Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Mannahnin wrote:Actually I think it's a fair point to bring up, given that folks have espoused leaving legislation and funding of this matter up to the states.

But you have to keep in mind that I would be in the minoirty of that red state. I would vote against such a law and work to overturn it once it had passed. But that has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the law.

Sure. And if you lived in Mississippi in 1964 I'm sure you'd be outraged about the deaths of those civil rights workers, too. But their murders would still have been facilitated by the police and the populace.

Exactly. I'm also outraged by the various moral deliquencies perpetrated by federal employees or facilitated by federal laws -- none of which has anything to do with the competency of federal or state authority.

Chongara wrote:

Manchu wrote:@Chongara: You have an exceedingly narrow definition of "affect."

Abortions are strictly a women's issue. Accessibility of health care disproportionally affects minorities. White males are about as far removed from this issue as a group can be. It's like martians wanting to have an opinion on our envriomental issues.

Yet they are still part of the constituency. Once you deny a place in the political process for one select group or another based on some condition that "it doesn't affect them", you lose the legitimacy of the whole concept of modern government.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Chongara wrote:

Manchu wrote:@Chongara: You have an exceedingly narrow definition of "affect."

Abortions are strictly a women's issue. Accessibility of health care disproportionally affects minorities. White males are about as far removed from this issue as a group can be. It's like martians wanting to have an opinion on our envriomental issues.

Yet they are still part of the constituency. Once you deny a place in the political process for one select group or another based on some condition that "it doesn't affect them", you lose the legitimacy of the whole concept of modern government.

Easily illustrated by carrying the claim to its ludicrous but logical conclusion: there should be special taxes exacted only from women which will pay for publicly-funded abortions

There were a lot of studies done over time that showed that abortion isn't this all encompassing, life destroying event that it is often made out to be. I'm not saying people are blase' about it, but they tend to just go on with their lives without it being this shadow of doom and gloom hanging over them.

The Daily show had a bit about this legislation last night, In 2006 the Federal government paid (in whole or part) for 191 abortions in which rape, mental defect, or the woman's life was in danger and it cost the taxpayers a whole two tenths of a penny per person.

I'm not certain about the argument that people who don't want something done shouldn't have to pay taxes for it becuase there are bunches of stuff that people do and don't want that we pay taxes. If we let people treat them like a buffet table either taxes for each thing would go up exorbitantly or nothing would get funded.

@Ahtman: I'm not saying that individuals should be able to opt out of taxes. I'm saying that polities should be able to democratically decide how funds should be spent.

About your hypothetical studies: I would guess that there will one day be studies to show how abortion has created missing segments of demographics, especially among certain minorities that might otherwise have much larger populations.

Ahtman wrote:

I'm not certain about the argument that people who don't want something done shouldn't have to pay taxes for it becuase there are bunches of stuff that people do and don't want that we pay taxes. If we let people treat them like a buffet table either taxes for each thing would go up exorbitantly or nothing would get funded.

Agreed, I'm sure there were a fair few who objected to the war in Iraq, I wonder how much each of them spent on that?

The decision to deploy our military in Iraq was made by the competent authorities. I really think there's some issue-twisting going on here.

Manchu wrote:Exactly. I'm also outraged by the various moral deliquencies perpetrated by federal employees or facilitated by federal laws -- none of which has anything to do with the competency of federal or state authority.

My point is that local mores led to the murder of black men and the injustice of those murders going uninvestigated and unprosecuted (the search for the civil rights workers also turned up the bodies of 7 other black men who had "gone missing" and not been seriously investigated). The State of Mississippi only ever prosecuted one of the murderers, in 2005. Only a few of the murderers were convicted of anything at the original trials, and they served between 3-10 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_civil_rights_workers_murders#Trial

The Federal Government was more capable of providing justice, in part because of its distance from local mores which sheltered murderers and functionally condoned the murder of black men. The parallel to the laws like agnosto mentioned in Oklahoma seems clear to me. The state in question (and many others) is putting an unjust and cruel burden on the women suffering in these situations. It has demonstrated its incapacity to provide appropriate legal oversight. While the Feds might screw up too, they managed to do a better job with Civil Rights than the states did, and I think the failures of many states so far demonstrate that it would be appropriate for the Feds to step in to some extent to protect women's rights.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:The decision to deploy our military in Iraq was made by the competent authorities. I really think there's some issue-twisting going on here.

But there are legitimate parallels. I can say I morally object to the war in Iraq, but I don't have special laws for my tax dollars not to go to supporting it.

Manchu wrote:@Ahtman: I'm not saying that individuals should be able to opt out of taxes. I'm saying that polities should be able to democratically decide how funds should be spent.

About your hypothetical studies: I would guess that there will one day be studies to show how abortion has created missing segments of demographics, especially among certain minorities that might otherwise have much larger populations.

That is certainly happening in India illegally.

@Mannahnin: No it would not be appropriate to do so. In fact, federal legislation did little to stop racial violence in the South -- and your own example is perfect evidence. Instead, racial violence has decreased only very gradually thanks to much more complicated factors than the mere passage of legislation or writing of court opinions in Washington, D.C.. Mannahnin, I think you greatly overestimate the role of the federal government in solving major social problems.

Manchu wrote:About your hypothetical studies: I would guess that there will one day be studies to show how abortion has created missing segments of demographics, especially among certain minorities that might otherwise have much larger populations.

They aren't hypothetical. Not recalling the name of every Psychological study I ever read has no bearing on the reality of their existence. Considering the human race is on track for overpopulation I don't think a few abortions are going to seem all the relevant when we start rationing food. Also, could you be more specific? What minority groups are being ravaged by abortion? Abortion is legal, it isn't an epidemic, so I don't think Asians are going to be disappearing overnight, for example.

Mannhnin wrote:

Manchu wrote:The decision to deploy our military in Iraq was made by the competent authorities. I really think there's some issue-twisting going on here.

But there are legitimate parallels. I can say I morally object to the war in Iraq, but I don't have special laws for my tax dollars not to go to supporting it.

Again:

Manchu wrote:I'm not saying that individuals should be able to opt out of taxes. I'm saying that polities should be able to democratically decide how funds should be spent.

Crime and public health are areas administered by the states.

The murder of the civil rights workers in question, the outrage over it, and the Federal prosecution of the people in question after the local authorities refused to prosecute, were contributory to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_civil_rights_workers_murders#Reaction

George Wallace might have something to say about the roles of the States and the Federal Government when it comes to civil rights, equality and justice.

Ahtman wrote:Also, could you be more specific? What minority groups are being ravaged by abortion? Abortion is legal, it isn't an epidemic, so I don't think Asians are going to be disappearing overnight, for example.

Black Americans have been disproportionately affected by abortion since Roe v. Wade, which is not surprising when you consider that they have been economically marginalized for much longer than that. If every black child who has been aborted for the last thirty eight years had actually been born, I bet American demographics would look a lot different today. Not to mention so much else that has transpired in that time . . .


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Mannahnin: Federal prosecution contributed to the passage of federal law which . . . plays little enough a role in the struggle for day-to-day equality. Before we get too far out, let me just say that it's not that these laws were meaningless or contributed nothing. But they did not achieve the kind of sweeping social justice that you seem to be ascribing to them.

Manchu wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Also, could you be more specific? What minority groups are being ravaged by abortion? Abortion is legal, it isn't an epidemic, so I don't think Asians are going to be disappearing overnight, for example.

Black Americans have been disproportionately affected by abortion since Roe v. Wade,

You know it isn't a disease right? I believe you are overstating the effect. Of, course since you have absolutely no data to back it up doesn't help either. I'm referring to your hypothesis that somehow African-Americans would have radically higher numbers. As for there being more abortions in the black community, I don't know, it would depend on if we are comparing numbers or percentages, ect ect. Do you have a (reliable) source that show it to be that black women are having a radically higher number of abortions?

Ahtman wrote:I believe you are overstating the effect. Of, course since you have absolutely no data to back it up doesn't help either.

As opposed to "some study I read somewhere"? Come on, there's no need for that kind of thing.

Do you have a (reliable) source that show it to be that black women are having a radically higher number of abortions?

From 2006:

Among women from the 39 areas for which race was reported for 2006, white women (including both Hispanic and non-Hispanic white women) accounted for the largest percentage (55.8%) of abortions; black women accounted for 36.4% and women of other racial groups for 7.8% (Table 10). Black women had higher abortion rates and ratios than white women and women of other races (Table 10). Among the 29 reporting areas that provided data every year during 1997--2006, the percentage of abortions by race changed little; abortions by women in the "other" racial category increased, but the percentage remained low (5.8%--7.7%) (Table 11). Among women from all racial groups, abortion rates and ratios generally declined during 1997--2006, but the abortion rate was higher in 2006 than in 2005; for black women, the abortion ratio was lower in 2006 than in 2005, whereas for white women and women in the "other" racial category, this measure was relatively stable during 2005--2006 (Table 11).

That's from the CDC's Abortion Surveillance document. You can find information on this going back quite a ways here.

Abortion rate?

Calculated as the number of abortions obtained by women in a given racial group per 1,000 women in that same group.

For Whites and White Hispanics: 10.8

For Blacks: 33.9

Abortion ratio?

Calculated as the number of abortions obtained by women in a given racial group per 1,000 live births to women in that same racial group.

For Whites and White Hispanics: 162

For Blacks: 459

I admitted mine was, at this point unsupported, I just don't feel like searching for it. You can either treat me like a liar or realize I probably read a study somewhere. I don't really care which.

White women were 56% and black women made up 36%, which still means more white women had abortions so we are looking at a percentage of population, not raw numbers.. At this point I'm not seeing the radical difference you are claiming. It says that black women hide higher rats and apparently there is a table, where is the table? Is it an extreme difference? When I say you don't have the data, I'm not talking about abortion percentage/numbers, but for your thesis that we would have a radically higher number of African Americans. Even what you posted here doesn't really back that up. Saying there would be more people if no one ever had an abortion is damn near a tautology, but you are claiming a radical change, which I am not seeing.

I don't think you're a liar; I just don't think I've ever given you a reason to think I'm one, either.

I updated my post with the numbers you requested and their definitions.

I don't know what we'll have to do to sort out what's "radical" but for every 1000 Black children born in 2006, 459 were aborted. The preceding paragraph mentioned that these numbers have not changed much since 1997.

Manchu wrote:I don't think you're a liar; I just don't think I've ever given you a reason to think I'm one, either.

The difference is I was just relating that I had read something, not forwarding a theory.

Ahtman wrote:White women were 56% and black women made up 36%, which still means more white women had abortions so we are looking at a percentage of population, not raw numbers.

Whites make up over three quaters of the American population while Blacks make up only 12%. Black women aren't having only 12% of the abortions here. Nor are White women having 75% or more of them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:The difference is I was just relating that I had read something, not forwarding a theory.

I thought you were only taking issue with the fact that Blacck Americans are disproportionately affected by abortion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
What we can see from the numbers here is that nearly a third of the Black children that could have been born between 1997 and 2006 (not going any further for the sake of this conversation) are simply missing. When you take into consideration that Black Americans make up only 12% of the population, it doesn't take a degree in statistics to realize that the missing third is a significant population.

Something isn't quite adding up here, but I don't feel like investing the time at the moment as I have other things going on as well. Perhaps later we'll do some more discussion. I get the feeling though that you aren't really getting at the heart of your distaste. You are rationalizing or seeking justification, but aren't really getting to the heart of it.

Ahtman wrote:Something isn't quite adding up here, but I don't feel like investing the time at the moment as I have other things going on as well. Perhaps later we'll do some more discussion. I get the feeling though that you aren't really getting at the heart of your distaste. You are rationalizing or seeking justification, but aren't really getting to the heart of it.

It all adds up pretty well, he's not really rationalizing. The statistics are there to see and the poor and certain minorities (namely blacks) are disproportionately effected by laws concerning abortion. The bigger issue really isn't the moralistic values of abortion or the vague and difficult concept of abortion rights as disproportionately needed by the poor and minorities (namely blacks), since thats not really how such a personal and individual decision making process as child conception and birth really works. Either way, you're both having an odd conversation and you seem to be arguing past him.

Saying "if x amount of black kids hadn't been aborted then the world would be a different place" is a bit of a fallacy to be honest.

If billions more white people had been born then the political climate would be very different too and indeed if most massive changes like that occurred then the political climate would be different.

I would call it an imponderable.

We have little idea what the effect of such a change might have been.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Something isn't quite adding up here, but I don't feel like investing the time at the moment as I have other things going on as well. Perhaps later we'll do some more discussion. I get the feeling though that you aren't really getting at the heart of your distaste. You are rationalizing or seeking justification, but aren't really getting to the heart of it.

It all adds up pretty well, he's not really rationalizing. The statistics are there to see and the poor and certain minorities (namely blacks) are disproportionately effected by laws concerning abortion. The bigger issue really isn't the moralistic values of abortion or the vague and difficult concept of abortion rights as disproportionately needed by the poor and minorities (namely blacks), since thats not really how such a personal and individual decision making process as child conception and birth really works. Either way, you're both having an odd conversation and you seem to be arguing past him.

I wasn't meaning that part wasn't adding up. I also am not disagreeing that the poor or minorities are disproportionally effected; they typically are across the field. Admittedly the number was higher than I thought it would be. Still, it shows white women at far, far lower numbers of abortions, but since they still make up the majority of abortions they should have a higher overall number as well, yet do not. Black women, as a percentage of their community would be a larger percentage than white women, but not overall numbers, but it isn't showing that. That is what isn't quite adding up but I am not investing that much.

Maybe to be more clear. Assuming 100 women, 56 white women had an abortion and 36 black women had an abortion. That means that more white women than black women had an abortion. Now, if we look at population and say that there are 1000 white people and 200 black people we see that the per capita is very different and that there is a much grteater effect. The numbers above though, after showing that overall more white women have abortions, that black women are still leading in everything anyway. Something seems off about that. I'll go over it later more carefully.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:I would call it an imponderable.

We have little idea what the effect of such a change might have been.

Well yeah, but I was trying to avoid the "if things had been different things would have been different" problem of history. We only know how things were, not what might have been. Or as one of my History professors liked to say, "'What if' is a fun game but poor history".

Manchu wrote:

Ahtman wrote:I believe you are overstating the effect. Of, course since you have absolutely no data to back it up doesn't help either.

As opposed to "some study I read somewhere"? Come on, there's no need for that kind of thing.

Do you have a (reliable) source that show it to be that black women are having a radically higher number of abortions?

From 2006:

Among women from the 39 areas for which race was reported for 2006, white women (including both Hispanic and non-Hispanic white women) accounted for the largest percentage (55.8%) of abortions; black women accounted for 36.4% and women of other racial groups for 7.8% (Table 10). Black women had higher abortion rates and ratios than white women and women of other races (Table 10). Among the 29 reporting areas that provided data every year during 1997--2006, the percentage of abortions by race changed little; abortions by women in the "other" racial category increased, but the percentage remained low (5.8%--7.7%) (Table 11). Among women from all racial groups, abortion rates and ratios generally declined during 1997--2006, but the abortion rate was higher in 2006 than in 2005; for black women, the abortion ratio was lower in 2006 than in 2005, whereas for white women and women in the "other" racial category, this measure was relatively stable during 2005--2006 (Table 11).

That's from the CDC's Abortion Surveillance document. You can find information on this going back quite a ways here.

Abortion rate?

Calculated as the number of abortions obtained by women in a given racial group per 1,000 women in that same group.

For Whites and White Hispanics: 10.8

For Blacks: 33.9

Abortion ratio?

Calculated as the number of abortions obtained by women in a given racial group per 1,000 live births to women in that same racial group.

For Whites and White Hispanics: 162

For Blacks: 459

Those numbers reak of population control. If I remember correctly, the number of African-Americans is decreasing and not simply in proportion to other racial/ethnic groups.

ok, you guys are right to call me on phrasing this point as a counterfactual so let me re-phrase it so the forest is not missed for the trees. Abortion, paired with the pre-existent conditions of political and economic marginalization, is and has been ravaging the Black American population. Give the facts about who can afford to pay taxes and who cannot seem to avoid getting abortions, the idea of publicly funding abortions is tantamount to having the White middlePclass pay for the government to sponsor population control of Blacks that's why limiti


Automatically Appended Next Post:
limiting the public funding of abortion is important -- or at least one reason. I think we ought to be very careful about how we are limiting that funding, which is what I was arguing before (it seemed to me) that Ahtman suggested abortion doesn't have such a negative effect. sorry for these broken posts; I'm on my phone.

Manchu wrote: Give the facts about who can afford to pay taxes and who cannot seem to avoid getting abortions, the idea of publicly funding abortions is tantamount to having the White middlePclass pay for the government to sponsor population control of Blacks...

Seeing as abortion is made on the individuals choice I don't think your comparison to a governmental method of population control really holds up.

Not that this has any real relevance to the OP, unless the African-American rate of incest/rape can be similarily compared to the greater population.