Aborting Voters

Sed Contra has an interesting piece on the Roe Effect’s impact on this and future elections. For those who don’t know, the Roe Effect is the name for the reduced numbers of people in the 18-29 age bracket. Had abortion been illegal for the last 31 years, there would be more liberal voters alive today. Dean’s defeat was attributed by some to this effect.

Comments 18

  1. Funky Dung wrote:

    “Bush carried florida because his brother used national gaurdsmen and state troopers to keep black people from voting.”

    That’s a serious allegation. Got some proof?

    Posted 07 Sep 2004 at 3:56 am
  2. steve wrote:

    WHAT?!?! You honestly believe that hispanics are overtaking blacks as the leading minority in the country because black people are having so many abortions?

    Yes. Well, I’m sure that abortion is not the only reason and after reading what I wrote, I can see how that might have been inferred. However, I think that had abortion remained illegal since 1973, blacks would still outnumber hispanics. Presumably, should hispanic immigration continue at higher rates than African, the result would have been the same irrespective of abortion rates.

    But it is quite ironic that this political party, supported blacks at higher percentages than just about any other minority (except perhaps Volvo-driving soccer moms), so vehemently defends a social policy that reduces their numbers at rates greater than just about any other minority.

    …a good idea to start rehashing notions of social darwinism?

    As Jerry notes, I’ve no intention of defending social darwinism. To the extent that people opposed to abortion have large families, and to the extent that children grow to have values similar to their parents (2 seemingly rational assumptions), more and more people over time will be opposed to abortion. And I consider this end to be a good thing. The method of getting there, however, viz., culling children more likely to grow up to be pro-choice, I find reprehensible.

    Cheers!

    Posted 05 Sep 2004 at 1:16 pm
  3. Funky Dung wrote:

    As someone who finds abortion morally repugnant, I can’t disagree. However, that’s probably not what you meant.

    If conservatives have bigger families and are less likely to abort and liberals have smaller families and are more likely to abort, then it only makes sense that conservatives would be outbreeding liberals. Since most conservatives vote Republican and most liberals vote Democrat, it follows that Republicans would be outbreeding Democrats.

    I’m not sure what offends you. It’s a matter of statistical analysis. Regardless of how you feel about abortion, it’s not hard to see its affect on voting demographics.

    Posted 06 Sep 2004 at 4:12 am
  4. John Thompson wrote:

    Bush carried florida because his brother used national gaurdsmen and state troopers to keep black people from voting. And then knowingly submitted wrong voting data. If that election happened in any other country in the world we would call it a coup.

    Also, he’s not in favor or social darwinism, he’s just happy that his kind of people have an evolutionary advantage over the bad kind of people.

    Posted 07 Sep 2004 at 12:57 am
  5. Funky Dung wrote:

    Bush was elected. The Supreme Court decision only put an end to the ridiculous series of recounts that the Sore-Loserman ticket were asking for. Yes, Gore won the popular vote, but that means squat because only the electoral votes count.

    As for Steve’s Darwin comment, I’ll let him speak for himself.

    “As Jerry notes, I’ve no intention of defending social darwinism. To the extent that people opposed to abortion have large families, and to the extent that children grow to have values similar to their parents (2 seemingly rational assumptions), more and more people over time will be opposed to abortion. And I consider this end to be a good thing. The method of getting there, however, viz., culling children more likely to grow up to be pro-choice, I find reprehensible.”

    Posted 06 Sep 2004 at 4:12 pm
  6. John Thompson wrote:

    But that’s not the point. The thing that I take issue with is the conversation being framed as “democrats are killing their voting base”. That is a profoundly sick statement/

    Posted 06 Sep 2004 at 12:53 am
  7. theomorph wrote:

    Either that or Thomas Malthus will have the final say for all of us.

    Posted 03 Sep 2004 at 11:23 pm
  8. Funky Dung wrote:

    Here’s a post by La Sawn Barber, a pro-Bush black woman.

    The GOP’s Problem With Blacks

    Posted 07 Sep 2004 at 9:51 pm
  9. steve wrote:

    I believe that hispanics soon will overtake (or already have overtaken) blacks as America’s largest minority. This is due almost surely to the higher incidence of abortion among African Americans than among Latina women–presumably in inverse correlation to Catholic or conservative evangelical faith.

    This is not to say, of course, that hispanics are particularly conservative, but far more likely than blacks to vote Republican.

    As a pro-life father of 5, the idea that Darwin may eventually have the final say in my favor on this issue is just about the only consolation I get these days!

    Posted 03 Sep 2004 at 4:54 am
  10. Funky Dung wrote:

    I’m not entirely sure I know what you’re getting at, John. I’m sure it’s supposed to reminiscent of Swift’s “Modest Proposal”, but it’s not immediately clear to me how.

    Abortion shouldn’t just be a Republican versus Democrat argument. However, over time one group of people decided that abortion was unconscionable and another decided that it should be available on demand. I applaud Democrats for Life, but I worry that they will become increasingly marginalized. In a lot of Americans’ minds, if you wish to protect life, you have no hope in the Democratic party.

    I know someone’s going to bring up the death penalty (soemone always does). I’m against that, too. However, there isn’t a clear divide in the parties over that issue. Besides, there’s a big difference between executing someone who has been convicted by his peers than to abort a child who has done nothing worse than be inconvenient. The number of abortions performed in a year far surpasses the number of executions performed in the average lifetime.

    I don’t agree with single-issue voting, but in the case of abortion and related life issues, I can at least understand and sympathize with it.

    Posted 05 Sep 2004 at 10:28 pm
  11. Jerry Nora wrote:

    Latinos are the largest minority on the planet. They took that title last year, as I recall.

    Posted 04 Sep 2004 at 6:32 pm
  12. John Thompson wrote:

    Making death partisan is not something I like. “How do these deaths affect voter demographics?” is not a question that I want to see viewed as legitimate. For one, it’s just really really goulish. Also, somewhere down the that road lies the point of killing people who disagree with you. And I don’t want to take that step.

    Posted 06 Sep 2004 at 3:03 pm
  13. John Thompson wrote:

    So, why then doesn’t the Republican party support abortion to kill off those damn brown folk that are voting Democratic?

    Why is it that only people who argee with you can be acting on their moral principles?

    Posted 05 Sep 2004 at 9:02 pm
  14. Funky Dung wrote:

    The flip side of that is if people of good moral conscience don’t think about these things, they’ll be caught unawares when those of bad moral conscience have thought about it and act upon it. There’s something to be said for anticipating evil.

    Still, I don’t think you have need to be concerned here. The very thing that is reducing Democratic voters is an evil that Republicans want to put an end to.

    As for the ghoulish aspect, I don’t think people necessarily started by wondering, “How do these deaths affect voter demographics?” More likely someone noticed trends in statistical data and followed them up. Also, ghoulish or not, this is a serious issue for Democrats to consider. Bush might be easier to oust (or might not have been elected at all) if there were more 18-29 year-old registered Democrats than there are. The Baby Boomers can’t hold power forever. To whom will they pass the torch?

    Posted 06 Sep 2004 at 3:33 pm
  15. John Thompson wrote:

    Two critical points of clarification.
    1) Bush was never elected.
    2) The Republicans don’t neceassarily want to put an end to it, they mostly just want a perpetual source of votes out of an issue they know won’t change in the forseeable future.

    Also, do Steve’s comments not make you the least bit uncomfortable? Because they frighten the hell out of me.

    “the idea that Darwin may eventually have the final say in my favor on this issue”

    That doesn’t immediately set off alarm bells for you?

    Posted 06 Sep 2004 at 3:56 pm
  16. Jerry Nora wrote:

    Well, John, by opposing abortion, Steve would also be opposing Social Darwinism, which would prefer that lower-class minorities eat their young (metaphorically speaking) rather than give us more of their ilk. The founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was an ardent leader of eugenics, for instance.

    I took the mention of Social Darwinism to be an ironic one, given that Social Darwinism is quite against traditional Christian teaching (and in America was often targeted against Catholic and Orthodox ethnic groups like the Irish and the Slavs).

    I’m not sure if I buy this argument about the Roe Effect, but the numbers I’ve seen elsewhere show that blacks have an abortion rate triple that of the national average, which I cannot easily forget.

    Posted 05 Sep 2004 at 3:00 am
  17. John Thompson wrote:

    WHAT?!?! You honestly believe that hispanics are overtaking blacks as the leading minority in the country because black people are having so many abortions?

    Don’t you think the constant massive flow of hispanics into the country might have some role? Have you ever noted the relative number of hispanics in the country who were born outside the country compared to here?

    Also, do you really think it’s a good idea to start rehashing notions of social darwinism?

    Posted 05 Sep 2004 at 12:11 am
  18. steve wrote:

    Wow. I thought my observations on the “Roe Effect” were fairly innocent, but am pleased to note that they seemed to have sparked a lively dialogue. This can only be good thing.

    John, would it be “ghoulish” to ponder the possible changes to voter demographics due to differences in contraception among various groups? Forget contraception. Reduce it to mere fertility rates in general among different demographic groups. Then would such speculation be “legitimate”? I assume so. What’s the difference? What’s the difference especially if you don’t consider a human fetus a person anyway.

    As to:
    Also, he’s not in favor or social darwinism, he’s just happy that his kind of people have an evolutionary advantage over the bad kind of people.

    “Happy” is a strong word to describe my feelings on this subject. The comfort I take in the notion that pro-life folks might ultimately outbreed pro-choice folks is more akin to comfort I might take in the likelihood of my country winning a war against an inferior agressor (say Japan) but knowing that 10’s of thousands (perhaps 100,000’s) of innocent Japanese civilians might have to die. It’s like: The cause for war is just, but prosecution is inevitably not.

    The irony here, of course, is that it isn’t my side that’s causing the “collateral damage.” And I would much prefer to live on equal evolutionary footing with pro-choice folks. (I.e., I would much rather that the means to this disadvantage be severely curtailed.) Unfortunately the only way to do this today is to start “culling” my own kids, or have the state mandate how much fertility I can have–both of which are presumably as unsatisfactory to you as they are to me.

    Thanks, Funky, for reissuing what I had hoped would be calming clarification. I can’t really think of a clearer or less volatile way to put it.

    Regarding John’s point:
    2) The Republicans don’t neceassarily want to put an end to it, they mostly just want a perpetual source of votes out of an issue they know won’t change in the forseeable future.

    I have to admit I tend to agree. I know if a pro-choice Repub like Giuliani was nominated in ’08, I would probably vote Dem even if they nominated Satan himself. (I kinda like this contest actually!!) What might change, however, in the foreseeable future is the makeup of the Supreme Court. This could throw this whole issue back where it belongs–to the various states. In all states abortion would likely remain legal–but at least with some restrictions (the US has today among the most “liberal” abortion laws in the western/industrialized world)–and this would be a small but crucial victory for the prolife cause.

    OK better shutup…

    Posted 07 Sep 2004 at 4:44 am

Trackbacks & Pingbacks 2

  1. From Breeders @ Ales Rarus on 20 Nov 2006 at 2:22 pm

    […] September 5th, 2004 by Funky Dung GetReligion has more on the Roe Effect. […]

  2. From The Down Side @ Ales Rarus on 10 Apr 2007 at 9:43 am

    […] Well, pro-lifers may be outbreeding pro-choicers, but we're dumber for it. [It's satire. – Funky] digg_url=’http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/1363′; digg_skin = ‘button'; digg_bgcolor = ‘#FFFFFF'; digg_title = ‘The Down Side'; digg_bodytext = ”; digg_topic = ”; Powered by Gregarious (42)Share/Social Bookmark This Popularity: 6% (of the most popular post) [?]Funky Dung […]

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *