Lion of the Blogosphere

Abortion and the just-world fallacy, again

Below is something I wrote in 2013:

* * *

To quote Wikipedia, “the just-world hypothesis or just-world fallacy is the cognitive bias (or assumption) that a person’s actions always bring morally fair and fitting consequences to that person, so that all noble actions are eventually rewarded and all evil actions are eventually punished. “

I see this cognitive bias in many of the comments to anything I post about abortion. Anti-abortion people have this bias that they believe that banning abortion (which is supposed to be evil) will bring better outcomes. But the reality, as I keep pointing out, is that abortion is effective at reducing the birthrate of poor women.

For example, according to the Guttmacher Institute “Forty-two percent of women obtaining abortions have incomes below 100% of the federal poverty level ($10,830 for a single woman with no children)” and another “twenty-seven percent of women obtaining abortions have incomes between 100–199% of the federal poverty level.

So we see that the women most likely to have abortions are those who should be having abortions, women who have no way to support their children except by collecting welfare, and children raised by welfare moms are many times more likely to be criminals, so it’s not surprising at all that Steven D. Levitt, author of Freakonomics, found that abortion reduced crime. (And Levitt rigorously rebuts Steve Sailer who tried to argue that it didn’t.)

People who care about the future of our country should be trying to promote abortion rather than trying their damndest to stop women from obtaining them. Abortion lowers welfare payments, lowers crime, and gives single pregnant women an option that significantly increases their chance of achieving a self-supporting career and getting married in the future. Abortion would be even more effective at doing this if Christian nuts weren’t trying so hard to convince women that it’s evil.

* * *

Christians who oppose abortion should at least have the HONESTY to acknowledge that if they got their way, there’d be a big increase in welfare payments and crime. If they said “yeah, we know that will happen, but it’s a price we should pay as a nation to do the moral thing” then I’d have a little bit more respect for them.

Similarly, SJWs who believe that it’s EVIL to restrict immigration and EVIL to deport people who came into this country illegally and live here illegally, they should have the honesty to admit that those illegal immigrants suck up huge amounts government money while putting citizens out of work and lowering wages.

* * *

By the way, I would be 100% behind the idea that non-marital sex leads to unwanted pregnancies (which leads to abortion as well as problem children raised without a father who suck up government welfare payments and commit crime when they become teenagers), and both the government and the elites who control the media should take more responsibility for discouraging non-marital sex (instead of glorifying it as the media currently does and looking down upon virgins as being disgusting losers).

Unfortunately, we probably won’t get such policies from Trump, because he once mocked a participant on The Apprentice for being a virgin. Strangely, the mainstream media which loathes Trump and has taken every opportunity to attack him, never once brought this up as a negative against him.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

November 17, 2016 at 12:57 PM

89 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Right. People would have no trouble making nor accepting exactly the same argument with regard to infanticide. Or rather, it wouldn’t even occur to them that they need to make it, because it would seem so obvious.

    Con: “Killing children is wrong!”

    Pro: “Yeah, but, get real. Not killing them means more welfare and crime in the future.”

    Con: “What are you, nuts? Killing children is still wrong, no matter how true that is!”

    Most people would feel that Con has won this argument. If they don’t accept the same argument regarding abortion, it’s because they don’t feel that abortion is tantamount to infanticide.

    Greg Pandatshang

    November 17, 2016 at 1:07 PM

    • Pro: Many of those children are R selected and grow up to kill, harass, and beat other people’s children.

      Con: We don’t know for sure/Talented tenth (‘aww gee one of those kids could become Barack Obama and make up for all of it’)/Who made you the executioner, judge and jury?

      Pro: Statistical probability/Prob Expected value of human capital, empiric results in ghettos with abortion clinics v none = less crime for everyone

      Human beings can’t extrapolate beyond 1st and 2nd movements in causality. Even with stats and empirics. This is a derivative of the trolley problem in ethics…you’ve solved the immediate issue of killing a baby, and not the expected one of letting a young white couple die in a mugging in 2036 at 8:11PM.

      The Philosopher

      November 17, 2016 at 3:38 PM

      • Present tense bias.

        Never future/conditional tense bias.

        Sometimes past tense bias.

        The Philosopher

        November 17, 2016 at 3:51 PM

    • Peter Singer supports infanticide. I doubt he’s the only prominent person to.


      November 17, 2016 at 6:04 PM

    • Yes, that is right. People who oppose abortion based on the notion that killing a baby before he is born is the same as killing a person after he was born.

      not too late

      November 17, 2016 at 6:55 PM

    • +1

      The argument doesn’t faze anti-abortion people because if they really consider it tantamount to murder as they say, it wouldn’t matter. That’s one reason why anti-abortion love to bring the argument up but rarely make a reasoned argument against it, instead using it to tie abortion supporters to eugenics.(even though it’s not a eugenic argument and makes no sense as a eugenic argument.)

      That they don’t consider it tantamount to murder can be seen in their almost universal opposition to punishing the woman after it’s made illegal. Would you punish women for infanticide? Of course.


      November 17, 2016 at 7:09 PM

      • That they don’t consider it tantamount to murder can be seen in their almost universal opposition to punishing the woman after it’s made illegal.

