S. for the last 50 years? What a joke!!

Well, I was with you on the first sentence. It's not just Roe v. Wade. The worst damage came from Doe v. Bolton and Casey v. Planned Parenthood.

Now, the fact that Obama supports murder post-viability makes the McCain-Palin ticket a no-brainer for anyone who sees any value in human life. :\

Originally posted by

Katie Smith

Very well written. The only concerning part is that there are a few too many potential voters wondering if it is a joke or not. Interesting that there isn't one article out there (that I've read) that covers Palin's admirable experiences and positive leadership qualities that would be desirable in our future Vice-President and potential President.

Are you completely unable to use Google?

There are plenty of articles about her many achievements. I suppose you're one of the dolts who thinks that she believes in young earth theory, too. There are so many ridiculous myths circulating among the anti-Palin crowd.

Originally posted by

Tera Powers

Perhaps the reason Palin's "voting record" escapes you is because Palin hasn't "voted" on anything since 1996. She was a mayor and then a governor.

Do they teach Civics at JHU?

do they teach satire in your mom's house?

Originally posted by

Dude

Anonymous pro-lifer:
Your math is so full of crap. I seriously hope you don't attend Hopkins.

And your point on life expectancy (which blows so hard) is kind of a strange argument for racial disparity... How does the decrease in the number of minorities born cause increases in disparity.

Are you trying to say that minority women who aren't ready to be parents should have children and create the possibility that the child will grow up under less than ideal conditions? That will just create more problems. You won't reduce disparities by banning abortion, you can only do it by reducing the educational and economic gap between minorities and the rest of the population.

And if you want to count zygotes into the calculation of life expectancy, you have no choice but to bring in the debate about when life begins. Duh..

1. Whether I actually attend Hopkins is irrelevant. Since when are social conservatives who happen to be bad at math not allowed to attend Hopkins? :-) To be fair, though, I'll admit that the calculations that I had presented are meant to be a rough estimate only. If anything, the "abortions per 1000 live births" statistic would vary widely depending on the source. The conclusion that abortions affect minority groups more strongly, however, should remain the same no matter which source you use.


2. Regarding how the decrease in the number of minorities born causes increases in disparity: here's my line of reasoning.


* Given: The birth rate (if there were no abortions) of minority groups would be reduced more severely due to abortion because statistics have shown that minorities have higher abortion rates..

* Assumption: racial equality means "equal chances for practically every aspect of life."

* Now combine the two statements. Conclusion: The higher reduction of birth rates in minorities due to abortion is an anomaly from the ideal of racial equality, because that's basically a systematic way of population control that is biased against minority groups.


3. As for the point of raising children under less-than-ideal conditions:

I do agree with you that "reducing the educational and economic gap between minorities and the rest of the population" is one way to reduce disparities, and that "you won't reduce disparities by [only] banning abortion." But you must also understand that, as things now stand, the availability of abortion means that the problem is literally "solved" by removing part of the racial/ethnic group (or, if you don't consider a fetus to be human until a certain point, at least "what would eventually become part of the racial/ethnic group"). That's just replacing one evil for another.

Now, you might want to know that I'm not a Republican despite that I'm pro-life in principle (in the sense that I'm against abortion, euthanasia, AND the death penalty). [For that matter, I'm not even planning on voting for McCain/Palin.] So, I would not mind about the solutions often proposed by the pro-choice camp, as aborting the fetus would be a greater evil. Then again, surely applying both the "liberal" solution (namely, tackling the reasons behind abortions) and the "conservative" solution (namely, eventually making abortions illegal in most cases) at the same time would be even more effective.


4. You said that the debate about when life begins cannot be avoided when I count the life expectancy of a fetus. Okay, let's think about it this way:

* For the sake of argument, let's say that a fetus doesn't count as a human until a certain point in development. However, by aborting the fetus that "isn't a human yet," you're still destroying the *antecedent* of the human; there's now no way that for the fetus to "become a human" and live to its average life expectancy. Thus, an adjustment has to be made to reflect the fact that some fetuses would end up living 0 years as a human due to their being aborted.

* Perhaps you might ask, "Why not extend the calculation to sperms and eggs before fertilization occurs, then? Surely contraceptives are preventing humans from being born, too." Again, the reason why the line is drawn at conception is not because life begins at this point, but that natural development into a viable human baby *when given no extra outside influence* is only possible after this point.

Originally posted by

Dude

Anonymous Pro-lifer:

[...]

I can agree with your first premise, but your 2nd premise is kinda strange and the conclusion doesn't really follow. Your definition of racial equality is still begging the when-life-begins debate and its a perversion of what people usually mean when they say racial equality; racial equality is equal opportunity for each race, not for each aspect of life. When people talk about racial equality they don't think about the fetuses from various races. You're trying to make out that abortions cause racial inequality through some form of population control which really sounds ridiculous to me. Are you trying to say that the abortion rate is so great that minorities are disappearing? I think I heard some recent reports saying that minorities in the US today will be the majority in a few decades. You might be right (highly doubt it) but you're gonna have to post some really compelling statistics to show that abortion by minority women is causing a decline in the population size of minorities.

[...]

And you're talking as though racial inequality is brought about and exacerbated by abortions, which really sounds unconvincing to me. I'd imagine that preexisting racial inequalities are the main causes of higher abortion rates among minorities and not the other way around.
[Are you] saying if minorities stop aborting their babies all their problems will go away? There's something fundamentally wrong there. These higher abortion rates are an effect of racial inequality, not a cause of it.

In fact, I don't see why you're even trying to include fetuses in the calculation of life expectancy. What are you trying to prove? Are you trying to justify your pro-life stance by saying that the abortion lowers life-expectancy? That's a terrible and obscure argument. If you want to support your stance you should have been debating the question of when life begins which is the main issue of contention in the pro-life vs. pro-choice debate.. You're sidestepping the main issue and twisting the main purpose and meaning behind life-expectancy with your outlandish calculation. Your life expectancy argument would only hold weight if you can convince people that life begins at conception, and if you've already done that than your life expectancy calculation would be superfluous. So yeah, its a crap point.

Oh, and by the way, are you that Cliff guy from philosophy class?

1. Regarding the racial equality issue: sorry, there was a lack of clarification on my part. By "equal opportunity for every aspect of life," I obviously meant "equal opportunity 'for each race' in every aspect of life."

As for the idea that minorities might disappear simply due to the higher rate of abortions: Okay, I do admit that it sounds outrageous right now, since pretty much every source you can find would give a positive net growth rate for our country, even if race were taken into account. So I'll put philosophy aside for now and just draw inferences from recent studies:

* It is true that some recent reports do say that Whites would drop below 50% of the population by 2050. However, you must remember that the U.S. population would continue to increase as long as birth rate is greater than death rate; in other words, the fact that minority populations are still increasing right now might simply be an artifact of a low-enough death rate. When we talk about the long term, what ultimately matters is whether the average birth rate in this country is above or below the replacement rate-- but currently, the fertility rate in the U.S. is barely below that. So, as crazy as it might sound, there is a real chance that our country would be facing a population implosion rather than a population explosion in the next 100 years.

==> So how is this relevant to the abortion issue? Logically, a higher abortion rate should lead to a lower fertility rate. Now, it is true that research has shown that racial/ethnic minorities in the U.S. currently do have higher fertility rates than Whites despite the supposedly higher rates of abortions. But if you take the trend into account, you'll see that the fertility rates for Whites have stayed fairly constant since the 1980s, while that of Blacks and Native Americans have decreased significantly (both by more than 20%). If this trend continues, then the possibility that the higher rate of abortions in minorities might cause a downturn in their population cannot be overlooked.


2. You said, "I'd imagine that preexisting racial inequalities are the main causes of higher abortion rates among minorities and not the other way around."

Actually, I'll describe it as a vicious cycle; racial inequalities cause higher abortion rates, which in turn reinforce existing inequalities. So, trying to decrease the number of abortions (whether through "liberal" or "conservative" solutions) should help reduce the extent of inequality. At the same time, policies targeted toward eliminating inequalities would reduce the abortion rates in minorities as well.

[The hard part, of course, is convincing politicians from both the left and the right that their efforts are really interdependent...]


3. You said, "[the] life expectancy argument would only hold weight if you can convince people that life begins at conception, and if you've already done that than your life expectancy calculation would be superfluous."

I guess I can't convince you here. As I've said, the numbers given by the calculations were really the "expected number of years that a fetus can live as a human outside the uterus." On second thought, this might be a weaker point than the "net population growth rate" argument, so I'll just let it rest for now.


4. No, I'm not the "Cliff guy from philosophy class" (I'm not even taking a philosophy class this semester). But I do appreciate the fact that you're keeping the discussion civil.