Abortions after 32 weeks are a very small share of total abortions-- perhaps 0.5%. Let's say half of those are not due to unsurvivable conditions, so 0.25% of abortions are very late + could have survived if born.

Given ~1 million abortions, that's 2500 such abortions.

There were about 23,000 homicides in the US in 2023.

If that teeny tiny share of abortions covering very late abortions of totally viable kids without lethal health issues were counted, those extremely rare abortions would compose fully 1-in-10 homicides in the United States.
In 2023, there were only 11,000 deaths of all external causes (accidents, homicides, etc) of people under age 18.

Abortions of health viable children make up 18% of all non-natural-causes deaths of children.
Using the CDC's multiple mortality data, these extremely rare late-term abortions...

... are nonetheless the second biggest cause of death among people under 18 (after congenital immaturity)Image
What I'm hearing from many liberals is, "These abortions of perfectly healthy late-term babies who are absolutely babies with thoughts and pain capability would be HORRIBLE if they happened, but it's a conservative conspiracy theory."

But that's not true!
It IS true that these abortions are an EXTREMELY small share of overall abortions!

But the scale of abortions is so absolutely MASSIVE compared to child mortality that even a teeny tiny sliver of abortions would represent a huge share of child deaths.
Assuming we are agreed that "children at 32+ weeks post-conception without any lethal congenital problems" really are equally persons as "children at 45 weeks post-conception without any lethal congenital problems," the scale of killing of the first group IS INSANELY HIGH.
You may wonder if 50% viability rates for late-term abortions is correct.

Well, there are multiple articles with quotes from abortion doctors who do these procedures saying their patients are about 50-50 severe abnormality vs. discretionary reasons. I take them at their word.
But folks, even if only 20% of late-term abortions are discretionary: it would still be one of the single biggest causes of death for children! Especially when you realize the current #1 is congenital defects so should be dropped out of the baseline of "survivable cases"
What I'm getting at here folks is that it barely matters at all what numbers you choose.

At any even vaguely plausible numbers, late-term abortions of otherwise viable pregnancies are in fact an extremely large killer of children compared to other causes of child death.
You can debate if late-term abortion of viable pregnancies is the #2 killer of American children or #11 or #25 or whatever, but folks we're talking about a top-25 killer from a list that includes 828 causes of child death with at least 10 kids killed in 2023.
In any sane world, we would recognize that late-term abortions are about as likely to kill kids as guns or SIDS or car accidents. And most people think 1 or 2 or 3 of those are worth intervening on to protect child lives, whether through gun control, "back is best," carseats

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Lyman Stone 石來民 🦬🦬🦬

Lyman Stone 石來民 🦬🦬🦬 Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @lymanstoneky

Dec 2
reasonably confident this is a yale demog prof publicly getting a fairly common quant demo problem wrong very publicly

i could be wrong, but the probability nerds in the comments and the people like me doing simulations all seem to agree that it's 50/50
okay, i see what @DrEmmaZang is arguing, but i think this is not a case of some kind of clever problem design but just a lexical problem.

the problem clearly asks what the ratio will "eventually" become. that is, towards what number is it converging. and it is converging to 0.5, asymptotically. hence the 0.5 answer everyone is giving. the question is literally asking the asymptote.

the correct answer to "what will eventually happen to the fraction of girls" is "it will trend towards 0.5"

now, at any given time, it can be above or below 0.5. @DrEmmaZang seems to believe (and FWIW Grok agrees) that it will always asymptotically converge from above, so any "real" society with these rules will be >0.5

but i trivially falsified this. across a bunch of simulations of n=500,000, much bigger than any "primitive" society we might imagine from the question prompt, i had tons of cases where the realized proportion was <0.5. i think the average of the simulations was probably around 0.5002 or something-- but even at numbers much bigger than is plausible for the question text, the simple fact is that you can't even guarantee convergence from above. so the answer "the share of girls will be somewhere asymptotically above 0.5" is not correct; it's easy to generate simulations where this isn't the case.

FWIW, i've literally seen a version of this problem (tho for boys instead of girls) in demo homework, and the correct answer was indeed 0.5

so I think what's going on here is 1) @DrEmmaZang misread the question and didn't notice it's actually asking about the asymptote ("eventually...") and 2) given the "primitive society" part the notion that we should assume large numbers apply isn't even correct to begin with

the correct answer is clearly "it will generally be about 0.5 girls with an asymptote at 0.5." the fact that the expected value at any specific finite number may be 0.500001 is irrelevant since, for any finite number in a primitive society, the variance will be comparatively enormous.
for reference, here's 30 simulations of 100k families. you can see that there are plenty under 0.5. for the 30 100k simulations the average is actually 0.500034, which is below the expected approximation of 0.508. nor was it even converging anywhere close to 0.508 actually. Image
Read 10 tweets
Nov 13
Me and @bobbyfijan have argued that to get more families in America, you need family-friendly housing.

Today at @FamStudies , I show further evidence: first, from a new study showing how house size shapes fertility; second, in the YIMBY case study of the Chicago Loop. Image
Image
A new study uses data on movers and fertility to estimate how housing costs and home sizes influence fertility. The takeaway is: they both matter!

This is what we've argued at IFS: YIMBYs tend to be laser-focused on boosting supply to reduce cost, while ignoring the size issue. Image
What's striking is the new study shows that although "YIMBY for family-friendly units" actually reduces prices by less than "YIMBY for small apartments," it actually increases fertility by twice as much.

Size matters when it comes to babymaking.
Read 12 tweets
Sep 30
A few years ago I was chewing on a graphs like these ones.

Apartment-dwelling is rising over time. But the evidence suggests that apartment-life is not great for family formation. It's hard to add SFH given land constraints, commute times, etc. So what to do about housing? 1/🧵 Image
Image
The first and most obvious step is just: remove any obstacles that do exist for more dense, young-family-friendly SFH. We wrote a big report on that topic at @FamStudies back in March. We tackled affordability, how to get more dense starter-home neighborhoods, crime, etc. Image
Image
But as I was chewing on this topic back in early 2024, I had a chance to meet @bobbyfijan at an event organized by Steve Teles supported by @Arnold_Ventures about housing. We realized that we had a common interest: solving the "family apartment problem."
Read 14 tweets
Aug 6
I AM ONCE AGAIN BEGGING THE CDC TO FIX THE OBVIOUS ISSUE HERE Image
I *think* the official vital statistics data is based on actual gestational mothers, but I'd like CDC to clarify that in public.

In the meantime, birth certificates need to be listing legal, genetic, and gestational parentage ON. SEPARATE. LINES.
Children have a right to know their full parentage, we should compel it via the force of law to be listed on their birth documents.
Read 15 tweets
Jul 21
Are you online? Then you've probably seen the takes: rich men should just marry a pretty, submissive Applebee's waitress. There's a whole genre of tweet that seems to fantasize about highly available food service workers.

I decided, at my peril, to take it seriously and test it
Who is right? The online Waffle House Fantasists, or @CartoonsHateHer 's pro-girlboss takes?

In today's post at @FamStudies , I argue.... kind of neither! Image
To start with, credit where it's due: the pro-girlboss take from @CartoonsHateHer stands on a solid foundation of decades of work on assortative mating, which I replicate. The richer you are, the more you assortatively you mate!Image
Read 16 tweets
Jul 16
SO this actually isn't what's going on.

What's going on is way more interesting!

UNIQLO is vastly further up the retail foodchain in the US than it is in Asia.

KFC and McDonalds are way fancier in Asia than America.

Why?

Because the export versions are always the best versions.
Exporting intrinsically creates costs: transport, transactions, often tariffs. As a result, exporting is rather challenging for most firms, which is why most firms do not export products.

Firms that do export products are entering a larger, more competitive space, so have to compete harder.
And to justify the cost of export, they end up having to move upmarket vs. their home market product. It's rare that the export-version is worse than the domestic-version.

It really is true that foreign McDonald's is better!

You can get respectable Macanese egg tarts at KFC-Hong Kong!
Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(