Those numbers aren’t 100% correct. 0.55% would be relative to all women, so it would need to be adjusted upward in order to represent the percentage of just white women, which make up roughly 60% of the population of all women. The numbers would then be about 0.9%, over 25 years 22.5%, which depending on the percentage who have multiple abortions could possibly require a small overlap of a few percentage points, which would then have to be adjusted further down by 85% to roughly determine the minimum possible percentage of white (professing) Christian women who murdered their child.

My math is not exact, and I don’t know the exact numbers. But the main point is that it’s so far apart there is no justifiable reason to apply normal distribution. You don’t need the exact numbers and perfect math because the numbers are that far apart. There is a very tiny amount of overlap, if any at all.

And of course, if any call themselves Christians and do murder their child, they’re most likely democrats on his side of the aisle. They’re about as much a Christian as Nancy We-Can’t-Afford-Them Pelosi.

The actual data is messy and difficult to track down. Every year, about 1% of women murder their unborn child. Using his own numbers, about 0.55% would account for white women. Year over year, among women of birthing age, some have multiple abortions, and so on, which can only reduce the number of white women overall who have had at least one abortion. But even if there were none who had multiple, across and estimated 25 years of birthing age, the sum total within such a time frame would be 13.75% of white women, low enough such that the 15% of non-Christian white women could account for every single abortion. And again, due to many women having multiple abortions, the actual number would be less than 13.75%

In other words, the numbers are so far apart that there is realistically no mathematically necessary overlap at all whatsoever, much less any justifiable reason to apply standard distribution.

These are things most of us just know. It’s common sense. He couldn’t have the slightest clue how many Christian white women murdered their child, if any at all.

It’s been a long time since I took statistics, but if I remember correctly it’s basically an attempt to generate a probability or projection out of unknowns. But of course, all is not unknown. There are factors intentionally ignored. It’s far more likely that women who are against the murder of unborn children are far less likely to murder an unborn child, which is basic common sense to anyone who’s mind isn’t completely fried. It doesn’t take a degree to understand that.

Intersectionality is little different. Ultimately it’s bearing false witness. (Apparently his Bible doesn’t contain a 9th Commandment.) But you can’t tell him anything. Only the Lord can fix a reprobate mind.

For that matter, any use of normal distribution is inherently erroneous to some degree. Often barely short of a wild guess.

Lies, d*** lies, and statistics

And of course he’s living proof critical theory destroys the mind.

His tweet on abortion is an embarrassing abuse of statistics. You cant use normal distribution in such an instance.

Of course, the greatest irony of all, as usual, is that he is a multi-millionaire.

He mostly does it because it pays.

But as with all racists, he mostly only harms himself and those he leads.