        It’s also evidenced by the fact that there is general support for an exception for incest and rape


        November 18, 2016 at 12:59 AM

  2. Which “Christian nuts” do you have in mind, Lion? I’m not a Christian. And I don’t believe that po’ Black wimmins are 12 times as likely to have abortions as White girls. Millions and millions of White women have had abortions. They’re probably much more likely to lie about it. Let’s compromise. Ban White abortion.


    November 17, 2016 at 1:19 PM

    • “And I don’t believe that po’ Black wimmins are 12 times as likely to have abortions as White girls. ”

      It’s statistics from reliable sources.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      November 17, 2016 at 3:10 PM

      • Many millions of White women have had abortions; these abortions have included the killing of (the fetus that would have developed into) my own first child and (the fetus that would have developed into) the first child of a recent girlfriend’s Harvard-BA, NYU-PhD husband.
        Probably your “12 times as likely” figure includes multiple successive abortions by individual Black wimmins; if we asked what percentages of Black and White wimmins have had abortions I’ll bet the differences wouldn’t be as dramatic.
        To be anti-Christian is to be anti-American. You aren’t anti-American. But, in any case, this is not a specifically Christian concern. Nor does a persistent undercurrent of guilt-feeling over complicity in what one takes to be the murder of one’s own child constitute a specifically Christian form of suffering.


        November 17, 2016 at 3:36 PM

      • As far as reducing the number of criminals, the percentage of women getting abortions doesn’t matter; it’s the total numbers.


        November 17, 2016 at 8:50 PM

    • White women have higher FTO and are more likely to successfully prevent OOW pregnancy in the first place and to know about and use plan b in the second place


      November 17, 2016 at 4:24 PM

    • White abortions are probably dummies as well. So even from a racial standpoint, abortion is just good eugenic policy. Unless you wan your race to end up retarded. Having said that, abortion is still nasty and disgusting. Which is why people should 1) not be sluts and 2) use birth control.


      November 17, 2016 at 4:56 PM

      • “White abortions are probably dummies as well.” I’m not sure how strictly you’re using the word “probably”. I’m sure that hundreds of thousands of Ivy League college-girls have had abortions. White ones. What’s the IQ-cut off point below which it’s okay to kill “fetuses”, though? 100? It’s okay to kill fetuses who are likely to have IQs of 100 or below? So, kill all Appalachian fetuses — that’s okay? Because the Carter Family and Stanley Brothers suck and we would have done just as well without their records? “Use birth control” — just out of curiosity, when you’re rolling a condom onto your dick on your first or second night with a girl, is it easy for you to keep it stiff?


        November 17, 2016 at 6:17 PM

      • ” hundreds of thousands of Ivy League college-girls have had abortions”

        Totally false number.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        November 17, 2016 at 7:21 PM

      • No, it’s not a false number. Communist upper-class girls (WASPs) were having abortions back in the ’30s, as a matter of course. Whittaker Chambers tells us this in WITNESS. Year after year after year — certainly it’s in the hundreds of thousands by now. You think these girls are getting their drunken brains fucked out every weekend and never getting pregnant? They’re getting pregnant by the thousands, and killing their “fetuses” and lying about it.


        November 17, 2016 at 8:07 PM

      • “Communist upper-class girls (WASPs) were having abortions back in the ’30s,”

        We’re not talking about the 1930s.

        In this current millennium, the typical women having an abortion in the United States is a minority woman who is not married, is poor, and already has one or more kids.

        This is fact, go look it up.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        November 17, 2016 at 8:20 PM

      • We’re not talking about the 1930s.

        There are parallels with the 1930s and now: There was a “birth dirth” from 1910 to the 1930s. As president Teddy Roosevelt publicly remarked about the declining birth rate.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        November 17, 2016 at 10:10 PM

      • How many women attending Ivy league schools have had abortions isn’t the point. There are disproportionately fewer women who fit that description having abortions. So abortion is eugenic.

        I had overlooked your emotional investment in this. A former co-worker’s wife was pregnant when she decided to leave him. She had an abortion and it scrambled his omelet. He’d begged her not to do it. Said he’d take custody and release her from any financial responsibility. But she didn’t want to carry his child let alone be tied to him. She just wanted to be rid of him.

        He once got drunk and spent the night asking, “Why couldn’t she just let me have the kid?” I told him, “You should have either picked a better woman or been a better husband. Either way, it’s your fault.” That may sound harsh but it’s a fact. Similarly, your girlfriend isn’t the one who killed the kid. You did it when you stuck your dick in someone who wasn’t your wife. What did you think she was going to do?

        I’m sure people are incredulous that I’m blaming guys for the abortions their wives/girlfriends had over their objections. But it’s very simple. You can’t control what other people do. You can only control what you do. One of the ways you do that is by limiting your exposure. Don’t date or marry skanks. Don’t be a crappy husband. Don’t knock someone up when things are on the skids. See how simple that is? Simple except it requires a little foresight and impulse control. Two things most people are sorely lacking.


        November 17, 2016 at 11:30 PM

      • I think that the behavior of white women prior to the current millennium is relevant to our state of decline.

        Rogal Dorn

        November 18, 2016 at 1:25 AM

  3. I must say I empathise with the anti-abortion side as well, given the lateness of when the abortion should happen is very subjective as well. I personally think once the brain stem is formed, that should be a cutoff, but others think sooner/not at all.

    From a public policy perspective, abortion helped China become a 2nd world country. There’s no denying India struggles because it has too many people. There is theoretically optimum populations among various social classes. Economists don’t do empirics here because the globalist elite want more coolies in general.

    Lion is right – as a purely pragmatic matter, abortion reduces (black America) Kinshasa’s overflow problem – crime, disease, drugs, education malfunction, race wars, lower IQ populace etc.

    Liberals don’t know it, but if abortion had not been legalised, Jim Crow would have been reintroduced long ago and the ‘2nd amendment rights movement’ kabuki theatre would be an openly white lives matter movement against black marauder children of the alpha pump and dump dads.

    Human Biodiversity 0 Dark Enlightenment…Are you not amused?

    The Philosopher

    November 17, 2016 at 1:30 PM

    • India has massive amounts of abortion (particularly of female babies so they are more effective than our inferior Western abortions 😉 Someone, I think it was Razib Khan, showed that the East Asian birth rate was plummeting in countries that didn’t have the one-child policy and even in China before it was policy.

      Lionel of the Richiesphere

      November 17, 2016 at 6:21 PM

  4. As I’ve said here before, most “anti-abortion” people are just anti-abortion law, i.e. they want important issues to be decided by majority vote at the state level. As for the others, the religion-based opponents, this election probably showed that the R’s can win without them. But the problem is we can’t get to the space where we can say, “we’ve got to have as few NAM’s as possible.”


    November 17, 2016 at 1:32 PM

    • “most “anti-abortion” people are just anti-abortion law, i.e. they want important issues to be decided by majority vote at the state level”

      Get real, they want all abortions outlawed, the states-rights argument is only an intermediary step.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      November 17, 2016 at 3:11 PM

      • “Get real, they want all abortions outlawed, the states-rights argument is only an intermediary step.”

        Yes. If abortion were outlawed federally the pro-choice people would be arguing for states rights. Both sides want it fully legal or fully illegal.


        November 17, 2016 at 6:15 PM

      • True. However, the general population want some reasonable restrictions like there are in Europe. Early abortions in Europe are more restricted than late abortions here. Unsurprisingly Europe’s abortion rate is about the same as the white abortion rate in the USA.

        not too late

        November 17, 2016 at 11:09 PM

  5. Physical abortion should be rare and unusual. Chemical abortion, not so much.


    November 17, 2016 at 1:45 PM

  6. This is so so so so so exceedingly dumb.

    From a prolife perspectiv, you’re simply advocating the murder of human beings because they’re a drain.

    All of these arguments could be reassigned to allow murdering 2 year olds from poor mothers.

    These arguments only make sense if you buy into the premise that the unborn are of no inherent worth. If that’s the case, the issue becomes utterly moot. And everything you’ve said makes perfect sense.

    If however you regard the unborn as human life, your arguments are monstrous and ineffectual.


    November 17, 2016 at 2:09 PM

    • Yep. But we like Lion anyway, because he’s nice and he’s smart.


      November 17, 2016 at 3:38 PM

  7. You are arguing on utilitarian grounds that abortion should be legal and permissible given that it is effective in lowering crime rates. Therefore, because it lowers crime it is not evil (not wrong, not incorrect to do, etc.)

    The problem with your argument is that you presuppose your utilitarian ethic to be correct – you presuppose that societies “should” seek to lower crime – which given the evidence supporting the theory of evolution, is absurd. Human beings are a product of randomness. There is no right or wrong when it comes what we “should” or “should not” do, given that there is no scientific evidence to support such a claim nor is there any law of nature to justify it.

    You presuppose that lowering crime is good. This is in fact a presupposition that no scientific evidence supports. I could just as easily and illogically presuppose that lowering crime is bad.

    You also imply that because something “lowers crime” it is therefore good and should be legal. After all, your justification for abortion was that because it lowered crime it should therefore be permissible. However, you are committing the is/ought fallacy in this circumstance. That is, (A) given the case that it ‘is’ in fact true that abortion lowers crime, it follows that (B) one ‘ought’ to allow it. The fallacy here, of course, is that there is no connection between A and B. Do you see the fallacy you are committing here?

    is [abortion lowers crime] !=> ought [it ought to be legalized]


    November 17, 2016 at 2:13 PM

    • The vast majority of people believe it’s good to have less crime. It’s not like I’m making some crazy out-of-left-field argument there.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      November 17, 2016 at 3:13 PM

      • Actually, you kind of re making an outrageous argument. You’re essentially making the same argument as George Bernard Shaw. The only difference is that you want to do it en utero. Lest you take this as a criticism, I agree with you. It’s a nasty business. But the alternative would be catastrophic. So I’m willing to tolerate abortion provided it’s done in the first trimester.


        November 17, 2016 at 5:11 PM

      • It doesn’t matter what the fuck the vast majority of people believe. Doesn’t make something true. The vast majority of people used to believe God exists – does that make it true? The vast majority of people thought the earth was the center of the universe – doesn’t mean shit. Democratic opinion doesn’t dictate truth.

        At the beginning of this post you rightfully attack some of your readers who commit the just-world fallacy. Yet, whether you like it or not, you are still committing the is/ought fallacy without even noticing it. You are literally doing the same thing Christians do – you are moralizing, preaching your own ideology and beliefs, yet under the guise that they are “reasonable” and free from refutation when they clearly are not.

        If you believe that abortion is fine and should be legal, then that’s cool. If you believe that pigs can fly, than that’s cool too. If you want to moralize and force your own views on other people, than that’s fine as well. I don’t fucking care. But if you are trying to argue, using empirical evidence and deductive reasoning, that your positions are in fact true, independent of your opinions and tastes, then you’re being ridiculous, just as ridiculous as folks who tell you to be a Christian or a Muslim without any evidence to prove their religion is true.


        November 17, 2016 at 7:17 PM

    • The problem with your argument is that you presuppose that your logical gymnastics are (A) interesting and (B) thoughtful.

      Ordered society begins and ends on the PREMISE that lower crime is good.


      November 17, 2016 at 4:33 PM

    • Lion said this in his OP “Christians who oppose abortion should at least have the HONESTY to acknowledge that if they got their way, there’d be a big increase in welfare payments and crime. If they said “yeah, we know that will happen, but it’s a price we should pay as a nation to do the moral thing” then I’d have a little bit more respect for them.”

      Yes, he was making a utilitarian argument but admits that there are other arguments you could make. So all you need to do is make your argument for why abortion should be illegal despite these specific positive outcomes. But you didn’t do that.


      November 17, 2016 at 6:21 PM

  8. More abortion, less NAMs. especially blacks. That’s a win for everyone. And that’s why I donate to PP. Remember, nits make lice…


    November 17, 2016 at 2:45 PM

  9. Agree with everything but your citing of Levitt’s “abortion crime link” nonsense. One should be skeptical of any nurture based effect* since we know that nurture doesn’t seem to have any effect on intelligence, and little effect on propensity to criminality. Even if we accept the plausibility of a nurture effect, no one doubts that Roe v Wade occurred at the same time as the beginning of the great “pozzification” of American families. Single motherhood went up. Teenage fertility went up even as overall fertility went down. We are asked to believe that even as all this was happening, children were actually being raised better, because they were “wanted.” He provides no evidence that “wantedness” increased, maybe the “unwanted” children who were aborted in the 1970s would never have been conceived by the more virtuous earlier generation. Even assuming Levitt’s point about “wantedness” is correct, I’d rather be raised by a married couple who conceived me accidentally than a teenaged single mother who intentionally conceived me because she wanted the welfare check and had nothing better to do with her life.

    About the evidence, it’s the kind of thing that, if it was a real effect(he initially claimed that 80 percent of the 1990s decline in crime was due to Roe v Wade, then lowered it to 50 percent following the discovery of his database error), you wouldn’t need a bunch of fancy statistical tests to see it. Look at this chart of homicide offending rates by age. Think about what you’d expect, a pronounced decline among the after-1973 generation and a much smaller decline for the pre-1973 generation. Here’s the chart:

    Levitt’s evidence is based on looking for patterns in the data of certain states, and he found them. Finding “statistically significant” patterns in such data is inevitable, the questions you must ask are, does the hypothesis make sense? Is it contradicted by other data? On this, the answers are “no” and “yes.”(See Sailer’s point about the huge wave of crime underaged men did, the generation born after roe v wade, during the peak of the “crack epidemic.”)

    *And that is what Levitt suggests: that crime declined because “unwanted” children commit more crime. Some seem to think he’s wink-wink implying it’s “eugenic” but that fails the most basic test: we KNOW fertility was dysgenic in the 1970s. It was directly measured by numerous studies. See also the Black population since the 1970s, it has steadily increased. They get more abortions but this is more than canceled out by their overall higher fertility rate. Same with the white poor.


    November 17, 2016 at 4:03 PM

    • Fewer poor kids without fathers = less crime. Use common sense!

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      November 17, 2016 at 5:12 PM

      • That kind of “common sense” argument would be applicable in comparing the world with a hypothetical world in which abortion is not legal but everything else is the same. In that world, of course, the crime rate would be higher, for dysgenic reasons. But Levitt’s claim is about one specific point in time, a time in which lots of things were changing. When abortion was made legal in 1973, it didn’t result in a decline in illegitimacy, it went up due to the concurrent loosening of social mores:

        I see no reason to assume the year 1973 led America in a more eugenic direction. But suppose you assume that the pre-abortion era, for children born in the 1960s, was a hyper dysgenic era. Massive numbers of genetic idiots were born. Then, in 1973, this stopped as abortion was legalized and the dysgenics stopped.* Temporarily, the intelligence of children would be higher(reflecting the intelligence of smarter 1940s/1950s era parents). But by the 1980s and 1990s, the idiocracy cohort would start having children themselves and reduce the average intelligence back to its level, unless explicitly eugenic measures were taken. This is another reason it can’t be compared to our hypothetical two worlds: you’re comparing the intelligence or propensity to criminality of people to their own parents.

        *We know fertility was dysgenic in the 1970s because of direct measurement, Jayman’s finding that it is neither dysgenic nor eugenic is much more recent.


        November 17, 2016 at 7:01 PM

    • Actually there are more black people now because of immigration, pretty much only because of immigration. 1 in 8 black people in the USA does not have even one grandparent born in the USA aka, both of their parents are immigrants. Black immigrants tend to have huge families. Blacks whose grandparents were born in the USA have a tfr of about 2.0, the lowest black fertility on the planet. College educated black females have extremely low fertility around 1.0 even lower than Asian females.

      not too late

      November 17, 2016 at 7:08 PM

      • “College educated black females have extremely low fertility around 1.0 even lower than Asian females.”

        Send ’em all to Yale. And no, I’m not joking…


        November 17, 2016 at 11:54 PM

    • Many good points anon

      I would say that contraception should be considered as well in sexual market change.

      Many abortions happened due to the free loce movement of late 60s.

      And men in general became less regulated. This alpha men bred a lot more and slept around more.

      Now the key is whether you believe we should abort their progeny or unwind the sexual revolution by banning contraception or aome other social more.

      Very tough questions. No easy answers.

      The Philosopher

      November 18, 2016 at 6:57 AM

  10. Single mothers need to be castigated for their irresponsibility. We need to eliminate this taboo on critcism on single mothers because they are noble victims who are just doing their best.

    In reality single mothers are irresponsible women who choose to mate with sexy noncommittal men and then turn to society for help to raise children. They then put society in a difficult position: punish the children by not helping them out or reward the mother for her irresponsibility.

    I suggest getting rid of all paternity clams and support for children born out of marriage. Widespread availability of abortion and contraception. Contraception should be tied to welfare services. Adoption should be highly recommended for single mothers who cannot support their children.


    November 17, 2016 at 4:30 PM

    • I was with you til you said adoption. Adoptive families are usually well off because it’s expensive. Well off families should be having their own children not raising some slut’s trash.


      November 17, 2016 at 5:29 PM

      • True, but some people are infertile. I will say that of the friends I know personally who adopted from Russia, two of the three got messed up kids. The third family got a bright beautiful blonde girl who turned out hardworking and great, a real sweety.

        not too late

        November 17, 2016 at 11:19 PM

  11. Abortion was legalized in 1973, when the demographics of the United States were quite different. I wonder if the type of woman who gets an abortion has changed much over the last four decades.

    The practice itself is disgusting. That a such a gory, gruesome business has been such a major topic of cultural debate for my entire life does not speak well of our society.


    November 17, 2016 at 4:58 PM

  12. I don’t think most people actually have a “just world” bias. Most people realize that good things happen to bad people and vice versa. Having said that, immoral behavior often has negative consequences.


    November 17, 2016 at 5:18 PM

    • Negative consequences such as having babies in this case, if having a baby is a “negative consequence,” which it is perceived to be in millions of instances only because the WHITE mom hasn’t yet graduated from college or even hasn’t yet made partner in her law firm or gotten tenure. What is “immoral”, though, is not the fucking; it’s the abolition of marriage and womanhood that makes girls think that making partner in a law firm or getting tenure isn’t a disgusting sort of a thing for a female to aspire to.


      November 17, 2016 at 6:27 PM

      • Feminism is the abolition of human nature, biology and reason itself. Becoming a lawyer or college professor is one thing; putting women on submarines and in fire departments is another. Soon they’ll be on the front lines. All of this is due to the fact that there is a natural order and all of those on the radical left refuse to accept this reality. Man is not a blank slate, and there are real and important differences between men and women.

        Lewis Medlock

        November 18, 2016 at 11:07 AM

    • I think you would be surprised. The kind of people who tend to read this blog don’t necessarily have it too often or at least they’re on guard against it, but it is a pretty basic human psychological program. It’s hard to have civilization when everyone’s a nihilist who knows their contributions may go unrewarded because it’s largely up to chance.

      Jokah Macpherson

      November 17, 2016 at 9:56 PM

  13. I have noticed that pro lifers become extremely defensive when it is pointed out to them that their policies would lead to the ballooning of the black and hispanic populations.

    Otis the Sweaty

    November 17, 2016 at 7:12 PM

  14. There are two criticisms I hear a lot about anti-abortion people that I think are very valid.

    1. They are really pro-birth, not pro-life. How many of them don’t care whether the aborted fetus would have been born with fetal alcohol syndrome or other problems related to what the mother does during pregnancy. They also don’t appear to care much about the child’s life, their education, heath care, nutrition, etc.

    2. Whether abortion is legal or illegal, clearly unwanted pregnancies are a bad thing. But they focus all their efforts on two areas: abstinence and abortions. If they really felt so bad about the poor babies being aborted they should be the biggest proponents of preventing unwanted pregnancies through contraception and education (and abstinence, it’s a valid option). Every would-be murder could be prevented by a condom. Yet in reality they oppose teaching kids how to have safe sex and providing contraceptives.

    They actually care about morality the most. Premarital sex is a sin and pregnancy is a consequence of that sin. A punishment even. To allow abortions is to allow them to sin without consequence (in their eyes). The same with practicing safe sex. This is the only view that fits with how anti-abortion people act. It’s the real just-world view they have. If you break God’s laws you should face the consequences God intended.


    November 17, 2016 at 7:21 PM

    • You could explain their position as “not interfering with nature”. You have sex, you get pregnant; you get pregnant you have a baby. Anything that stops this process is going against god’s will.


      November 17, 2016 at 9:07 PM

    • I can see why you think that, but it is borne of animus. They don’t think the baby is a punishment. Rather they think that Gods loves all people regardless of condition. So the baby’s life can’t be taken from him because it is God given. Taking the baby’s life is just an additional sin. Christians are not utopians.

      not too late

      November 17, 2016 at 11:28 PM

  15. Let’s see if I understand this correctly. Abortion cuts crime because it reduces the number of black people who are statistically likely to become felons. Steve Sailer’s argument is repudiated by Levitt because Levitt believes that the “crack war” epidemic that occurred in the late 80’s/early 90’s was caused by the proliferation of crack cocaine. Again, we have the same argument that black criminality is due to some external shock like crack…or guns…or lead…anything except for the simpler answer that black crime is caused by blacks. Accordingly, Levitt’s argument is rendered false because of the criminality that emerged at the peak age of the abortion cohort…the ones born in 1973 who were involved in the crack wars as 17-year-olds.

    Tell me…did crack cause an increase in crime among hispanics, whites or asians?

    Furthermore, Levitt actually does not address Sailer’s point as to why abortion had no effect on crime: the kind of people getting abortions are the kind that should be having children. Legalized abortions will happen among the cohort of women who are planners, who will rationally calculate the costs/benefits of having children, and who will get abortions if they can’t properly raise their kids. In other words, the smart women get abortions, therefore leaving the dumb women having kids: the women who think welfare will always be there; who think their moms will help raise kids; who think that being poor with a child is better than being poor alone. Remember, stupid people do not think they are trash. They usually have an over-inflated ego. The result of the crack wars was an unusually large cohort of especially dumb women bringing especially dumb and violent children into the world, one that was not balanced by a smarter cohort.

    The real issue is not how many abortions blacks get compared to whites. It is the number of black children brought to term compared to white children on a per capita basis. If blacks are ahead on this calculation, then it does not matter how many abortions they have.

    Look, let’s not make this “abortion cuts crime” thing into a similar problem that we had with tax cuts and tax loopholes: the belief that we’re somehow pulling a fast one on the Democrats. If abortion was seriously cutting into the population of blacks, then Democrats would’ve rendered it illegal a long time ago.


    November 17, 2016 at 7:28 PM

    • ” Legalized abortions will happen among the cohort of women who are planners, who will rationally calculate the costs/benefits of having children”

      Actual statistics show this is WRONG, abortion happens among unmarried women who already have a kid, so when they get pregnant again they know they don’t want another one.

      Women who are planners don’t get pregnant by accident in the first place so they rarely need abortion.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      November 17, 2016 at 7:44 PM

      • I have to agree with map.
        Women who are poor and unmarried and have at least some self-awareness and future time orientation do abort. Those who do not abort are missing even these characteristics.
        It results in push towards lack of any awarness for unmarried – generation wise.


        November 18, 2016 at 5:02 AM

    • Women who are planners don’t get pregnant by accident in the first place so they rarely need abortion.

      Assuming intelligence correlates positively with morality, career white women who do have unplanned pregnancies should be relatively more likely to keep their own baby

      The Undiscovered Jew

      November 17, 2016 at 8:18 PM

      • “Assuming intelligence correlates positively with morality, career white women who do have unplanned pregnancies should be relatively more likely to keep their own baby.”

        Career white women don’t believe that abortion is immoral.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        November 17, 2016 at 8:21 PM

      • Career white women don’t believe that abortion is immoral.


        And those who don’t view it as immoral politically for other women would struggle emotionally if they had to choose between an abortion or going through with their own unwanted pregnancy.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        November 17, 2016 at 10:06 PM

      • Unplanned doesn’t necessarily mean unwanted. Some women have a kid or two and want another, but nothing happens for several years, so they just kind of let it go somewhat disappointed but not grieved because they already have a kid or so. Then, surprise, they have another, and they are pleased because they had kind of wanted more kids anyway. I know plenty of women that ended up with a bonus baby or two that way. Unplanned, but not unwanted. They were all married and well to do, so it was no problem.

        not too late

        November 17, 2016 at 11:34 PM

    • The real thing about abortion is that it is a very primal emotion, like the need to be armed. Women want abortions because they want to use it to reset their mating strategy just in case something goes wrong.


      November 18, 2016 at 3:18 AM

  16. What do you all think of the moral implications of circulating unexpectedly pure and strong heroin to purge the asocial junkie homeless?

    These also consume an undue proportion or public resources while diminishing the quality of life for productive citizens and families. Abortion destroys life with potential. What of the morality enabling those without hope or future who are already chasing thanatos to extinguish their own lives?

    Thin-Skinned Masta-Beta

    November 17, 2016 at 8:00 PM

    • ‘Abortion destroys life with potential.”

      Where? Baltimore? Detroit? Newark? St. Louis?


      November 17, 2016 at 10:02 PM

  17. The one Evangelical I know well knows that blacks getting abortions probably reduces crime and other negatives for society. She doesn’t care. She also celebrates the birth of any child no matter if it has Down’s syndrome, is a Siamese twin, etc.


    November 17, 2016 at 9:12 PM

    • disgusting

      But at least she is intellectually honest. Most pro lifers aren’t.

      Otis the Sweaty

      November 17, 2016 at 10:05 PM

  18. Lion, you do a good job criticizing the hypocrisies of liberals and conservatives. I mostly agree with everything you say, except I am Christian and pro-life and HBD ambivalent, but your logic dissecting both sides is accurate. You are also accurate in your criticisms about libertarian business types. You have a unique political analysis that deserves more acclaim. It’s too bad Donald Trump won’t have a place for you in his cabinet.


    November 17, 2016 at 9:48 PM

  19. I thought the anti-abortion side has a winning argument (against infanticide, etc…) but they lose on the enforcement part.
    How do you enforce it against women who don’t want to carry it to term?

    This is the same thing with weed legalization.
    The argument essentially hasn’t changed.

    It’s the cost of enforcement that people are rebelling against.
    I don’t think people are swayed by the “crime, eugenic, etc…” arguments.
    If you can make enforcement cheap and painless, you can carry the day (against abortion and weed legalization).


    November 17, 2016 at 9:59 PM

  20. I learned in college that although there’s this pervasive myth that the vast majority of abortions are obtained by poor unmarried women, it’s actually mostly philosophers who find a “people seed” has leaked into their house in spite of all the netting they put up. Or find that some asshole hooked up their kidneys to a world-famous violinist while they were asleep.

    Jokah Macpherson

    November 17, 2016 at 10:08 PM

  21. Besides the demographic thing the Lion points out, the other most interesting abortion statistic I ever read was when the Audacious Epigone determined that in spite of all the sacralizing of abortion as a “women’s issue”, men are actually slightly more pro-choice than women. Someone needs to point this out to Scott Adams who keeps saying “leave it up to the women”, not because I think it would change his mind, but because I suspect he believes women would come down on the pro-choice side.

    Jokah Macpherson

    November 17, 2016 at 10:11 PM

  22. I’m strongly pro-choice on the basis that a zygote or fetus isn’t a reasoning, thinking, speaking person. However, I do need to point out a flaw in the idea that you can persuade pro-lifers to support abortion by convincing them that abortion reduces crime. Pro-lifers hold that abortion is murder. If you believe that abortion is murder, then the act of abortion itself is a crime. So abortion necessarily increases the crime rate in the view of pro-lifers.

    Mark Caplan

    November 17, 2016 at 10:11 PM

    • ” the idea that you can persuade pro-lifers to support abortion by convincing them that abortion reduces crime”

      I never thought I could persuade pro-lifers to support abortion.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      November 18, 2016 at 12:04 AM

  23. Direct logic for abortion is of course correct, but there are pernicious moral spillovers to admitting that you need to purge a large portion of your population.

    Many things would be beneficial in a direct sense, but are demoralizing to the public will. Nazis and Christians understand this, but autistic utilitarians like Lion and Steve Leavitt do not.


    November 17, 2016 at 10:13 PM

  24. Although Trump’s “victory tour” is likely mostly about his ego, it is a good idea for him to keep his mob riled up. The mob is the source of his power and can be used to intimidate the GOPe.

    I’m disappointed that he is only visiting states that he won. I’d like to see him take it to Chicago or LA and provoke riots. Hopefully he will do that after he becomes President when he has the resources to crush said riots.

    Otis the Sweaty

    November 17, 2016 at 10:34 PM

  25. Less abortions will mean less crime. The kind of women who have abortions under current conditions are pretty tough-hearted – their kids would likely make good cops or good 2d amendment supporters. Do the math (and avoid the logical fallacies). Also, abortion should not be a “state-level” decision: states have no right to defy natural law. Less abortion might mean more welfare for awhile, but those welfare checks eventually, in a well-regulated society, go to babysitters and baby formula sellers. Also, I am pro-life because God is pro-life, that is clearer than daylight. God wants people to have a good time, and being pro-life is being in favor of people being happy. God likes to see people smile, but He does not want people to be selfish – if you are having a good time in life, how can you want some innocent little baby to be annihilated before the poor little thing has her or his own chance to also have a good time in life? If you are having a bad time in life, the least you can do is understand you have no right to take out your bitterness on some innocent little baby. I get it that it is hard for many people not to fall for the pro-choice logical fallacies – the racist ones, the Soros-type ones, the sub-Darwinian ones, the Hefner-in-a-bathrobe ones – without doing independent thinking. if you don’t want to do independent thinking, you are likely to follow the media sludge arguments on this issue.

    howitzer daniel

    November 17, 2016 at 11:55 PM

    • Just admit that you want 10s of millions of more blacks and hispanics. These logical twists to justify your pro life position are disgusting.

      Otis the Sweaty

      November 18, 2016 at 1:54 AM

      • What logical twists? Why are you lying about what I say?

        howitzer daniel

        November 18, 2016 at 7:50 PM

  26. It is angering that liberals refuse to acknowledge that there is a serious moral question involved. They often even deny that there is a moral question involved in killing fetuses/babies that have limbs and facial features. Calling this a “women’s health issue,” which is what Planned Parenthood does, or refusing to acknowledge the moral question because easy access to abortion is a feminist imperative, is despicable and corrosive to society.

    Rogal Dorn

    November 18, 2016 at 1:20 AM

    • I think they do know there is a moral issue involved. The moral issue for them is the right of each individual to live in a Liberal (old-style definition, autonomy and self-definition) society.


      November 18, 2016 at 9:40 AM

  27. Abortion is more about replacement, which is to say that women who do abort have pretty much the same number of children. Dawkins says a woman carrying offspring with Down’s Syndrome should “just terminate the pregnancy and then try again.” He’s characteristically casual and blunt about it, but yeah.

    I agree about the biting the bullet on abortion (or your immigration example). Who would’ve guessed reproductive liberty is more consistent with utilitarianism than prohibition??

    But what about when it comes to YOU biting the bullet. Should the government sterilize imbeciles? Low income women on the dole?


    November 18, 2016 at 5:28 AM

    • Should the government sterilize imbeciles? Yes!

      Should the government sterilize low income women on the dole? Yes!

      Many problems could be solved by restricting each woman to no more than one child, worldwide, for a century.


      November 18, 2016 at 9:47 AM

  28. You are right that abortion on demand has practical benefits to society when it comes to reducing welfare and crime. However, that does not make it a moral practice. Human slavery, child labor and cutting the hands off of thieves in the town square were also efficient in their respective time and place. That does not mean that a thoughtful and ethical society allows for it. It does not take a Christian nut to see that abortion has serious moral implications. It can be argued from a philosophical, natural law standpoint. In my opinion it is immoral to use abortion for purposes of birth control. Rape, incest and life of the mother are exceptions because in those cases the creation of human life, or the deficiencies that resulted, were not willingly consented to by both parties. The negative emotional effects of abortion are well documented, and most women do not come out without some psychological trauma or depression. This does not happen to people who merely have a cyst or tumor cut out and for obvious reasons. The taking of a human life is always a tragic event..

    A dear friend of my family who was an anesthesiologist had to participate in a botched abortion during medical school back in the 1960’s in Ireland. After improper cuts were made the 6 month old fetus was born injured. The head of surgery would not allow the team to render aid. The baby was placed on a table in the operating room and cried until it bled to death. It haunted him for the rest of his life and after his wife died he became a Catholic Priest and a pro life advocate. We can all pretend that abortion is A-ok for our own selfish want of convenience, but it doesn’t make it right.


    November 18, 2016 at 6:18 AM

    • Yes.

      Abortion is the hardest political problem to suss out.

      Both sides make very good points.

      The only thing they can agree on is that its much better never to have gotten in the situation in the first place.

      Ergo, provide free contraception or re regulate the sexual market.

      One way to do that is banishing pro sex media from public.

      The Philosopher

      November 18, 2016 at 7:02 AM

      • Abortion is purely local, USamerican political problem, no such thing as pro-life movement in any other developed country where abortion is legal. And it is artificial, purely symbolic problem, designed to derail political process and waste political energy. It is not unique – in other countries such problems are usually like: what flag to wave, what anthem to play, what anniversary to celebrate, in what language shall be street signs, was long dead historical figure hero or villain?


        November 19, 2016 at 8:48 PM

    • It’s ugly an inhumane, nobody disputes that. But there are too many people on this planet and there are way too many black and hispanic people in this country. At least abortion prevents outright infanticide. Overpopulation must be reversed.

      By the way, as pointed out elsewhere the biggest pro life people are very much against contraception so fuck them. Many more abortions have happened because of their idiocy.

      Otis the Sweaty

      November 18, 2016 at 7:14 AM

      • The real overpopulation tragedy is Africa.
        They were given Western means of life while they have African brains, all resulting in skyrocketing demographics confidently expected over the next 50-100 years.
        They will at least invade, and be let invade, Europe.

        And no, if they are still “helped”, no normal abortion will do the job of containing population rise in their case.
        You need something smarter, like sterilization (Israel has tried it on Ethiopian and Yemeni Jews with success).

        A Alv.

        November 19, 2016 at 6:34 PM

  29. “Similarly, SJWs who believe that it’s EVIL to restrict immigration and EVIL to deport people who came into this country illegally and live here illegally, they should have the honesty to admit that those illegal immigrants suck up huge amounts government money while putting citizens out of work and lowering wages.”

    Not few of them will have that courage and tell you there’s no reason why anybody should live better than anybody else, and all what we have must be shared equally.

    A Alv.

    November 19, 2016 at 6:31 PM


      Would you want to like to live in the blue part of the world, or the orange one? This map is the best argument for abortion rights, ever.


      November 19, 2016 at 8:36 PM

    • The most ardent defenders of open borders are libertarian economists. They admit that immigration will worsen the lot of current citizens, especially the poorest ones, but thier argument is that the immigrant situation will improve much more, and they need it more. They admit that worldwide open borders will destroy current nations, and they say it is good thing, because separate nations are imperfections in the market, delaying the time when all united mankind will work together to build capitalism. If you want fully honest and consistent open border defenders, these are your folks.


      November 19, 2016 at 9:04 PM

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: