Amazing analysis as always. It would be useful to clarify if "abortion" in all the data you present is always an elective abortion, or could some of the stats include spontaneous abortions? For example, the percent of pregnancies that end in abortion.
Another thought. As a math major, I love data. But I don't see this data actually being at all useful, but really more just interesting. The data won't help shape anyone's opinion of abortion, it won't help in laws or policies. I don't see that it will change any individual woman's decision about what to do with pregnancy. But I could be wrong--I certainly hope seeing this data would change someone's mind!
Abortion in these statistics refers to procured abortions, and although the data provided me with the number of pregnancies and the number of abortions, it doesn't actually state what happened to the non-aborted children. For simplicity I assumed they were all born, but in fact some doubtless suffered miscarriage due to natural causes.
I suspect that you're probably right that not many people would change their minds based on this kind of data (although I too find it fascinating) in that most people reach their conclusions based on theological/philosophical principle or based on emotional reactions. I suppose a consequentialist thinker who was uncomfortable with abortion but thought it was necessary to avoid "unwanted children" might have reason to pause, but I think that's more often a rationalization than a reason.
I also found the analysis interesting. It may be useful to me as a parent. I have young kids who don’t now about abortion yet, but I try to store away counterpoints to the predominant cultural narratives about this issue to bring up when the time comes.
Small point about methodology related to such claims as ```Of the 700,000 additional children who were conceived in 1980, 98% of them were aborted.```
Assuming that the rate of pregnancies and the rate of natural miscarriages (as well as things like ectopic pregnancies) correlate (even if abortion means they are not constant), then an increased pregnancy rate would also mean an increase in those conditions. Meaning that unless you meant to consider those miscarriages as "abortions" above (which is technically true medically, but not the common usage of the term here or the moral meaning) then that number really can't be inferred from the data presented.
That's a fair point. The data from Guttmacher provided me with specific numbers for the number of women aged 15-44, the number of procured abortions, and the number of pregnancies, but it did not actually provide data on what happened to the non-aborted children.
For simplicity's sake, I assumed that children not aborted would have been born, but as you say some of those aborted might have suffered a miscarriage anyway, and some of those not aborted also did not reach birth for natural reasons.
Based on what I’ve heard, some natural miscarriages prior to Roe were accused of being intentionally aborted. Is it possible this data would be reflecting that? Don’t get me wrong, I hope that’s not the case, as this seems like a good statistical reason (putting morality aside) for abortion being illegal.
Amazing analysis as always. It would be useful to clarify if "abortion" in all the data you present is always an elective abortion, or could some of the stats include spontaneous abortions? For example, the percent of pregnancies that end in abortion.
Another thought. As a math major, I love data. But I don't see this data actually being at all useful, but really more just interesting. The data won't help shape anyone's opinion of abortion, it won't help in laws or policies. I don't see that it will change any individual woman's decision about what to do with pregnancy. But I could be wrong--I certainly hope seeing this data would change someone's mind!
Abortion in these statistics refers to procured abortions, and although the data provided me with the number of pregnancies and the number of abortions, it doesn't actually state what happened to the non-aborted children. For simplicity I assumed they were all born, but in fact some doubtless suffered miscarriage due to natural causes.
I suspect that you're probably right that not many people would change their minds based on this kind of data (although I too find it fascinating) in that most people reach their conclusions based on theological/philosophical principle or based on emotional reactions. I suppose a consequentialist thinker who was uncomfortable with abortion but thought it was necessary to avoid "unwanted children" might have reason to pause, but I think that's more often a rationalization than a reason.
I also found the analysis interesting. It may be useful to me as a parent. I have young kids who don’t now about abortion yet, but I try to store away counterpoints to the predominant cultural narratives about this issue to bring up when the time comes.
Thanks I enjoyed the article.
Small point about methodology related to such claims as ```Of the 700,000 additional children who were conceived in 1980, 98% of them were aborted.```
Assuming that the rate of pregnancies and the rate of natural miscarriages (as well as things like ectopic pregnancies) correlate (even if abortion means they are not constant), then an increased pregnancy rate would also mean an increase in those conditions. Meaning that unless you meant to consider those miscarriages as "abortions" above (which is technically true medically, but not the common usage of the term here or the moral meaning) then that number really can't be inferred from the data presented.
I'm glad you enjoyed it.
That's a fair point. The data from Guttmacher provided me with specific numbers for the number of women aged 15-44, the number of procured abortions, and the number of pregnancies, but it did not actually provide data on what happened to the non-aborted children.
For simplicity's sake, I assumed that children not aborted would have been born, but as you say some of those aborted might have suffered a miscarriage anyway, and some of those not aborted also did not reach birth for natural reasons.
Based on what I’ve heard, some natural miscarriages prior to Roe were accused of being intentionally aborted. Is it possible this data would be reflecting that? Don’t get me wrong, I hope that’s not the case, as this seems like a good statistical reason (putting morality aside) for abortion being illegal.