You’re correct that the abortion rate doesn’t impact total fertility. Moreover, most abortions are had by the lower classes and their fertility rate is higher.
Where abortion lowers birth rates is cultural. The entirety of the fertility shortfall amongst the middle and upper middle classes is due to ideology. Pro-choice people from the upper classes simply have fewer children because they don’t want them. This is rarely due to abortion, but to birth control. Their pro-choice view is simply a manifestation of their dislike of having children, and is seen as a backup form of birth control even if few will ever use it.
If all people on the right side of the bell curve had the same fertility rate as pro-life smart people we would have replacement fertility and the dysgenic bias in fertility rates would go away.
The black birth rate is probably lower than whites because a quarter are high fertility African immigrants. Abortion probably does lower the birthrate for lower class groups seeing as they have larger out of wedlock births which clearly were not intended and is more a sign of poor planning throughout their life. But yes the productive members of society abortion does not lower birthrate.
The estimate is that 25% of blacks are black or Caribbean immigrants, I believe random sampling/nonnational census. Their birthrate is usually 4 plus for the first generation which and are younger on average which skews the data. Black middle and upper class have very low birthrate.
Productive people are not affected by abortion primarily because they are correctly using birth control.
"and she has an unintended child, this presumebly does not change her desired total number of children."
It might change her total number of children if she will give her unintended child up for adoption. Maybe that should be encouraged more, if doing so will actually boost the birthrate? Just so long as it's not dysgenic, of course. Else, it likely wouldn't be worth it.
What a bizarre abuse of 'data'. The first assumption that is absurd in this 'analysis' is that women get pregnant on purpose. But in fact, many women - pre-legal abortion - had children because they got pregnant unintentionally. The resultant birth rate the author relies on is effected significantly by those pregnancies not going to term.
Even worse? He neglects to factor in 'the pill' and other forms of birth control coming into use before Roe v Wade. That's where the initial depression in birth rates begins,, and its then worsened by abortion. Birth rate is driven by multiple factors. Using a single factor to analyze birth rates provides simplistic, inaccurate answers.
The only way to get to this info would be to interview women who've gotten pregnant and determining how the availability of abortion on demand effects their decisions about reproduction. Were they less careful cuz they knew they could get an abortion? Was it truly an accident, and would they have brought the baby to term had abortion not been legal? Etc. A solid survey design would yield good insights as to the drivers of the abortion decision. But none of that kind of data is present in this analysis.
I would argue abortion does ultimately reduce birthrates, but the effect is more indirect.
Abortion encourages a culture of transitory hook-ups which interferes with pair bonding which ultimately lowers the birthrate.
You’re correct that the abortion rate doesn’t impact total fertility. Moreover, most abortions are had by the lower classes and their fertility rate is higher.
Where abortion lowers birth rates is cultural. The entirety of the fertility shortfall amongst the middle and upper middle classes is due to ideology. Pro-choice people from the upper classes simply have fewer children because they don’t want them. This is rarely due to abortion, but to birth control. Their pro-choice view is simply a manifestation of their dislike of having children, and is seen as a backup form of birth control even if few will ever use it.
If all people on the right side of the bell curve had the same fertility rate as pro-life smart people we would have replacement fertility and the dysgenic bias in fertility rates would go away.
Addressing the second paragraph; Babies are a government check. It’s a business. Kind of an NGO.
Banning fornication would be far more “eugenic” than abortion.
The black birth rate is probably lower than whites because a quarter are high fertility African immigrants. Abortion probably does lower the birthrate for lower class groups seeing as they have larger out of wedlock births which clearly were not intended and is more a sign of poor planning throughout their life. But yes the productive members of society abortion does not lower birthrate.
What's your source for saying 1/4 Black Americans are African immigrants? That sounds very high.
The estimate is that 25% of blacks are black or Caribbean immigrants, I believe random sampling/nonnational census. Their birthrate is usually 4 plus for the first generation which and are younger on average which skews the data. Black middle and upper class have very low birthrate.
Productive people are not affected by abortion primarily because they are correctly using birth control.
"and she has an unintended child, this presumebly does not change her desired total number of children."
It might change her total number of children if she will give her unintended child up for adoption. Maybe that should be encouraged more, if doing so will actually boost the birthrate? Just so long as it's not dysgenic, of course. Else, it likely wouldn't be worth it.
What a bizarre abuse of 'data'. The first assumption that is absurd in this 'analysis' is that women get pregnant on purpose. But in fact, many women - pre-legal abortion - had children because they got pregnant unintentionally. The resultant birth rate the author relies on is effected significantly by those pregnancies not going to term.
Even worse? He neglects to factor in 'the pill' and other forms of birth control coming into use before Roe v Wade. That's where the initial depression in birth rates begins,, and its then worsened by abortion. Birth rate is driven by multiple factors. Using a single factor to analyze birth rates provides simplistic, inaccurate answers.
The only way to get to this info would be to interview women who've gotten pregnant and determining how the availability of abortion on demand effects their decisions about reproduction. Were they less careful cuz they knew they could get an abortion? Was it truly an accident, and would they have brought the baby to term had abortion not been legal? Etc. A solid survey design would yield good insights as to the drivers of the abortion decision. But none of that kind of data is present in this analysis.