[H]er parents are "pro-life activists"... People on the other political side are more inclined toward subtraction (or as they call it, "choice")....Taranto also turns up another video taken during Willoughby's speech: a man shouts "Who the fuck are you to lecture me, you little brat?!" Incredible.
The Wisconsin Department of Health has statewide figures on the annual number of abortions going back to 1975. Tot up the numbers through 1992, and you come up with 316,457.
Scott Walker won the governorship last year by a margin of 124,638. That may not be within the margin of abortion; after all, some of the missing 316,457 would have voted Republican had they existed, and many would not have voted.
But JoAnne Kloppenburg, the left-liberal state Supreme Court candidate who was supposed to save Wisconsin's labor monopolies from Walker's reforms, lost by just 7,316 votes, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (this figure is pending a possible futile recount). It's almost inconceivable that the Roe effect alone is insufficient to account for Justice David Prosser's victory.
१९ एप्रिल, २०११
"Did the Roe effect sink JoAnne Kloppenburg?"
Asks James Taranto, who's thinking about that 14-year-old girl (Tricia Willoughby) who spoke at the Tea Party rally here in Madison.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१८४ टिप्पण्या:
Teachers union member?
Demographics matter.
Incredible.
Expected, if not inevitable.
Liberals are slowly killing themselves off. Good riddance.
How can you get that upset over a 14 year old girl giving a speech? I haven't heard anything about her calling for beheadings or such. Just stand there with your stupid sign or walk away if your fragile ego can't take it.
""Did the Roe effect sink JoAnne Kloppenburg?""
Chickelit wrote that on Althouse yesterday! James Taranto must be a lurker...
Cheers,
Victoria
Teachers union member?
I don't think so. If it were a teacher's union member, it would have been, "Who the fuck are you to lecture me, you nontenured little brat?!"
WV - "ariate" Surprisingly, not used as a lyric by INXS on their album "Kick".
I still say kids shouldn't be involved in political rallies...but that man is a moron.
As for Roe, it likely hurt conservatives. Selfish progressive parents have a good shot at churning out conservatives.
While I should stop be astonished, I am astonished. How will our country avoid violence this summer with this type of rhetoric coming out in cold weather?
I wonder who that guy is. I hope he lives nowhere near me.
I still say kids shouldn't be involved in political rallies...but that man is a moron.
No snark meant, genuine question: Is 14 still a kid-kid? *Whoopi Goldberg inflection*
At 14, I was the British equivalent of Student Government President at my school. I loved the inner-workings of politics and would've attended this type of rally in a heartbeat.
"Taranto also turns up another video taken during Willoughby's speech: a man shouts "Who the fuck are you to lecture me, you little brat?!" Incredible."
I hope this guy likes seeing himself on national television.
My guess is FIB.
Demographics is the unintended consequence you can't terminate the morning after.
How anyone in Wisconsin could side with that drooling idiot over Governor Walker is beyond me. Birds of a feather...
In 2008, the media was all over the anger of the right. It was so ugly!
Appropos our discussion last week about voting age and drinking age, I'd say:
If you're old enough to use a condom you're old enough to speak publically
(that makes sense doesn't it?
This is the best kind of Illinoisian.
Must be a west sider....
Ahh. Not Student Government, but close:
[...]"reveals that her parents are pro-life activists in Madison and that Tricia is in a debate club.
So that is why she is so poised and unflappable in the face of saliva-spewing morons like the goon yelling expletives at her. Debate clubs are the cure for any childhood awkwardness. Trust me on this.
40% of African-American babies don't make it to birth (it is 60% in NYC). Blacks who vote go about 90+% Democrat. You do the math.
Even though I am pro-life, I don't really enjoy debating the issue. Few minds ever get changed and we hear the same arguements over and over and over. But I do think we should look at the numbers. Put the issue in perspective.
vbspurs wrote:
Chickelit wrote that on Althouse yesterday! James Taranto must be a lurker...link
Either that or great minds...
Hugs Victoria!
@Althouse: you used to send out those little thank you notes for paypal donations. Did you get mine?
MadisonMan wrote:
This is the best kind of Illinoisian.
Ah. The Midwestern equivalent of "The only good commie is a dead commie" -- the only good Illinoisian is a drunk Illinoisian.
"Hanneman, Hanneman, even my grandma calls me that"
HAHA.
@vbspurs: As a high school debater, let me tell you that debate club is quarantine for childhood awkwardness, not the cure.
I have no problem with kids being involved in political rallies or protests. I do have a problem with parents asking their kids to do something that will get them in legal trouble, or when parents put t-shirts on their little ones that say things like "My President is an Idiot".
I have friends in the construction unions who have made a hard but nice living with great benefits and good pensions. And most of them understand the world has changed and most of their kids have gone to college and will have white collar careers but they also they see an economy in shambles with a president [who many of them supported] who has no idea how to fix anything.
I gotta pay for HBO and birth control, so why is Public Radio free?
LOL!
I don't think that people who have abortions have fewer children.
I'm not convinced of it at all.
They just have abortions *and* children, and then they do what the rest of us do, and make sure they don't get pregnant any more.
That has little to do with how many children any person decides to have, total, which is certainly a demographic variable.
So it's likely enough that the ideas and values of communities that bother to reproduce will win the future.
But that doesn't mean that a woman who has abortions and then has two children would have had more than two children if she didn't have abortions.
It is sort of funny that a person would complain about being "lectured" by a speaker at a rally he wasn't invited to.
I see "the Roe effect" mentioned more frequently as time goes by. I'm not sure if it's true or just wishful thinking for some but it seems to make sense.
Jesus. Union thugs are ugly.
Interesting that the man who is cursing the 14 y/o speaker notices the camera on a a few occasions, yet does not feel compelled to either move, stop shouting, or at least shout something more intelligible or stop cursing at the girl. A decent person would have at least been ashamed to be yelling that stuff, if not stop yelling altogether.
Nice folks, those union guys. Brave.
"...they see an economy in shambles with a president [who many of them supported] who has no idea how to fix anything."
Oh, he has ideas. That's the problem.
I love that conservatives consider Gay people not "born that way", but political orientation...well..that's set from birth.
Ridiculous.
Did the Roe effect sink JoAnne Kloppenburg?
Actually, I think it was ethnic Germans.
@Patrick: If he does end up on national TV, he'll have no one to blame but himself.
Let's hope the Kloppenburg result holds.
I bet they don't show him on MSNBC (or, as we call it at home, "The Crazy Channel").
So that is why she is so poised and unflappable in the face of saliva-spewing morons like the goon yelling expletives at her.
Reminds one of saliva-spewing goons like Michelle Malkin and her ilk attacking 12 yr old Graeme Frost, even personally staking out their home. This was the kid who's family suffered a horrific car crash, and had the audacity to promote SCHIP. Good times. Anyone remember that?
He does look at the camera a couple times, and pause. Maybe even think. I was waiting for him to punch the cameraman.
I don't think that people who have abortions have fewer children. I'm not convinced of it at all.
I don't think the effect would be particularly large, since (as you note) people tend to have kids until they reach the number they want. However, there are quite a few families that end up with an unexpected additional child beyond what they had planned for. One of my friends is such a child, and I have my suspicions about my youngest sister.
So you have two families with three kids -- all they think they can afford. One is pro-choice, the other pro-life. Both wives wind up unexpectedly pregnant. Cut to a year later, and you have a pro-life family with four kids (and a much tighter budget) and a pro-choice family with... three.
That nice man protesting that brat's speech has a full civility waiver issued to by Special Czar Krugman of the Obama Owned Media. Crony Capitalism has its benefits for cronies.
Synova wrote:
They just have abortions *and* children, and then they do what the rest of us do, and make sure they don't get pregnant any more.
Was that last bit correct? Because I totally agree about the abortions *and* children part, but not the 'make sure they don't get pregnant any more' bit.
I'm certain many women are scared straight and are super careful after their abortion, but honestly, I think many women see abortion as the ultimate contraceptive, and use it repeatedly in their lives.
Anecdotal reference: I have a Spaniard friend who has had 3 abortions in her life. She has two kids, a boy and a girl, and is desperate to have a third before she hits 40.
There is no rhyme or reason to her past abortions, but if I understood her correctly, it seems to hinge on the unborn kids not being convenient to her career at the time.
Patrick, that was something I allueded to yesterday here. There is something wrong with the people of Madison when they think it is perfectly normal to put bright colored gloves on broom handles, so the middle finger is sticking up, and take them to an event held by a private group, and hold them high in the air while a former Governor is speaking. And then have smirks on their smug faces while they look around to see whole all notices them and approves of their actions.
Good times. Anyone remember that?
I remember what actually happened, sure.
I am listening to Elsa's Procession to the Cathedral (from Lohengrin), by Richard Wagner.
So beautiful
@garage: WTF? I don't see the spittle: link
You got link?
Garage, wasn't that about how hard up they were financially and seeing the house was about seeing if they were so poor and pathetic after all?
You say "staking out" the house as though someone was protesting on the lawn like the liberals do. Did they do that? If they did, I missed it. I missed the intimidation and yelling at the kid. Did that happen?
I remember that they went and found the house. I generally don't approve and certainly don't approve of anyone sharing home addresses of anyone, if that's what happened.
If there was more than that, please, do share.
Dose, no, we feel that people tend to have the same political and social views of their parents. Or at least heavily influenced by them.
Example, I am a Norweigan-American, but I hate socialism. If my ancestors had stayed in Norway, I could be a lazy socialist today.
I was about to say that garbage will find a way to justify the abuse of a 14 year old...
But, he already did it.
Titus said...
I am listening to Elsa's Procession to the Cathedral (from Lohengrin), by Richard Wagner.
So beautiful
I only listen to Wagner while reading Nietzsche in the original.
Liberals are slowly killing themselves off.
"Faster! FASTER -- !!!"
I am from Norwegian heritage as well. We are going to see some of my relatives. I am going to Norway in July and am very excited. It looks beautiful. Very clean.
Did you all know that Oslo is the most expensive city in the world? How fab.
I am going to see fiords. What a weird world fiord.
Say it fast 3 times.
"Anyone remember that?"
No. So I googled it. Then I went to a web site with sensational headlines about the incident and a video of Malkin being interviewed by Hannity (or, as we call him at home, doofus). I watched the video. I saw nothing on the video but a reasoned answer to a reasonable question.
I don't have time to go to all of the links. Perhaps you'd like to pick out a particularly juicy one for me to watch, garage. And if you portrayed things acurately, I'll come back here and say so.
I went to Bhutan. It is supposed to be where the happiest people on the planet live.
Michael J Fox goes there and his symptoms disappear.
Are you all pro or anti vaccine?
@ Chuck
Fair - that's a known political effect. But you are trying to create an "effect". Meaning, you have to literally beat several odds with many, many unknown variables.
Bunk science, trash math.
I think the Roe effect is well understood by liberals and the progressive Jews of the media. That is why there is such a huge push for Open Borders and Amnesty..the dream of packing as many unskilled "oppressed" 3rd Worlders in that those on the Left see as reliable "Blue voters" based on the platter of entitlements they will be offered and also politically reliable against white, middle class citizens on "race,class, gender" indoctrination in schools.
The liberals and progressive Jews are not stupid.
George Bush, John McCain and other Open Borders advocates on the Red side ARE quite stupid.
Ever since the 1965 Immigration Reform Act (a project of the usual suspects) - the goal has always been to flood the US with mass immigration to build a demographic, permanent majority.
Titus, were you in Phantom Regiment?
If so, SUTA!
@vbspurs:
A Roman boy could head a household at 14, or serve in a legion. But you have to qualify that, a Roman man was not a legal adult until his father died, no matter how old he was.
@garage:
Since what you described didn't actually happen I don't remember it happening. I do remember you and your ilk lying about that happening when it didn't happen, you'll have to settle for that.
I love that conservatives consider Gay people not "born that way", but political orientation...well..that's set from birth. Ridiculous.
I have no idea what percentage of conservatives think gay people are "born that way". It isn't relevant whether they were or not, really.
