From an op-ed here.
Yes, I know what many of you think of the Wall Street Journal and its op-ed section - that’s not the point. I am not looking for trashing of the WSJ, its people or the op-ed writer in particular, but rather a debate on the facts/figures used in the piece. Commentary like, “He’s a partisan hack and you can’t trust him,” etc., won’t fly for this discussion. Let’s keep the debate to the facts/figures, ok?
So, for discussion:
Do the figures make sense?
Is it possible that the impact is as significant as stated?
At first, I was going to dismiss a lot of it, but realized that the writer was using actual percentages of voters, so it seemed likely to me that the figures were pretty close…and it at least gave me some interesting reading.
So, kick it into high intellectual gear, folks - I would like to hear what other Dopers have to say!
40% of liberals have abortions? Unless women are far more likely than men to be liberals, wouldn’t this mean that most liberal females have abortions? I can’t see this being true.
Overall, I found the article hard to swallow. If we’re to believe that whether or not one has an abortion relies this heavily on one’s political party (the easier to believe half) AND that kids vote like their folks do…wouldn’t not having an abortion mean that their parents became conservative, and therefore the un-aborted kids would be as well? This guy needs a lot more support for the idea that people vote like their parents do.
In any case, it’s more than a little crass to be predicting the voting habits of people who weren’t allowed to live to vote. Maybe they ought to do a study to determine how kids who died of crib death, motor vehicle accidents or cancer before reaching 18 would have voted too :rolleyes:
The numbers don’t really add up, but the only real difference between Gore’s platform and Bush’s was the “I will appoint SC Justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade” thing.
Criticise Al Gore all you want, but despite his pathetic academic record, he most certainly can speak English fairly well and with a reasonable degree of coherence.
By the way, can you provide a cite for the: "I will appoint SC Justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade” quote?
Also, if it’s not too much trouble, who said it, when and in what circumstances?
I presume it is a real quote and not something you pulled out of your freckle.
The article is an exercise in creative statistics. It proves that somewhere in the world, statistics can be found to defend any proposition, however ridiculous. It looks to me like the conclusion was identified first, found to be too amusing/ironic to pass up, then the data was found to support it.
Starting with such an assertion, one could write an equally valid defense of fornication.
"Fornication produces voters; people who do not partake in fornication jeopardize the existence of their political party. Evidence suggests that liberals fornicate more than conservatives, but conservatives fornicate for procreation, while liberals fornicate for recreation … "
The biggest hole in the article in my opinion is that children consistently mirror thier parents. I have seen plently of examples to both confirm and dispel that theory.
The article does point out an issue that I think will become more relevant as time marches on, however. I think that liberals are at a numerical disadvantage now and that it will continue to get worse. This is based on polls that show more people identify themselves as conservatives, among other things. Also, as our culture becomes more self centered, the philosophy of paying more taxes to help others just because it’s “fair” will be come less and less prevalent.
I hope the theory is correct- because that means that breeding C’tian Righties will inherit the U.S.- alas, they may also be Young Earthers but I’ll take that risk G
Even if you grant the accuracy of the figures he posted, Eastland ignored one big factor; the ratio of child per parent. Assuming the political idealogy is hereditary (an assertion Eastland gives only anecdotal support to) the key factor is not which idealogy is having more abortions; it’s which is having more children.
Putting aside whether the conclusions follow from the evidence, there seem to be two main unstated conclusions in Eastland’s article:
The Democrats are getting their cosmic comeuppance for favoring abortion rights.
Only a religious crank would be interested in this.
and
The Democrats should reverse one of their fundamental moral tenets in order to realize future political gains.
The only people who would entertain such a strategy are politicos of the Karl Rove school, who would probably eat a charbroiled turd on national TV if he thought it would get Bush reelected.
Since abortions are causing the extinction of Democrats, can we not agree there is a silver lining, a bright side, to abortions?
I took another look at this article and if I didn’t know better I’d swear it was satire, a giant Whoosh. Sure the WSJ is conservative but don’t they actually review their content? Before publication?
Maintaining abortion rights is the main reason behind my support for John Kerry this year. If he abandons that position I will switch my vote to the Green Party without hesitation.
It could backfire. Conservative Christians could reverse their position on premarital sex among teens and we’d be kneedeep in Young Republicans by 2024.