June 28, 2004

Are abortions decimating democratic voters?

This WSJ opinion piece piece by Larry Eastland that appeared in the WSJ argues that in the US Democrats lost the last presidential election because of missing voters — aborted foetuses from predominantly democratic mothers, foetuses which would have grown up to vote like their parents.

I'll accept that most children adopt their parents' ways. Which also leads to my first objection to the premises of this article: It's not so much that democrats have been having abortions; rather, it's poor people, who tend to be democratic if they were to vote, which on the whole they do not. So if these missing children were to have been born, they would likely have been born to poor mothers — even poorer mothers — and they would have been less likely to vote when they turned 18 than the average person, and more likely to be in jail and unable to vote (remember that the legalization of abortion has been mooted as the main reason for the recent decline in the crime rate &mdash you can't have it both ways).

Second, Even if democrats had been against abortion and it was illegal, and even if this meant more potential democrat voters than republicans, it would still be the case that those strongly pro-choice would be less likely to vote democrat, and more likely to vote for a third party, or not vote at all, feeling disenfranchised. Democrats would likely have a net loss of sympathizers in this case as well.

So this attempt at cleverness doesn't hold water. If you follow its logic to the extreme, Republicans should be more for abortion so that there are fewer potential democrats to go around.

Posted by Stefan at 06:16 PM GMT
Comments
#1

"If you follow its logic to the extreme, Republicans should be more for abortion so that there are fewer potential democrats to go around."

Nah, b/c many Republicans actually have principles and hold the lives of unborn children high, even higher than their office and/or political power.

Maybe it's not always about winning the election, maybe sometimes it's about saving a life.

Posted by: Matthew on June 28, 2004 08:06 PM
#2

Matthew you doofus, of course principles should come before electoral maths, which is why this article is so silly. For the same reason that that republicans shouldn't (and won't) be pro-choice in order just to try to secure election wins, Democrats should not (and won't) be anti-abortion just to secure election wins.

Posted by: Stefan Geens on June 28, 2004 08:11 PM
#3

Gosh, did you think that was me? Can't imagine you calling a total stanger a 'doofus,' even one from Buffalo. In that case, I suppose I should be offended. That's wooly thinking even by my slipshod standards (to be anti-abortion is to be principled, meaning, pro-choice isn't a principle? How odd).

Posted by: Matthew on June 28, 2004 09:10 PM
#4

Could someone please demonstrate the proper way to hold an unborn life (or even a born one) high? I live my life high much of the time -- often on principle, but mostly in a self-aggrandizing, hedonistic way -- but I can't recommend this technique for the very young, particularly the principled Republican youth. It can be a Matthew from anywhere. I'm not picky.

Posted by: vertigo on June 28, 2004 09:18 PM
#5

George Bush's mother had no choice.

Posted by: Jame on June 29, 2004 02:37 AM
#6

One could make an argument that Western Europe is committing demographic suicide thanks to its widespread secularism. America's religiosity may be annoying, and I think all of us at memefirst would prefer a more rigorous separation of church and state in the present administration. But religiosity is healthy from a population point of view. The US is younger partly due to immigration but even a lot of our established white communities give birth far more than Europe's. Wealth cannot explain the difference, but strong religious beliefs may.

Posted by: Jame on June 30, 2004 10:42 AM
#7

Religion may be "healthy" from a population point of view, but who the hell wants more people around who believe in the Big Guy in the Sky?

Posted by: John E Thelin on July 6, 2004 08:34 AM
#8

Let's face it, belief systems that promote procreating and aggressive proselytizing are doomed to be popular. Look at the Mormons.

Posted by: Stefan on July 6, 2004 10:57 AM
#9

Why should a woman suffer, and give her rights up and her right to choose to an unborn child? Its her choice as a human being. Let her make it! It was the best choice i made.

Posted by: KGL on February 24, 2006 04:00 AM