But no conservative I know claims that political orientation is set from birth. Just that that children of conservative parents usually grow up to be conservative adults, while children of liberal parents usually grow up to be liberal adults.
Titus, everyone I know who has visited Norway loves to visit there. I wonder how the country would do without the north sea oil revenues?
I was in Oslo last summer, Titus. Didn't seem that expensive to me.
But the fjords were fabulous.
I was in Phantom...SUTA!
Were you in Cavies? If so Splooie.
And If you were in Madison May You Never Walk Alone. I was in Madison too.
And if you were in SCV, which I was as well, Send In The Clowns.
Bill Cook from Star of Indiana died April 15.
But that doesn't mean that a woman who has abortions and then has two children would have had more than two children if she didn't have abortions.
There have been some studies of family size and the political right does have larger families. The left supports abortion and is much more likely to use it themselves.
I once interviewed a patient, a 27 year old woman, who had had 7 abortions. She was on Medicaid, was a college student and came from a wealthy family. I'm sure they were proud of her. I can't recall why she was in the hospital.
Notice that garbage can NOT bring himself to condemn the aging hippy who screamed at the 14yo girl. he just CAN'T.
I love that conservatives continue to live up to the cartoon version that maintain of them in my mind, a rigorous job indeed considering it takes a complete misreading of links, posts, and comments, and the sheer work of continuously misrepresenting their positions is quite exhausting. ← See what I did there? That there is what you call anaphora. It's a rhetorical device, a type of conduplicatio, which are two words wot I learnt from the book Althouse is reading.
There are old comedy bits based on direct attacks on the precocious child.
W.C. Fields for example.
Old virtues are forgotten.
Does, first we have to make the assumption that liberals have many more abortions than conservatives. If that is true, then, you have to make they assumption that liberal parents raise liberal kids, and the same with conservatives. If we can prove those two assumptions, then the Roe Effect is a valid theory. Support for that theory is seeing little kids in Madison banging on drums and trying to prevent conservatives/libertarians from speaking.
Wow, no - I was in Phantom too! Baritone.
It was Elsa's Procession that gave it away...
A bunch of my friends are on the "design" team of Phantom. The drill writer, color guard queen, I marched with the director, Rick in SCV in 1987. I am going to go catch a camp in Rockford before I leave Madison.
Titus wrote: I am going to see fiords. What a weird world fiord.
Titus, I first learned about fiords watching Jonny Quest.
garbage - will you condemn the aging spit-flecking hippy or not?
Given Lefty paradises like San Fiasco and Seattle are beginning to worry about the paucity of children in the area, Taranto may be onto something.
Granted, he's been touting this for close to a decade, but it looks like the demographics are beginning to vindicate him.
As to the dashing Miss Willoughby, she would hardly be the first person to begin her life's work while in her early teens.
I love Elsa's Procession. Phantom is doing it again this year.
I did so love Spartacus though. Both times they did it. In the 80's as well as most recently.
Since what you described didn't actually happen I don't remember it happening. I do remember you and your ilk lying about that happening when it didn't happen, you'll have to settle for that.
So...basically your contribution here is you don't have a clue what the fuck you're talking about? Loud and clear!
Taranto has been talking up a Roe effect for years, overlooking child rebellion.
Another annoying thing he's done is put forward the word kerfuffle. It's an ugly word, for the same reason that Esperanto is ugly.
You hardly ever hear of a brouhaha any longer.
If you were in PR in '84-'85, we marched together. Always good to run into somebody that marched, but it's weird to do it anonymously on the internet.
@ Chuck
Variables you failed to include:
Both parents don't necessarily have the same political orientation.
Other salient factors. (Religion is another major one)
Percentage of those children who would have voted. (including those who would have died, moved from the state)
Percentage of those children who would have been felons.
Too many factors. It's crap science, like I said.
fjords, sorry.
Are they all their cracked to be? I mean really am I going to see one and then be over it and by the time I see my 50th one I will be ready to shoot myself?
I read Living In Oslo has the highest cost of living. Not necessarily visiting.
vbspurs wrote:
I'm certain many women are scared straight and are super careful after their abortion, but honestly, I think many women see abortion as the ultimate contraceptive, and use it repeatedly in their lives.
I have to agree with this. My high school class had MANY pregnancies throughout those four years, and also several girls who had multiple abortions. One of the girls even treated her numerous abortions like a badge of honor. It was really sickening.
Did you all know that Oslo is the most expensive city in the world? How fab.
Tokyo sez hi. Although it is true that I paid almost 5 bucks for a Coke in Trondheim, once...
This is what a deranged leftard looks like.
Rocketeer I marched in Madison 84 and 85. We beat you in 85 but I think you beat us in 84.
I can't even remember all the music we did.
Rhapsody in Blue in 85 I remember.
I was in Phantom in 86-a very bad year. Sky Ryder beat us. Than I went to Santa Clara in 87 and 88. Lost by 1/10 in 87 and was beat by Madison in 88. Sad.
I was friends with the famous George Zingali and the famous George Oliviero.
Dose, I agree that there are too many variables to prove precisly. But here is support for the theory.....if you back out migration, geographic areas tend to vote in similiar patterns for many years. Madison has been leftwing for 45 years, and overall progressive for much longer.
Outagamie county has been voting Republican for.....maybe 65 years.
Chicago...Democrat for 80 years (at least). Utah, conservative for 125 years (estimating).
And that is why it is a theory instead of science.
Galdosiana wrote:
My high school class had MANY pregnancies throughout those four years, and also several girls who had multiple abortions.
Wow, there was only one in my school whilst I was there, and the poor girl was sent down, never to be heard from or referred to again, Soviet-style.
But yes, that is a sickening badge of honour.
So what are we to make of the 17 girls in that Massachusetts high school who recently made a pact to get pregnant? Not an one had an abortion. Given that we live in the Roe v Wade era, is this "progress"?
Spirit of Atlanta.
Interesting.
WV: jacre:
Thought I had to jacrelate, but I just needed to pee.
This isn't the piss thread? oops. Sorry.
"Anecdotal reference: I have a Spaniard friend who has had 3 abortions in her life. She has two kids, a boy and a girl, and is desperate to have a third before she hits 40.
There is no rhyme or reason to her past abortions, but if I understood her correctly, it seems to hinge on the unborn kids not being convenient to her career at the time."
My claim is that, in the case of your friend with the three abortions, is that her total lifetime fertility would most likely be the same. If she has a third child before 40 the number will be three. If she hadn't had that first abortion, the total number of children would probably also be three because she'd probably have decided that three is enough and got a tubal.
Women who have multiple abortions instead of doing something permanent so they don't have to worry about it any more are preserving their fertility because they do intend to have more children. But I think that if they *had* more, that they'd ultimately stop with the same number.
On averages. Most of the time.
There will be some who have fewer children because they aren't able to get pregnant again even when they want to. There will be some who will want to have a child with their current partner and so have another. But mostly I think that it would even out, and that a woman who thinks that "three" is the appropriate number will stop at three, even if she ends up having them at a bad time for her.
That's my theory, anyway.
I only brought it up because I think that "the Roe effect" assumes that abortion leads to fewer children.
I don't think it does.
OTOH, I think it's obvious who is reproducing and who isn't and who inculcates an attitude in their children that values having children at all. The future belongs to those who show up for it.
I'm just pedantic enough to object to calling it "the Roe effect". ;-)
This is what the middle of a revolution looks like today. The guy wants to stop it, but probably knows at some level that it won't be stopped. The unstoppable force is about to move obstacles that, until last November, no one (Walker perhaps excluded) thought could ever be budged. The settled, comfortable protocols that were always going to be there to protect whatever this guy thinks he's in danger of losing just don't work now.
As I've been watching the unfolding circus in Madison these last few months, I've been struck by the contrast to the '30s, when people had much greater cause to protest but rarely did. The main difference is that today's drama is playing out against a very different set of social and economic expectations, giving rise to a more visceral sense of being ripped off. Part of it, too, is that those on the receiving end of what they perceive as unfair treatment are used to calling the shots, having things their way without serious challenge -- the teachers, cops, and other gov't workers making the most noise.
I suspect that the more likely path the revolution in gov't will take will be the out-sourcing of services now provided by gov't employees. Despite the furor of the unions, it's picking up steam -- charter schools, private prisons, contractor-provided garbage removal, etc. Lots more of that on the way, and as it spreads, public sector unions will start to resemble the once-powerful industrial unions.
DOS - why do you hate Christians?
Nonsense. Tricia Willoughby is getting more than the usual 15-minutes of fame. Which is one way to get your namae into some future Trivia game.
When men stop wanting to buy Viagra (and not tell anyone about it), that's when Roe will dive back to jailing doctors. And, creating the back alley abortions.
Most people today just don't need 'em.
What should they cost? Back in 1973, when New York City's Health and Hospitals Corporation costed out the "expense" ... the amount was 64-cents. (Not adding in "surroundings, personnel, or other hospital expenses. Just what the "disposables" cost.
Back in the old days? Women who waited beyond a week or two of missing their periods, often had to find unwed mother homes ... just like Stanley Ann Dunham.
This stuff sells to religious zealots. It's one of the reasons that no matter how back the democratic selection gets ... voting seems to take place on the 50-yard line.
This is a goal?
Shopworn. But boy can some organizations grow rich on the donations they get!
You know, the March of Dimes was a money making charity ... And, they hated both Salk and Sabin so much ... they refused to grant them any money!
What's the biggest problem? Women can begin menstruating at 12. And, instead of getting engaged in high school, today's women look to go to college.
Postpone. Postpone. Postpone.
Even better, it's healthier to put kids on birth control ... so they don't get menstrual cramps. And, back at home you don't have to worry so much.
Meanwhile, religious zealots haven't even wrapped their brains around evolution.
Oh. And, if you took off all the fraud, Prosser probably won by a 20,000 vote majority. Can't cry if you let the balls fly over your head.
(You know, if banks treated its customers to the kinds of fraud voting officials use, the banksters would go to jail.
Many of my friends are still judges....in Drum Corps.
What happens if you are a union member but are a social conservative?
What a dilemma.
Tough luck, picking '86 of all years to go to PR. I had many, many friends still marching with them that year and it was VERY rough.
You marched with some really good corps, though!
Good times, for sure.
I suppose that someone could check the lifetime fertility of women who have had abortions and women who have not and the women who have had them will have significantly fewer children.
But correlation is not causality.
Good lord, how many drum corps alumi are there hanging around here?
Althouse has never done a Madison Scouts post and for that I feel bad. She should have at least had some experience with the corps all these years living there but no publicity for the hard working non-profit here.
They need some love here when they are around this summer.
@ Alex - I don't hate myself, or Christians.
@ Chuck - Again, other mitigating factors. Regional (education) and local motivations. I.e. new york probably doesn't give a crap about farm issues, iowa probably doesnt care about high speed trains.
I see your logic for the theory, which is seductive in its simpleness, but it cannot be used to prove anything. It's bad science. Tying to remember stats class...what are they called? Intervening variables?
"@Althouse: you used to send out those little thank you notes for paypal donations. Did you get mine?"
Yes, thank you, and I did respond!
Titus, you described some of my relatives. Social conservative union members. What do they do? Just shut the hell up, stay in the closet and do their jobs. Don't rock the boat. Just let the left run the union and make all the noise.
@ Chuck
Not to mention age, education or the fact that those 'aborted' votes may have been replaced.
The more I think about it, the more I realize how awful it is to be put forth as a legitimate theory.
Too many factors. It's crap science, like I said.
It isn't science at all, nor is it claimed to be.
It is, however, a reasonable suspicion. Couples tend to have similar political views, and children tend to grow up to have similar views as well. So we would expect a policy that reduced the overall number of liberal couples' kids to have the effect of reducing the number of future liberals.
The objections you cite merely reduce the likely effect. None provides an explanation for why there would be NO such effect.
When I first started lurking here (via Insty), I always verbalized Scouts by association. Odd that experiences from over 30 years ago draw immediate mental associations. I can smell it, still (not the buses, the fields).
WC: chipp:
Too easy, let G/M write it.
The only way "Roe effect" makes sense to me is as an allusion to attitudes toward reproduction rather than a cause and effect of abortion itself.
I think it is a sort of awful theory, but meant to illustrate a rather awful thing.
Richard Dolan wrote:
As I've been watching the unfolding circus in Madison these last few months, I've been struck by the contrast to the '30s, when people had much greater cause to protest but rarely did.
Mmm, Richard, not sure I agree with that. Perhaps a lot of the strife has been forgotten, like the famous Ford Hunger March of 1932, where several people died and countless police were injured.
It's just that today, similar participants in strikes and protests have blogs and don't need to have their "voices" filtered by hard-nosed journalists on major news outlets.
It is, however, a reasonable suspicion. Couples tend to have similar political views, and children tend to grow up to have similar views as well. So we would expect a policy that reduced the overall number of liberal couples' kids to have the effect of reducing the number of future liberals.
The objections you cite merely reduce the likely effect. None provides an explanation for why there would be NO such effect.
It is not reasonable at all. Even remotely. With that number of variables...any conclusion on how 300,000 children would be voting today? Across a 25-year age range, from any number of locations across the state...
It's absolutely NOT reasonable. It's a bad theory. I could make equally strong (which is to say, not at all) for the dead opposite.
Not to mention your first assumption is "liberal couples". You can stop there.
There is no way to know so many variables just on that.
Synova wrote:
My claim is that, in the case of your friend with the three abortions, is that her total lifetime fertility would most likely be the same. If she has a third child before 40 the number will be three.
After reading all your followups, I think I understand your point better, now, Synova. Thanks!
In her case, I think not. She went from being a selfish, unthinking young woman with a diplomatic career, to wanting as large a family as possible. That's the thing, you see, about the Roe effect -- the unreported consequences of maturing and getting another perspective about life.
Good, I see consensus forming that the Roe theory is bullshit.
Ask yourself why someone would put forth a bullshit theory and you'll move a bit further in the discussion.
Ironically, I enjoy the assumption that my political views dictate my views on abortions.
I would have to see convincing evidence that children, eventually, don't settle more or less on their parent's side of politics.
But how many families do you know that are more or less split down the middle, 50-50? Of myself and my siblings, one is a liberal activist sort and three are conservative sorts. Not that the three of us are all that similar. I think I'm the only one who leans strongly libertarian, at least most of the time.
It's not that kids turn out cookie-cutter like their parents, but in all of the families I know, they do share attitudes most of the time. The hippy sorts have hippy sorts of kids, mostly. The fundies with 8 children have children who think that arranging a family that way is reasonable, mostly, and the chances of any of them supporting abortion, even if they decide not to have eight kids themselves, is small. Of the nine kids in my father's conservative family, one of the girls married a flaming liberal (farmer-labor sort), and their children are Democrats, as far as I know.
Anecdote, I know. But I'd need some pretty compelling data to convince me that I'm not seeing what I think I'm seeing.
Ask yourself why someone would put forth a bullshit theory and you'll move a bit further in the discussion.
DoS, what is your opinion on the Roe effect vis-à-vis the purported lowering of violence/crime in our society?
There have been many research papers on the topic, like Yale's John Donohue's, "The Impact of Legalised Abortion on Crime".
@ Synova - assuming that the parent's have the political orientation, assuming that doesn't change, assuming that the children's political orientation doesn't change as they age, assuming that they do not have another political influence (like religion), assuming that...
You get my point. So many variables means it's simply not possible to control for, and cannot be taken seriously.
@VB - See above - I absolutely despise bad science, faulty conclusions - and worse - when they are used to create policies. Do I think they can control enough variables for statistical significance? No.
Hm... now I'm thinking of my mom's family where Grandma and Grandpa were, as far as I know, conservative, but of three girls two are far left and my mom is what my dad calls "wishy-washy."
The variable may not be the parent's politics. It could be that my Grandma was the sort that responded to any news of a pregnancy with dismay rather than joy.
That's got to say more about a person's outlook on life than which political party they grew up voting for (and who knows who Grandma actually voted for?)
@VB - And to go for the insinuated point - the author of that study is clearly using the same science to prove HIS side of the debate.
Hate that just as much.
Dose,
There is a pretty large body of political research - spanning across a surprisingly long period -that supports the notion that there is a strong positive correlation between the political attitudes of parents and their children. Negative correlations are almost nonexistent. In fact, UW-Madison's own Charles Franklin has performed research that absolutely supports the notion that children generally adopt their parents political attitudes. I'm afraid I don't have the tim,e right now to provide you with cites, but I assure you that you will find them if you look.
It would be interesting to see fertility rates by political orientation but it is hard to nail down exact classifications of political belief and practice. It would also be interesting to see those rates by religious affiliation.
The other factor similar to the Roe Effect would be the Gay Effect, if there is one. If gay males tend to be liberal they cannot reproduce--at least not readily. So that may cause some disparity over time. Although as has been indicated, immigration may wipe-0e out any differences in elections.
@ Rocketeer
Not doubt about that. In fact, I say as much in my initial post. The sheer number of other variables. (Including the fluid nature of those very parent's orientation).
Religion and Parent's affiliation are the two most salient reasons for political orientation.
(I was a poli sci/comp sci/history undergrad)
Good, I see consensus forming that the Roe theory is bullshit.
Ironically, said consensus is, itself, "crap science". :)
After all, demonstrating that the theory cannot be confirmed is not the same as demonstrating that the theory is wrong.
After all, demonstrating that the theory cannot be confirmed is not the same as demonstrating that the theory is wrong.
Showing the theory appears to find a variable correlation when it misses several key assumptions does show it is wrong though.
Got me on the consensus thing. +1 for catching on.
DoS, you're asking for something that isn't fluid or else it's not valid.
Of course there are variables. Of course the politics of the parents (or attitudes about reproduction) do not determine the political orientation of the children. But are you claiming they don't influence it at all? How is that possible?
If someone grows up with a religious tradition they are more likely to continue it than someone who grew up without one. That doesn't stop anyone from leaving a church and it doesn't stop anyone from converting.
People aren't constant, but they aren't entirely random either.
Ah, we have a poli sci & history background in common then.
A point that I was not as clear about is that research alos supports the notion that political orientation is also highly stable, contrary to your stated concern about that being a potentially significant variable...
Numerically speaking, what about (1) the correlation between abortions and African Americans coupled and (2) how African Americans voted in the last presidential election?
Therefore, would there have been more liberal voters in last election?
Chuck66 already suggested as much at 1:30.
I'm tempted to make this into a syllogism but I'm afraid I'd have too much to answer for.
Suggested refutation: American blacks would overwhelmingly vote for a conservative black candidate.
Synova wrote:
That's got to say more about a person's outlook on life than which political party they grew up voting for (and who knows who Grandma actually voted for?)
This is another way of stating what I continue to claim -- that world view forms your politics, not the other way around.
My world view is your "outlook on life".
My dad is a liberal. My mother is 'washy-washy'. However, BOTH of them come from a conservative world view where family, tradition, hierarchy, religion are paramount. Although I suspected my conservatism was a mini-rebellion against my father's bleeding heart liberalism, it's no wonder, then, that I'm conservative politically. I didn't have so far to go.
@ Synova
Nope, not saying that at all.
What I'm saying is that making all of these assumptions together is wrong.
In order for their to be a "roe effect"....
Assumption A: More liberals than conservatives have abortions.
Assumption B: Of the difference (i.e. the liberal abortions - conservative abortions) there are more liberals who marry other liberals
Assumption C: Of the difference B (subtracting 1 conservative parent), there are more people who stay liberal.
Assumption D: Of the difference, there are more people who follow their parents orientation
Assumption E: Of the difference, there are more liberals who vote.
Chaos and time variables alone, good freaking luck with that. Each assumption on it's own? Quite possible! All together? Forget about it.
And I could add more assumptions for each variable before I suggested.
It's just bad. Take a bunch of things that are true and proven, string them together, and hope their validity carries over.
Everyone should go "Whoa, wait a minute, this is bs".
And I could add more assumptions for each variable before I suggested.
It's just bad. Take a bunch of things that are true and proven, string them together, and hope their validity carries over.
Everyone should go "Whoa, wait a minute, this is bs".
Chickelit wrote:
Suggested refutation: American blacks would overwhelmingly vote for a conservative black candidate.
Quite. Ambassador Alan Keyes sez hi.
It'll be interesting to see if Congressman Allen West is ever nominated for the Republican ticket. I salivate thinking about that, because I adore him and would be proud to cast my vote for him, whilst yelling "racist!" to anyone who doesn't support him. Payback, she's a whore.
"Tokyo sez hi. Although it is true that I paid almost 5 bucks for a Coke in Trondheim, once..."
Now that you mention it,
the beer was pretty expensive.
Showing the theory appears to find a variable correlation when it misses several key assumptions does show it is wrong though.
It shows that it is logically invalid. It is saying "if A and B and C then D; A, therefore D".
But "logically invalid" and "wrong" are two completely different things. The fact that B and C are unknowns doesn't imply "not D".
@ Rev
That's true. It's possible "D" could still happen. It IS wrong to say "A" is the cause.
See what I mean?
"Who the fuck are you to lecture me, you little brat?"
Well, I have thought that from time to time, and some of those times have been recent. My impulse control seems to be better that that of the guy in the video.
Unless, of course, it's not impulse but premeditated, which in a macro sense it certainly is.
- What about adoption? How is that taken into account in the Roe effect?
- I know many pro-life women who have conveniently, briefly changed their views when personally confronted with an unwanted pregnancy.
I now support abortion. Why?
My wife did it with a single observation. "Just think Dear, two entire generations of Democrats gone down the drain."
I thought "Hot damn!"
"In order for their to be a "roe effect"....
Assumption A: More liberals than conservatives have abortions."
We could full-stop right there.
I don't think that abortions change the total number of children women have, on average, in their life. That's my gut feeling. It would be interesting to know if it was true. And I find the need to believe that conservative hypocrites (but I repeat myself) have as many abortions as liberals to be self-serving wishful-thinking based on no evidence whatsoever.
But it hardly matters because conservative/religious women have more children than liberal women have.
That's not an assumption. It's the bottom line.
Particularly, how religious a woman is makes her far far more likely to have more children. We know this is true because we have the statistics.
And it is true world wide.
That's not the same thing as claiming that Republicans have more children than Democrats. But maybe someone did a survey or census or something so maybe someone knows.
IF it is true that people who tend Democrat believe in the moral necessity of small families, for whatever reason, and IF it is true that people who tend Republican believe that children are a blessing and more children are more blessings... the rest sort of follows.
It makes as much sense to argue that it's not *true* as it does to say that the difference in attitudes about reproduction between native French and Muslim immigrants has no effect on the demographics of France.
Of course it does.
Just because Americans are harder to sort out from one another doesn't make it not so.
"I know many pro-life women who have conveniently, briefly changed their views when personally confronted with an unwanted pregnancy."
Joanna, I think that you are making that up. Not that it does not happen, but either you are cracking into other people's medical records, or you are making it up.
Or maybe you think "many" is more than one?
@Chuck66: Utah, conservative for 125 years (estimating).
Not so fast. Mormons were harder to pigeonhole back then than they are now. They were socially conservative in a number of important ways, and not so much in at least one obvious way. And they were not averse to populist rabble rousing against the Eastern money men and railroads.
The Democrats were more inclined to leave them alone to practice their polygamy, while the indefatigable New England Puritan busybodies in the Republican Party went out of their way to condemn the practice right alongside slavery and the drinking of alcohol.
About a third of the Governors of Utah have been Democrats, especially during the Depression, but also as recently as 1985.
My grandma was raised Mormon, but left the church as an adult. She was an FDR Democrat until the day she died. Younger Mormons are overwhelmingly Republican, but there is still a non-trivial number of Mormon Democrats such as Harry Reid and the Udall family.
This thread has turned ugly. I don't get how one can be pro life, and then rejoice or joke about the abortions of political opponents. Bad karma.
I should say...
There are two major determining factors related to fertility rates. Religious belief is one. Economic development is the other.
Given economic development fertility rates drop dramatically. Religious belief, mostly Christian or Muslim, though I don't think it matters so much what the religion is, keeps the fertility rates higher.
His mother must be so very proud.
I see your true colors and they are ugly. NOT shining like a rainbow.
In order for their to be a "roe effect"....
I'll list the correct facts and assumptions.
Fact A: More liberals than conservatives have abortions.
Fact B: Most married couples share a common basic political orientation.
Fact C: Most children grow up to share the same basic political orientation as their parents.
Now, the assumptions:
Assumption A: The population of women who have abortions wind up having a lower average number of children than the population of women who do not.
Assumption B: The aborted fetus would have been neither more nor less likely to be conservative than his surviving siblings.
Assumption C: Abortion does not, somehow, cause conservatives' children to be more likely to be liberal.
Was abortion legal in Wisconsin before Roe v. Wade?
How many other states?
How many would it eventually have been legal in absent Roe v. Wade?
How frequent were abortions among resident of states where it was illegal?
Don't see how Mr. Taranto's theory asks, mch less answers, those questions.
More liberals than conservatives have abortions.
Whether it's due to abortion or other factors, conservatives have more kids.
I don't know abuot your other two points. My parents were liberal. Of the 5 kids still living, there's one big time liberal, two moderates and two conservatives. Of the 7 grandchildren, 6 come from the two conservatives.
Instapundit's father was considered one of the most liberal professors on campus when I was at the University of Tennessee.
That's true. It's possible "D" could still happen. It IS wrong to say "A" is the cause. See what I mean?
No, you're wrong about that, too. Abortion is the action that was taken; the other variables don't consist of actions, but assumptions about human behavior and attitudes.
You could, I suppose, say it is wrong to claim that abortion is the ONLY cause. But nobody's saying it is the only cause -- it is abortion plus the fact that liberals abort more often than conservatives plus the fact that liberals tend to raise liberal kids plus the assumption that there isn't some mysterious force making up for the missing liberals.
"Taranto also turns up another video taken during Willoughby's speech: a man shouts "Who the fuck are you to lecture me, you little brat?!" Incredible."
Turns out, it turned up on Althouse's own blog-
Incredible she missed it-
Blogger Browndog said...
Hey look!
Another "just one guy" who's just protesting everyone, and NOT targeting the 14 yr. old girl...
4/18/11 11:51 AM
Was abortion legal in Wisconsin before Roe v. Wade?
No
How many other states?
Several
How many would it eventually have been legal in absent Roe v. Wade?
Unknown, but probably tracks voter records on other conservative vs. liberal issues.
How frequent were abortions among resident of states where it was illegal?
Less frequent before, more frequent after, now becoming less frequent.
Don't see how Mr. Taranto's theory needed to ask, much less answer, those questions as they were of record already. The important questions are consistency with his thesis: that abortion will decrease and become much less frequent.
"Fact C: Most children grow up to share the same basic political orientation as their parents."
I'm not so sure about "Fact" C.
That person - I won't dignify it with "man" - is disgusting.
This is, in part, why 14-year olds shouldn't be speaking at some of these more volatile demonstrations.
They shouldn't have to handle things like this.
But they'll have to if they speak.
Ugh.
@ Mike - That's pretty well proven
@ Rev - I guess I'm not communicating very well. Let me try again...your theory (on the Roe Effect) is on the random chance more of those aborted votes would be democratic, abortion is costing liberals?
Would you say the Reverse Roe Effect is wrong? (i.e. Conservatives are losing votes?)
If you think both are equally valid, I'll agree with you. If not, you aren't understanding the complete disconnect in the variables.
@ Rev - I just saw your "correction post"
You aren't understanding what I'm saying. You are doing exactly what I'm warning against - taking facts, applying them as true to subsets - and coming up with bad theory.
Do you see how the population changes each time in my assumptions? Do you see how you can't generalize?
I'm really not trying to attack you, because we really are having a communication issue. Take a breath and see if you can see my side?
"Fact C: Most children grow up to share the same basic political orientation as their parents."
I'm not so sure about "Fact" C.
It is well-documented. Google "family in political socialization" for related statistics. Your parents are the single most influential factor in your future political views -- unsurprisingly, since they're the ones who first teach you how to behave in society.
@ Rev -
To prove my point, even though I still think this is bad theory.
Using the previously linked and researched study, The Roe Effect lowers crime. Conservatives actually gain votes (even though there are more liberals, their felon status prevents them from voting).
Thus, the Reverse Roe Theory!! Abortion helps Liberals in the polls!?!
Do you see how the population changes each time in my assumptions? Do you see how you can't generalize?
You're making the wrong assumptions, as I noted. Your assumptions B-D are not assumptions made by the "Roe effect" theory. They are facts established by the social sciences. The Roe Effect assumption is that those facts hold as true for women who have abortions as they do for women who don't.
Roe effect would be important if the population had no external flood of people coming in.
Obviously, religious, and conservative to moderate whites have more kids than gays and urban blue white enclaves.
Left alone, that would mean conservative to moderate white numbers would grow and get more demographic power.
However, the numbers of conservative to moderate whites are in significant decline as a function of the total US population, and their political power may also take major hits in areas in the US - due to the flood of legal and illegal hispanics crossing the Borders.
Liberals finessing the Roe effect with Open Borders.
So many variables means it's simply not possible to control for, and cannot be taken seriously.
Yes, but what does global warming have to do with the Roe effect?
@ Rev - "facts established"
For the general population yes. (Assuming you can cite the others, I think its fair to give you that)
For the subset...no. Show me studies that reference the partners of women who have abortion. Their over-time political persuasion. Each variable DOES NOT STAND ALONE.
There is no Roe effect. There never will be. There can't be.
"Your parents are the single most influential factor in your future political views -- "
I turned out the opposite, and I kinda pegged it to some kind of need to rebel which I figured was "universal", but OK, I'm only an n of 1.
Using the previously linked and researched study, The Roe Effect lowers crime. Conservatives actually gain votes (even though there are more liberals, their felon status prevents them from voting). Thus, the Reverse Roe Theory!! Abortion helps Liberals in the polls!?!
The research found that abortion lowered the crime rate by aborting people who were likely to grow up to be criminals. I'm not clear how you're saying this helps liberals, since an aborted future felon is even less likely to vote liberal than a living convicted felon is.
titus,
What happens if you are a union member but are a social conservative?
You keep your mouth shut about it, and try not to gag when the "Fahrenheit 911" and "An Inconvenient Truth" are shown in the union hall.
For the general population yes. [...] For the subset...no.
Which is why, as I pointed out, the assumption being made is that the facts hold true regardless of whether or not the woman has had an abortion.
There is no Roe effect. There never will be. There can't be.
Your first two statements are unsupported by any evidence. The third statement is hilariously wrong.
@ Rev
/sigh Faulty logic wins again. One day, real science will win.
That day is not soon though, I fear.
Dose of Sanity,
/sigh Faulty logic wins again. One day, real science will win.
That day is not soon though, I fear.
Apparently it won't happen if you have anything to say about it.
You have the f*ing nerve, calling yourself "Dose of Sanity".
Faulty logic wins again. One day, real science will win. That day is not soon though, I fear.
What makes the above statement funny, at least to me, is that my position was, and is, that the "Roe effect" theory was unscientific but plausible -- that it could be correct, but isn't provably so.
You, meanwhile, have gradually slipped from "it is bad science", to the scientifically-unjustified "it is wrong", and have now arrived at the strictly faith-based belief that it is impossible for the theory to be right.
So thanks for the smile, at least. :)
Ah - like I said before it is equally likely that it is true to the chance that it is NOT true.
I used wrong. You could substitute meaningless for a more accurate term, I guess.
Never faith. Always logic.
Additionally, I guess when I used can't be right, I was really saying meaningless because it can never be proven in either direction.
A person who confuses the words "wrong", "meaningless", and "unprovable" should probably not be lecturing anyone about logic or science. I'm just sayin'.
Anyway, bored now.
The third statement is hilariously wrong.
It's like Dose has found out about the Roe effect from Darth Vader.
I still say kids shouldn't be involved in political rallies...
We're in the process of saddling 14-year-olds with debt they didn't benefit from but will anyway be paying for the rest of their lives. Damn straight she has a right to speak, though it'll be a few years before she can truly comprehend the sheer enormity of the crime against her generation.
If only she were lecturing that public employee man-child.
How many Muslim children are becoming Christians? Muslims have larger families than even Mormons.
And by the way, if he really sees her as a "little brat", why is he swearing at her? Is it really okay to swear in front of children these days?
To compensate for all the abortions the Dems need the open border policy for a few more decades.
More liberals than conservatives have abortions.
According to abortion rates are higher in blue states supporting that liberals do have more abortions than conservatives.
Conservatives do have more kids.
Of my liberal parents 5 kids still living, 1 is extremely liberal, 2 moderates and 2 conservatives. Of the 7 grand children, 4 are mine, 2 are my conservative brother's. All grandchildren are conservative/libertarian at this point.
With the numbers of children born to liberals vs conservatives, if half the liberals when conservative and half the conservatives went liberal, the conservatives amass greater numbers.
Dose, you are full of crap. 50 million black babies killed and you're saying there's NO Roe effect. With blacks voting 92% or greater for Dems, you are a moron.
Just saw that video of the girl at the Cubs game. Thanks MadisonMan, it had me laughing out loud.
wv: ovyisio, part of the birth control the drunken Cubs fan has to pay for
If liberals take abortions while tradintionalist dont , in the long run there will be no liberal around
It's really embarrassing that our country has come to a place where a young child cannot express her views. No matter her views, she should have been congratulated for getting involved in the political process.
It's ironic that the Tea Party is called racist (unfairly) while these types of situations arise on the Left but are rarely reported on.
objectivistpolitics.blogspot.com
50 million black babies
Is that true? Jesus. Poor things...Sharpton et al are in collusion with race extinction.
Why do you think the party of contraception, abortion, and sodomy is so desperate for amnesty?
Is that true? Jesus. Poor things...Sharpton et al are in collusion with race extinction.
My response to that is the same response I give when people accuse the Israelis of anti-Palestinian "genocide": if that's what they're guilty of, they aren't doing a very good job of it -- the population in question has increased significantly since they started.
North Carolina, which sent Jesse Helms to the Senate for decades, has subsidized abortions for poor women for almost as long and I've never heard anyone complain. I suspect it's a race and class thing. Some people probably assume it saves the state money in the long run, and they may be right.
Are there no work houses for the poor?
a man shouts "Who the fuck are you to lecture me, you little brat?!"
The legacy of garage and all the other silly leftists who post here...
Very late to this thread--I just hate having a life outside of blogs
DOS: There are some newer statistical techniques, notably covariance structural modelling that can deal with many variables including intervening variables--I suggest it MAY be possible to model the question and using CSM to clarify the role of individual variables. If you would like more information on the technique check the Journal of Multivariate Analysis (I think thats right)
One inarguable fact of abortion is that nationwide, the percentage of African American pregnancies aborted is over 55%.
Never mind all the other health and crime hazards associated with the African American community, they're not even having children at a rate to maintain their population. They're ehtnically cleansing themselves with the encouragement of their white liberal "betters" in the Denmocratic party.
Why do you think the Dems are so interested in 'immigration reform?' They see a huge part of their base DYING.
Never mind all the other health and crime hazards associated with the African American community, they're not even having children at a rate to maintain their population.
Black women have the second-highest birth rate in America, after Hispanic women. White women are in last place.
"One inarguable fact of abortion is that nationwide, the percentage of African American pregnancies aborted is over 55%."
Certainly I've heard it's a lot.
However.
"Black women have the second-highest birth rate in America, after Hispanic women. White women are in last place."
All those abortions don't reduce the population because the women who have them maintain their fertility and have subsequent living children. (If they weren't maintaining their fertility they wouldn't end up pregnant in order to get those abortions.)
The idea that abortions would reduce "undesirable" populations was Sanger's idea. She was wrong. (On several counts.)
This Naomi was me as well.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा