The Solid Surfer.com

About

Blog powered by Typepad

..


News of the Day

  • Jewish World Review
  • Michael Freund on Israel National News
  • The Corner on National Review Online

My Heroes

  • Rabbi Shea Hecht
  • Drudge Report
  • Charles Krauthammer
  • George Will
  • Thomas Sowell
  • William F. Buckley Jr.
  • Ann Coulter
  • Dennis Prager
  • Victor Davis Hanson
  • Mark Steyn
  • Michael Medved
  • Michelle Malkin
  • The American Thinker
  • Washington PAC

Blogroll

  • Little Green Footballs
  • Instapundit
  • Israpundit
  • MadZionist (Archive)
  • MadZionist (New Site)
  • Power Line
  • Soxblog
  • Polipundit
  • In The Bullpen
  • Liberty And Culture
  • Patrick Ruffini
  • Republican Jewish coalition
  • Real Clear Politics
  • The Counterterrorism Blog
  • Steven Plaut
  • Democratic Peace
  • TheRant.us
  • Captain's Quarters
  • The Hedgehog Report
  • The GOP's Official Blog
  • Hispanic Pundit
  • Freedom Now
  • The Autonomist
  • Israel Perspectives
  • Junkyard Blog
  • Marathon Pundit
  • The Only Republican in San Francisco
  • Zion Truth
  • Meryl Yourish
  • The Pink Flamingo Bar & Grill
  • The Beak Speaks
  • Lawrence Kudlow
  • Reagan's Children
  • Lazer Beams
  • Islamanazi
  • Jewish Irani
  • Orangeducks Observer
  • Anti-Mullah
  • Gates of Vienna
  • The 910 Group Blog

News, Freakonomics, and more on Abortion

Weekend News Update:

100,000 marchers were supposedly expected at an anti-war rally in Washington, DC, but apparently far fewer showed up, as shown in this photo of the event.

You wouldn't know that from the media though, who apparently accepted the marchers' claims of 100,000 without checking the actual facts. This article demonstrates just how the media got it wrong.

Iran preparing to attack the U.S. in Iraq?

Victor Davis Hanson gives us some much needed reminders about Iraq and Afghanistan.


On Freakonomics and Abortion:

In arguing in my previous post that Roe vs. Wade is much less politically relevant than believed by the mainstream Left, I left out one potential criticism recently raised by the bestselling book Freakonomics. The book, by economist Steven Levitt (along with journalist Stephen Dubner), advances the theory that Roe Vs. Wade caused the massive national decline in violent crime during the 1990s, because legalized abortion prevented the criminals who would have committed such acts from being born.

Of course, as one might expect, this claim has been attacked on multiple fronts, from moral criticisms by the Right to direct challenges of Levitt's statistical methods by other economists (here is one example). But given that pro-choicers will probably ignore the pro-life criticism and most non-economists (honestly, including myself) may lack the time to thoroughly analyze the statistical challenges, I'd like to offer a criticism from a different angle - Levitt's basic theory itself.

Levitt's claim that Roe vs. Wade caused the 1990s crime drop rests on a gigantic and unproven assumption - that the babies aborted since 1973 (when Roe was signed into law) would have contained a large criminal element. Levitt bases his view on the facts that Roe made abortions available to lower income women, and that low income today correlates with increased crime.

A correlation, however, is not the same as a cause. Low income was not always associated with crime; at the height of the Great Depression in the 1930s, for example, national incomes plummeted yet crime failed to noticeably rise. Rather, low income and crime are together strongly linked to certain third factor causes, such as the lack of a father in the home. Plus, with the upward mobility common in American society, those with low incomes in the 1970s are by no means consigned to remain as such today.

No, Levitt does not prove his assumption, and in fact, he cannot prove it, because the people in question were never born. For all we know (and I would say this is a much more likely scenario), far from contributing to crime, these aborted babies would have instead solved America's social security crisis.

We commonly hear that "population aging" is the cause of social security's impending fiscal deficit, but the term is misleading. After all, everyone has always grown older, but the social security issue is a recent phenomenon. The real cause is that, unlike previous and current generations, the baby boomers born from 1948-1964 had fewer children than the number needed to replace themselves in the workforce. As a result, the next few decades will see a shortage of working age people needed to support the retiring boomers.

Now why did the baby boomers have so many fewer kids? Well, millions and millions of them were aborted following Roe vs. Wade in 1973.

That said, this conclusion is of course rooted in the assumption that the aborted children would have become, by and large, productive taxpaying members of society. Like Levitt's claim, I cannot prove this, because the people are not around for us to know.

But I certainly believe this is a more likely outcome than the one Levitt advances, and at the very least, it demonstrates how Freakonomics' abortion theory rests entirely on an unproven and unverifiable assertion. And as such, contrary to its claims, the book adds no relevance to the liberal support of Roe vs. Wade that I argue against below.

September 25, 2005 in Abortion, American Politics | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Why Liberals Should Focus Away From Abortion

If you are a liberal, abortion is much less politically relevant than you probably think.

Now before anyone knee-jerk dismisses this essay as a typical anti-abortion "conservative rant," know that I am judging the matter only as a political issue and not as a practice itself. I do, of course, have a personal view on the pro-life vs. pro-choice debate, but that's not what this piece is about.

Rather, my argument is this: Contrary to popular belief, liberals' overwhelming support for Roe vs. Wade has in fact been a largely detrimental practice both to them and to America at large.

Of course you would never guess this from the Left's continuous focus on Roe in politics, media, and celebrity culture. But in reality, Roe vs. Wade is more symbolic than substantive, and liberals' singular focus on it detracts them from important issues that would otherwise assume primary relevance.

Abortion's legality does not actually rest on Roe vs. Wade. Should the court decision be overturned, abortion would not become suddenly illegal throughout the nation; rather, each individual state would decide its preference. And almost all current abortion clinics are located in states that, if given the choice, would most likely vote to allow the practice. USA Today recently conducted an analysis and determined that overturning Roe would close only 36 of the nation's 1819 abortion providers. Liberals are defending a court decision that does little more than uphold the status quo.

This effort, meanwhile, often influences liberals (especially moderate liberals) to vote against their other self interests. Many liberals so highly value Roe vs. Wade that it acts as their default political litmus test; the issue primarily determines whether they will vote for a particular candidate. (As a textbook example, witness the constant Roe-related grilling of John Roberts throughout his confirmation hearings.) But this often leads to moderates supporting candidates with whom they disagree on most issues except for Roe.

In the past, this problem may have remained largely a personal matter. But today, it unfortunately has become a vital issue of national security. Countless liberals who personally support strong responses against terrorism often vote for candidates weak on said issue simply because the candidates support Roe vs. Wade. These same voters will then reject able national defense types who are against Roe.

Cumulatively, these attitudes have dealt a great blow to America's fight against terrorism. This is not to say Roe vs. Wade is entirely irrelevant, but with America under threat from rogue states and fanatical terrorist organizations, national defense clearly should be a more important consideration. If these liberals could only shift some of their Roe-focused energy onto security concerns, both they and all Americans should benefit immensely.

September 22, 2005 in Abortion, American Politics | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

Subscribe to this blog's feed

.



Recent Posts

  • The Last Post (For Now)
  • Odds, Ends, and Advice
  • Geopolitical Recommendations (Continued)
  • Geopolitical Recommendations: Defeating Iran
  • Link Archive Continued - Recent Material
  • TheSolidSurfer.com Link Archive
  • (Soon To Be) Leaving The Blogosphere
  • Western Writers and Muslim Demographics Part II
  • Western Writers and Muslim Demographic Exaggeration
  • Help Save Bangladeshi Journalist Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury - Friend of Israel and America

Archives

  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006

Categories

  • Abortion (2)
  • American Life (4)
  • American Politics (17)
  • Demographics (5)
  • Economics (4)
  • Europe (3)
  • Guest Contributors (10)
  • Islam (14)
  • Israel (22)
  • Judaism (4)
  • Leftist Radicalism (9)
  • Media & Entertainment (13)
  • Middle East (21)
  • Reader Favorites (13)
  • Republicans (5)
  • Science (7)
  • Terrorism (8)
  • U.N. & International Politics (13)
See More
Create Free Polls