Ales Rarus

Comments 4

1. theomorph wrote:
   
   Census data only show a slight depression in total numbers for the generation born between 1970 and 1980. They pop right back up after that.
   
   Meanwhile, the number of abortions does not show a similar fluctuation. In fact, the number of abortions in the 1970s was lower than during the 1980s and 1990s.
   
   I don't think this kind of "oh the liberals are aborting all their future voters" stuff has much validity. It's just thrown out for shock value.

       +0

   Posted 04 Nov 2004 at 6:38 pm ¶
2. steve wrote:
   
   Seems to me that this issue came up a while back and quite a bit of fur flew… Keep your heads down and helmets on!
   
   The full text of the blurb is…
   
   
   Gee, what might've happened to all the young voters? Well, consider this: You're not allowed to vote unless you've passed your 18th birthday. In order to have any birthdays at all, you have to have been born. And over the past 30 years or so, many Americans have ended up not being born.
   
   About.com lists the number of abortions in the U.S. each year starting in 1973, "based on assumptions by the Alan Guttmacher Institute." If we add up the numbers from 1975-86, we come up with approximately 17.5 million missing eligible voters between 18 and 29 years old. Exit polls found that voters this age who were born went for Kerry over Bush, 54% to 45%, while Bush had a majority in all other age groups. If it's true that women who have abortions tend to be more liberal than those who don't, then the unborn 18- to 29-year-olds likely would have favored the Democrat even more heavily.
   
   Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision mandating legal abortion nationwide, was written by Justice Harry Blackmun, a Nixon appointee. Perhaps somewhere old Tricky Dick is smiling at how his judicial legacy helped the Republicans.
   
   
   from: http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110005843
   
   I thought I would just point out of the 17.5 million "missing" voters in 18-29 age group, that a very small fraction of them bother to vote. So it isn't clear that this would have made a difference this year. But the further we go the more difference it'll make. This doesn't bode well for the left (which today are too often abortion's most vehement supporters).
   
   Ironic again how abortion was originally the brain child of the hard right, eugenicists, etc. It's worked remarkably well–enabling them to build a society where gov't need not concern itself with the needs of the poor and oppressed.
   
   "If you can't afford it,
   Why don't you abort it?"
   — Steve Taylor
   
   Thus, not surprisingly, we have Ford, Reagan, and Bush Sr. to thank for (by my count), 3.5-4 (counting Kennedy as the 0.5) of the 5 pro-Roe votes currently on the SC.

       +0

   Posted 04 Nov 2004 at 6:53 pm ¶
3. Funky Dung wrote:
   
   I'd be interested to see the trend data for the last 50 years. I'd like to see the projected population versus actual population. Furthermore, I'd like to see the immigrant population subtracted. They throw off the numbers. If it weren't for immigrants, this country would not be producing enough children for replacement, let alone growth.

       +0

   Posted 04 Nov 2004 at 6:53 pm ¶
4. steve wrote:
   
   Funky, Theo:
   
   This page at the CDC
   
   
   shows abortion rates as high as about 350 per 1000 live births in the '80s. That's a whole lotta non-existent people.
   
   I agree that it is impossible to predict how those people would have voted (or whether they would have). But I'm also having a hard time figuring out how GWB got elected with an actual majority of votes nationwide. This gives the eugenic conspiracy some traction.
   
   I agree that it is thrown out for shock value. But it seems hard to believe that it hasn't had some effect on demographics.
   
   Cheers!

       +0

   Posted 04 Nov 2004 at 9:43 pm ¶

Post a Comment