# Anti-abortion group's TV Ads **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 15, 2012, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-abortion-groups-tv-ads/609562 "2012-01-15T03:07:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2012, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-abortion-groups-tv-ads/609562/61 "2012-01-19T23:40:22Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Heck, just caught an ad the other day, sponsored by some New York group (which strikes me as oddly premature, since the New York primary isn’t until April, and by then picking a candidate will be with 99.99% certainty moot, and it’s nearly a year to the election itself). The gist was all the “missing people” prevented by abortion, showing a bunch of children at play and some of them vanishing, edging up toward adults disappearing, presumably those that would have been born in 1974 if not for _Roe_. One of the final images is a bridge and groom happily leaving a church when the bride disappears. Oddly, she is not replaced by a different woman and the groom simply carries on, as though the abortion of his destined bride led to him having a compulsion to run alone though churches dressed in a tuxedo. It being New York, maybe the groom should be shown in church with another groom? As for the ad, I think it made the Baby Jesus cry, which is why his help meant for Tebow missed and hit Brady. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2012, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-abortion-groups-tv-ads/609562/62 "2012-01-20T00:11:26Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > Considering I said that _before_ you tried responding to anything I wrote, it’s not exactly “adding qualifiers and weakening my statement” or whatever else you want to say. Then I don’t know what your point was, except to take some weird, reflexive shot at liberals. Are you contending that in the U.S, for people under the age of 38 (i.e. born after _Roe_): -Conservatives outnumber liberals. -The two sides would have more parity if _Roe_ hadn’t passed, because more liberals would have been born and raised. I’ve seen in other threads your prediction that Americans will become more conservative regarding abortion (i.e. the the attitudes of younger people are more conservative on the issue than their parents), and _maybe_ this will happen, but if your contention is that young conservatives have the numerical advantage (in fact, a much higher advantage than if abortion had remained banned), I’m not sure why abortion hasn’t come under stronger attacks already. There are a few state-level pro-life victories here and there, but I’d be rather surprised to see an overturning of _Roe_ in the next ten, or even twenty years. Of course, this is assuming the claim is correct in the first place. I’m not sure how you’d demonstrate that fewer liberals came into being because of _Roe_. Don’t younger voters slightly tend Democrat? I decided to look it up and it turns out they do _now_ and didn’t previously. [This page](http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1031/young-voters-in-the-2008-election) has stats for younger voters since 1980 and for the most part they go with overall population: For 1980, '84, '88, '92 and 2000, the youth vote was under 50% for the Democrats, though always at or above the overall population. For 1996, 53% of young voters went with Clinton, 49% of the population overall. Clinton won. For 2004, 54% of young voters went with Kerry, 48% of the population overall. Kerry lost. This is the only election 1980-2008 where the young voters significantly (i.e. 5%+) backed the loser. Their 1980 counterparts had given a 3% favour to Carter in 1980, also a losing effort. For 2008, 66% of young voters went with Obama, 53% overall, for the greatest disparity since before 1980. I’m curious about what percentage Obama will get this year. Your contention is that it should trend downward, eventually. If so, it’s unclear how soon. Previously, the youth vote pretty much went the same way as the general vote. They’ve only gotten significantly more “liberal” since 1996 which, for voters born shortly after _Roe_, was just their first or second time at the polls. Among the aborted fetuses post-_Roe_, I guess potential conservatives tied or lost. ---
**Author:** ![Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omg_a_Black_Conservative)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2012, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-abortion-groups-tv-ads/609562/63 "2012-01-20T00:50:28Z")
Remember what I said about typing a lot but saying little? …No? Oh well. > [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Then I don’t know what your point was, except to take some weird, reflexive shot at liberals. You asked a question; I answered it. Don’t complain because you don’t like the answer you were given. > [@](#): > > Are you contending that in the U.S, for people under the age of 38 (i.e. born after _Roe_): > > -Conservatives outnumber liberals. > -The two sides would have more parity if _Roe_ hadn’t passed, because more liberals would have been born and raised. Both claims are true. With that being said, let me help you along here. My “claim” (not really mine) is children _tend to_ adopt the views and political leanings of their parents and that when two women-- one conservative and one liberal-- face an accidental pregnancy, the liberal minded-woman is more likely to abort than is the conservative-minded one. If both women face an accidental pregnancy and the liberal-minded woman aborts whereas the conservative woman does not, that means that the liberal-minded woman otherwise has one less child than does the conservative-minded woman, meaning there is one less child who would have likely grown up to be a liberal and one more child who is likely to grow up a conservative\*. (Of course, this is tempered a bit by legalized abortion changing the rate at which people become pregnant in the first place. But that’s okay, as we’re really looking at what is likely to happen when one becomes pregnant.) And since you’re going to cry foul could always look at state level data, or even county level data, or cross-reference demographics (i.e., look at the groups mostly likely to obtain an abortion and what political party they tend to support) to see who are having abortions and where they are located. You’d notice a not-so-funny trend if you did. > [@](#): > > I’ve seen in other threads your prediction that Americans will become more conservative regarding abortion (i.e. the the attitudes of younger people are more conservative on the issue than their parents), and _maybe_ this will happen, but if your contention is that young conservatives have the numerical advantage (in fact, a much higher advantage than if abortion had remained banned), I’m not sure why abortion hasn’t come under stronger attacks already. It has. Where have you been for the past couple of years? Obviously Canada, but that’s not what I mean. …Plus, it’s not so much a prediction as it is being able to read. > [@](#): > > There are a few state-level pro-life victories here and there, but I’d be rather surprised to see an overturning of _Roe_ in the next ten, or even twenty years. Because nothing will change until the make-up of the court changes. Sooo… Probably whenever Kennedy retires. Of course, this is assuming the claim is correct in the first place. > [@](#): > > I’m not sure how you’d demonstrate that fewer liberals came into being because of _Roe_. You can’t directly but you can indirectly. > [@](#): > > Don’t younger voters slightly tend Democrat? Yup. > [@](#): > > I decided to look it up and it turns out they do _now_ and didn’t previously. [This page](http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1031/young-voters-in-the-2008-election) has stats for younger voters since 1980 and for the most part they go with overall population: > > For 1980, '84, '88, '92 and 2000, the youth vote was under 50% for the Democrats, though always at or above the overall population. > > For 1996, 53% of young voters went with Clinton, 49% of the population overall. Clinton won. > > For 2004, 54% of young voters went with Kerry, 48% of the population overall. Kerry lost. This is the only election 1980-2008 where the young voters significantly (i.e. 5%+) backed the loser. Their 1980 counterparts had given a 3% favour to Carter in 1980, also a losing effort. > > For 2008, 66% of young voters went with Obama, 53% overall, for the greatest disparity since before 1980. I’m curious about what percentage Obama will get this year. Your contention is that it should trend downward, eventually. If so, it’s unclear how soon. Previously, the youth vote pretty much went the same way as the general vote. They’ve only gotten significantly more “liberal” since 1996 which, for voters born shortly after _Roe_, was just their first or second time at the polls. > > Among the aborted fetuses post-_Roe_, I guess potential conservatives tied or lost. I’m glad you wasted your time looking all of that, which in no way has anything to do with me stating that, “You would probably have more people of a liberal persuasion relative to their political/social opposites”. Congratulations! How does it feel to take your time referencing something completely not in dispute in any way? \*And, yes, women do indeed abort their _final_ pregnancies, which causes the above to hold true. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2012, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-abortion-groups-tv-ads/609562/64 "2012-01-20T01:23:19Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > . . . -The two sides would have more parity if _Roe_ hadn’t passed, because more liberals would have been born and raised. Gosh, no! They’d all be conservatives and deeply and personally opposed to abortion, because they would know how very, very close they came to being killed by wicked abortionist clinic murderers! They would say, “Wow, that was close! We must never permit another fetus to be subjected to that kind of risk!” And they’d all be Southern Baptists, and opposed to gay marriage, and would lead America back to its era of greatness (A.D. 1830.) Surely! ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2012, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-abortion-groups-tv-ads/609562/65 "2012-01-20T02:04:34Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > My “claim” (not really mine) is children _tend to_ adopt the views and political leanings of their parents and that when two women-- one conservative and one liberal-- face an accidental pregnancy, the liberal minded-woman is more likely to abort than is the conservative-minded one. If both women face an accidental pregnancy and the liberal-minded woman aborts whereas the conservative woman does not, that means that the liberal-minded woman otherwise has one less child than does the conservative-minded woman, meaning there is one less child who would have likely grown up to be a liberal and one more child who is likely to grow up a conservative\*. Since the claim’s not yours, can you cite where you read this? I’d like to read a coherent version of the idea. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-abortion-groups-tv-ads/609562.md?page=3)