[Spliffdaddy]

"Do Democrats realize that millions of Missing Voters--due to the abortion policies they advocate--gave George W. Bush the margin of victory in 2000?"


http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005277

40 million?

can that be right?

wow. lotsa rape going on in America.

[CD Hanks]

HAHAHHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHHA

It took me a moment to actually fully "get" what was said...but...HAHHAHAHHAHAHA

[AKcrab]

That's some seriously silly "research".

The answer to winning an election in the long run? Have more babies!! Duh!

As liberals and Democrats fervently seek new voters and supporters through events, fund-raisers, direct mail and every other form of communication available, they achieve results minuscule in comparison to the loss of voters they suffer from their own abortion policies. It is a grim irony lost on them, for which they will pay dearly in elections to come.

[Millennium]

Dude; that's just plain messed up. Is this meant to be some kind of satire?

[dreilly1]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Dude; that's just plain messed up. Is this meant to be some kind of satire?

It's not really meant to be satire, although the idea, as presented, is a little silly. OpinionJournal's Best of the Web guy has been talking about the "Roe effect" for quite some time now, which he defines thusly:

We base this on two assumptions. First, that liberal and Democratic women are more likely to have abortions. Second, that children's political views tend to reflect those of their parents--not exactly, of course, and not in every case, but on average. Thus abortion depletes the next generation of liberals and eventually makes the population more conservative. We call this the Roe effect, after Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court's 1973 decision that established a constitutional right to abortion.

Today's opinionjournal.com article's statistical take on it is entertaining, to say the least, but just about meaningless. 87.64% of statistics are just made up, after all.

I never thought the "Roe effect" was a very big deal, because it assumes that children will inherit the political tendencies of their birth parents, which is certainly not the case: not only are there always generational differences, but a good portion of the "missing voters" who would have been around had Abortion been illegal would probably have been adopted, and likely to learn political views from their adopted parents.

<troll>
Statistical nonsense aside, I think it's interesting to contemplate that those who are pro-choice might be Naturally Selecting themselves into the minority, while those on the pro-life side of things are procreating themselves into a majority based on sheer numbers. I wonder what Charles Darwin would have thought about the abortion issue...

Discuss.
</troll>

[dreilly1]

As an aside, the Wall St. Journal has a very good editorial staff, and opinionjournal.com is worth reading daily, especially if you're a liberal. They're much less confrontational than other conservative op-ed writers (although no less firm in their beliefs), and they're excellent writers pretty much across the board. I haven't found a liberal opinion site yet that matches it in terms of sheer writing ability.

Except for this article, of course. Trust me, most of their fuzzy math has to do with trickle-down economics, not statistics.

[Spliffdaddy]

I dunno.

Seems logical that the majority of abortions are performed on working-class or poor women - the very ones most likely to be Democrats - and the very ones most likely to raise non-wealthy future voters, just like themselves...if they chose not to abort the child.

Unless you can argue that most Democrats give birth to Republicans, my premise makes sense.

[BRussell]

So by the same logic, Republicans must surely support the death penalty because that way they're killing off potential democratic voters. Brilliant!

[itai195]

As the great Kang once said, "Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others!"

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by BRussell:
So by the same logic, Republicans must surely support the death penalty because that way they're killing off potential democratic voters. Brilliant!

The person would have been a convicted felon anyway (even if they weren't on death row), thus they'd never be able to vote. FYI.

Unless you're saying that the aborted children of lower income people would just grow up to be felons (and thus not be able to vote), anyway. Is that the "same logic" you're talking about?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
The person would have been a convicted felon anyway (even if they weren't on death row), thus they'd never be able to vote. FYI.

That's not generally true. It depends on the state, and in the majority of states there is no prohibition against voting. FYI.

Besides, the beauty of the death penalty is that if its a wrongful conviction, it can't be undone! I've got to hand it to them, those sneaky Republicans.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by BRussell:
That's not generally true. It depends on the state, and in the majority of states there is no prohibition against voting. FYI.

I don't think that's accurate. Though, perhaps an expert in jurisprudence could fill us in on that.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
I don't think that's accurate. Though, perhaps an expert in jurisprudence could fill us in on that.

Wanna bet? You know how to Google. It's not that hard to find the information.

[Monique]

Well there is someone who loves to strech things to an extreme.