The Demographic Effect of Roe v Wade. On Wednesday Jan 21 1998 USA TODAY had an article on the demographic effect of the Roe v Wade decision on the US. by David Masito of their staff. Very interesting. But I was traveling and did not have internet access. Was it on their web page, and did ANYONE out there copy/save it? The debate on abortion usually centers on abstract ideas like the exact moment a human being comes into existence: this is the first that I have see an analysis of the impact that abortion has had on the population demographics of the USA. He says the US population would be about 35 million larger without Roe v Wade. But the added population would be disproportionally poor and black. The combined effects of the immigration law reforms AND a repeal of Roe v Wade would have a US that would be (for better or worse) a lot more "third world": poor, young, and "non-white". This idea gets support from Bill Buckley: in his recent column in National Review Febuary 23, he points out that during the 1970's about 20% of legal abortions were to blank women, but more recently about 40% are. This should be compared with a black population that is less than 13% in the US. National Review also lends support for the idea that abortion has a demographic impact in the March 9, 1998 p. 20 item "Family Disunification" where the rapid growth of the US "Hispanic" population is explained in part by the "Latinos' commendable aversion to abortion". Assuming that the children of poor single mothers that were NOT born as a result of abortion would have been statistically similar to the ones who WERE born, the crime rate in the US would be much higher now, and rising rather than falling, as is the case now. ,,,,,,, _______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________ (_) jim blair (jeblair@facstaff.wisc.edu) Madison Wisconsin USA. This message was brought to you using biodegradable binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth. REPLY: ronkanen@cc.helsinki.fi (Osmo Ronkanen): Organization: University of Helsinki >Do you wear your wide hood with pride? >Osmo Hi, Now THAT is a cryptic comment. I assume that "wide hood" means "white hood" and refers to the dress of the KKK, a racist US organization that roughly corresponds to the "skin head" of a typical neo-Nazi in Finland or Sweden. Correct? >Yes. I got the idea that you presented both black and poor as negative >things. That is racist. My claim (well actually David Masito's, but since I was repeating it, I suppose that in your mind it has rubbed off onto me) is that without Roe v Wade the US would today look demographically less like, say, Finland than it now does. I tried to make it clear (with the for better or worse) that I was not offering any opinion on whether or not being more like Finland was a GOOD or a BAD thing. You seem to assume that I think being more like Finland (richer and whiter than the 3rd world) is GOOD. I would have expected that since you live in Finland and I live in the USA, you might have thought that being more like Finland would be a GOOD thing, and that I would consider this to be a BAD thing. Neither he or I indicated a value judgement as to whether the changes would be for better or worse. They were just his projection of the US demographics based on the number of abortions and who got them. The US population would be about 35 million larger without Roe v Wade. Osmo: >This would be true if women would breed uncontrollably. In reality they >often have some limit how many children they want. If they did not have >abortions they'd reach that limit sooner but they would still not have >more children (at least in not as much as they sum of their children and >abortions). Also many women would have illegal abortions. Hi, The number is from David Masito. It looks like a simple "total number of abortions" since Roe v Wade: number per year for each of the 25 years. I agree that this better describes the demographic effect of "ABORTION" than of "Roe v Wade", since there were many illegal abortions and many states permitted them BEFORE Roe v Wade. (Note that one of the most "liberal" abortion states then was California, because of Ronald Reagan). But I would say this UNDERSTATES the demographic impact. The population would likely have increased by MORE. (you seem to be claiming the increase would have been less). My reasoning is that the first group of abortions would have resulted in people who would now be 25 years old and would have children of their own. Since women start having babies at 16 or so, there would by now be quite a number of "second generation" kids. Do you really think they would be fewer in number, and would be more than offset by the effect that you describe? And as for your claim: it sounds a bit like the explanation that I watched on TV a few years age by an anti-abortion state senator. He was explaining that abortion should be outlawed because a woman CANNOT become pregnant unless she wants to. "It has to do with hormones" he told us. When asked about rape, he replied that the very fact that a woman became pregnant was proof that she had consented to the sex. "I mean you can't dispute the facts of science", he informed us. I love TV because it is so educational. I mean you can learn all about the science of endocrinology from a senator right in your living room. But his basic point was the same as yours: there would be fewer pregnancies if abortion was not an option. >... Most women who have abortions are young and have not yet >completed their families. If they were denied abortions they would >either have an illegal or or give birth. In the latter case they would >be likely not to have as many subsequent children as they would if they >did not have the abortion. It might even be that they would not have as >many children. period. But many HAVE all the children that they want when they have an unitended pregnancy. And women who delay having children have fewer. And when abortion was illegal, it was mostly rich women who could get one, either by paying more or going to where it was available. It was much less available to poor women. So the rich had abortions while the poor had babies. Is that what you want? Osmo Ronkanen wrote: > > Better to be whiter than to have a racial under-class. > > Osmo. Hi, An interesting comment. While there is much talk of "middle class" and the "rich" in the US, there are not really any "classes" in any meaningful sense of the word, except for the an "underclass". Before the growth of the welfare system, there were poor people, but they were not a separate class. They were pretty much like middle income or (even rich) people. Except that they did not have as much money. Now, most of the poor were born to parents who were poor, and they have kids that are poor. And they are disproportionally black. Most millionaires in the US were also born to families that were either "poor' or at least "not rich". There is some discussion and information of all this on my web page: the review ot the book "The Millionaire Next Door" and the files under "class" in the politics section. The availability of abortion may well be limiting the growth of an underclass. Abortions are disproportionally to women who are poor, young and single. The ones that are trapped into poverty by having kids before they have either an education, job skills or a husband. Do you have any data to support your claim that 35 million abortions have not reduced the US population? Or that they have reduced it by LESS than 35 million? >I just can state common sense. And women who delay having children have fewer. >Says who? This clearly was the case during natural fertility but >nowadays when couples typically want 2 or 3 children that does not >apply very much. Hi, I will try to look up some figures on this, but expect that the later a woman starts, the fewer kids she has. And I did have a bit of a devious motive in my post. I think the demographic projection is at least in the correct direction, even if the numbers are uncertain. I wonder how many "right wing" opponents of abortion recongize that they are working to make the US poorer, blacker, and younger. And how many "left wing" pro-choice people know that they are fighting to keep the US more like Finland: rich, white and old. I think this is (another) case of "be careful of what you ask for: you will probably not like it if you get it". Milton Friedman once pointed out that in politics (unlike economics) people are moved to act against what they desire, "as if moved by an invisible hand". ,,,,,,, _______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________ (_) jim blair (jeblair@facstaff.wisc.edu) Madison Wisconsin USA. This message was brought to you using biodegradable binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth.