A grim and fascinating irony.

June 28, 2004 7:58 PM

Legal abortiontips the voter balance from Democrat to Republican. That's Larry Eastland's theory. Abortion has caused missing Democrats--and missing liberals. For advocates so fundamentally committed to changing the face of conservative America, liberals have been remarkably blind to the fact that every day the abortions they advocate dramatically decrease their power to do so.
posted by aeschenkarnos (43 comments total)

That's just morbid.

Silly liberals believing in principle over opportunism.
posted by Space Coyote at 8:06 PM on June 28, 2004

By posting this I'm not wanting to provoke discussion about whether or not abortion should remain, or become, legal, and under what circumstances. To me this is more about what happens to that legality over time.

I'm not sure what to think of this. If it's true--and it kinda looks true, though I await rebuttal links--then it's a good example of an ideological counterweight effect, where a certain kind of policy will affect the political environment in such a way over time as to make that policy less acceptable to the people. Of course other influnces in the political environment will probably be greater: socially-conservative swings will advance the whole socially-conservative policy package, and socially-liberal swings will etc. Thoughts, anyone?
posted by aeschenkarnos at 8:13 PM on June 28, 2004

Abortion has caused missing Democrats

But how did they know how the fetuses were going to vote? Exit polls?
posted by Pretty_Generic at 8:16 PM on June 28, 2004

Space Coyote, you're fast on the draw. :)

Silly liberals believing in principle over opportunism.
Yeah. Now, if it's true, and if it becomes generally accepted as true, the implication for the pro-legalization camp is that the fight will have to be re-fought, that acting according to this principle will, in time, weaken acceptance of the principle. In other words, nothing lasts for ever, and yesterday's radicals are tomorrow's traditionalists.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 8:18 PM on June 28, 2004

this is foolish--there are more missing Democrats because more Democrats have abortions? So having children is so that they can grow up to vote exactly the way their parents do? (which is not true at all)

If it were so, fewer people would have voted for Gore than Bush (and Clinton before him 2x) than the majority that actually did. Very few Americans vote based on abortion alone anyway, and women have always voted Democratic in greater numbers. The low rates of voting-age people actually voting is due to many things, and way way down on the list is that fact that some are missing from the population due to abortions. Would he make this argument about the higher infertility rates found in today's adults? Or the miscarriage rates? You could also easily make the case that each couple that goes for in-vitro where many embryos are discarded (and in-vitro is not a Democratic or Republican thing, btw) is reducing the voting population 18 years from now.
posted by amberglow at 8:18 PM on June 28, 2004

I think this story is more of a underhanded slam that democrats want legal abortions because their immoral selves can't stop a-fornicatin'.
posted by Space Coyote at 8:22 PM on June 28, 2004

amberglow: So having children is so that they can grow up to vote exactly the way their parents do? (which is not true at all)
Good point, he seems to be assuming 100% parent->child vote-direction inheritance. 0% would be equally silly ... so what's the correct figure? Assuming 50%, then that means that his figures should be halved for the first generation, quartered for the second, etc etc ... becoming insignificant at 5 generations, I think.

Would he make this argument about the higher infertility rates found in today's adults? Or the miscarriage rates? You could also easily make the case that each couple that goes for in-vitro where many embryos are discarded (and in-vitro is not a Democratic or Republican thing, btw) is reducing the voting population 18 years from now.
Best rebuttal so far. We don't know what we don't know. It's a pure blue-skying theory, utterly untestable.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 8:24 PM on June 28, 2004

this Rutgers page has many stats on the gender gap in voting.

There are good reasons on both sides of the abortion issue, but this isn't one of them, i don't think. New young voters, and new citizens are always coming along and up for grabs by both sides.
posted by amberglow at 8:27 PM on June 28, 2004

You know, there was an economist from the University of Chicago who found a strong correlation between the legalization of abortion and the decrease in crime rates.

The reason I bring this up, is because people mistakenly focused on abortion which was really the "unit of measurement" rather than cause. The real point of that paper was unwanted children, a seemingly semantic difference, but actually dramatically important to the conclusions.

This seems like a similar situation, for this argument to make any sort of sense, you'd have to replace the abortions with wanted children, a completely distinct hypothetical.
posted by aubin at 8:31 PM on June 28, 2004

Don't tell him about the birth control...
posted by stet at 8:34 PM on June 28, 2004

and since on average whites get less abortions more than other demographics?.... you'd think the right would love it!

Seems Pushing protection would take care of it.
"49% of pregnancies among American women are unintended; almost half of these are terminated by abortion."

For all the pertinent info

posted by Elim at 8:44 PM on June 28, 2004

wow, how stupid.

I mean, I think the future for most fetuses aborted is not that bright, if the parrents didn't want them in the first place. They may have grown up to be non voters.

And lets not forget: The numbers may simply be skewed by the fact that repbulicans may talk less about their abortions (the question was, had you or anyone close to you had an abortion). Republicans would be less likely to know if their child was aborted.
posted by delmoi at 8:45 PM on June 28, 2004

If it's true--and it kinda looks true, though I await rebuttal links

That's the trick- there are none. This is right up there with the "using drugs funds terrorism" ads from a few years ago. The basic logic of massive, unfathomable levels of factors left out of such an equation- everything ranging from cultural shifts, demograhpic trends, migrations to various areas, immigration, crime rates, wealth flux, and so on and so on- is exactly the shield that is used to prevent a counter-argument.

This is the reverse of a straw man- it's a stone turd. It's a statement that sounds like a logical argument based on a complete lack of logical evidence to support it. There's no analytical thesis here: the author went in wanting an excuse to villify abortion.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 8:56 PM on June 28, 2004

Dammit. The WSJ is a first-rate paper; when the fuck are they going to ditch their idiotic editorial page?

At 21, I'm only aware of one of my friends having had an abortion; she's a principled independent who's as likely to vote Republican as she is Democrat, depending on the issues.

Personally, as a hard-core pro-life absolutist, I'll sure as hell not be voting for Bush in November; I may go for Kerry or I may go independent.

People aren't the simplistic partisan sheep that the intelligentsia assumes.


I mean, I think the future for most fetuses aborted is not that bright ... They may have grown up to be non voters.

A fate devoutly to be feared, surely.
posted by IshmaelGraves at 8:58 PM on June 28, 2004

Oh please. As if only the liberals are *having* the abortions, not just fighting for the freedom to make them a matter of personal choice.

I call bullshit on this.
posted by scarabic at 9:01 PM on June 28, 2004

metafilter: straw men battling stone turds.
posted by madamjujujive at 9:07 PM on June 28, 2004

If you don't think that fine, upstanding republican women are having abortions, I have a Nigerian friend with an intriguing offer that you shouldn't pass up.
posted by 2sheets at 9:20 PM on June 28, 2004

Rebuttal: what you wish to compare is the number of live children the two demographics have, not the dead ones. Comparing the number of abortions is irrelevant.

For example, if it were just the case that Democrats were more fertile, then they'd have more abortions AND more live children.

NOW, if you found that Repugnicans had more live children, then you could apply such an argument - having a lot of kids is always a good long term strategy in a democratic society, see la revenche du berceau.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 9:37 PM on June 28, 2004

Democrats will eventually die out and leave Republicans dominant, because abortion is not valid survival behavior? Interesting that conservatives are explaining abortion in terms of evolution, but won't allow it to be taught in schools.
posted by RylandDotNet at 9:39 PM on June 28, 2004

If you're against democrats, don't have one.
posted by ulotrichous at 10:01 PM on June 28, 2004

You know, there was an economist from the University of Chicago who found a strong correlation between the legalization of abortion and the decrease in crime rates.

The reason I bring this up, is because people mistakenly focused on abortion which was really the "unit of measurement" rather than cause. The real point of that paper was unwanted children, a seemingly semantic difference, but actually dramatically important to the conclusions.

In my econometrics class, I did my project on poverty levels and violent crime rates, for which there's an (unsurprising) strong correlation as well. Unwanted children may also lead to a high level of poverty rate, for some people.
posted by Ufez Jones at 10:02 PM on June 28, 2004

in about 100 years, Barring the imagration issue and increased literacy, (Literacy seems higher in 'progressive Nations" hmmm strange that, (although NK has a high rate too,at least higher then the US))
US not even in top 20 infact we are below Mongolia, HAHAHAH!!!!
posted by Elim at 10:07 PM on June 28, 2004

Before anyone freaks this data is from the great hater of all things ... Source: CIA World Factbook, December 2003
(Note we did beat out Kyrgyzstan!@ Yay team!
posted by Elim at 10:12 PM on June 28, 2004

"People aren't the simplistic partisan sheep that the intelligentsia assumes."

I don't have a [ "baaah!" ] clue what you're [ "baaaaaah" ] taking about, OK?
posted by troutfishing at 10:22 PM on June 28, 2004

Abortions aside, "conservatives" have larger families than "liberals". More children of "conservatives" change sides than children of "liberals"; otherwise, statistically, them liberals would be dying out entirely by now.
posted by wendell at 10:25 PM on June 28, 2004

A study from the University of Common Sense:

Unplanned Pregnancy = Unplanned Poverty (either by disenfranchisment, or unplanned financial burden).

Poverty = Desperation and/or Despair

Desperation and Despair = More Poverty and/or Crime

There is also a possible loopback the end, here, which is not necessarily common sense, but which may be common practice.
posted by scarabic at 10:59 PM on June 28, 2004

This is bad social science. The article states, "...the internationally respected survey research firm Wirthlin Worldwide was commissioned to ask 2,000 respondents in a stratified random sample of adults the following question: "As far as you know, has anyone close to you had an abortion?" The emphasis here was on "close to you" in order to bring to mind only those people inside the respondents' circle of socio-demographically homogeneous family and friends." The words "close to you" are extremely ambiguous in this context. In addition to different respondents who interpret "close to you" in different ways, there is no guarantee that "anyone close to you" refers to a family member (who presumably has more control over somebody's political views than a mere friend). In addition, there are two possible forms of response bias with the question. One is that Democrats might be more likely to know about their friends' abortions, because they are more likely to be viewed as sympathetic than Republicans. The other possible form of response bias is that Democrats are more likely to admit knowing people who have had abortions than their Republican counterparts. Given the confusion already introduced by the ambiguous wording "close to you," I'd have to say this is "garbage in garbage out" unless I get info that actually did some decent pretesting of these survey questions (which I doubt).
posted by jonp72 at 11:20 PM on June 28, 2004

It's an interesting argument, and ultimately darwinian, but what it fails to anticipate is that the abortion issue cannot in-and-of-itself dictate party loyalties. There are plenty of very wealthy and powerful pro-choicers who vote republican, just as there are plenty of pro-life democrats.

It's very possible that pro-choicers will be outpopulated by anti-abortioners, but at the same time, the added numbers in that anti-abortion camp might very well drive their children to progressive politics on other issues, even if they retain their religious and cultural identity. The political makeup of each demographic will shift like quicksand as the population changes.

I'm pro-choice, and I'm sure that a world with this option available to women is more humane and leads to a higher quality of life for everyone. But it's been shown again and again that a lousy but fecund idea will displace an elegant but less fecund one. Mormons beat Shaker, VHS beat Beta, Agriculture beat Hunting / Gathering (which, studies show, is less work per day per person than farming)

Still, the fact that the option showed up in the first place suggests that it's not as black and white as the author would have us believe. Where did we pro-choicers come from in the first place, if they kept aborting their kids?
posted by condour75 at 11:46 PM on June 28, 2004

Well then, why don't we just make sure all liberals get free abortions AND allow gay marriage (because while they do breed, not as fast as str8s) so that all the liberals will just eventually become extinct?

Hell, you KNOW thats why they have been trying to get norplant for welfare moms for years...

*shakes head*

American media and politics never cease to amaze me. And I LIVE here.
posted by jopreacher at 2:30 AM on June 29, 2004

A (Republican, and anti-abortion, I believe) acquaintance of mine pointed out (in a discussion about this very editorial) that the author assumes (among many other fallacious assumptions) that an abortion means one less child in the family in the long run. He doesn't account for the possibility that families may very well want a specific number of children, and that the abortion simply means they will have their desired number of children later rather than sooner.
posted by UKnowForKids at 7:41 AM on June 29, 2004

Ah, good point UKnow. Also, there's the fact that not every person who holds the pro-choice opinion actually *has* an abortion. My mother is pro-choice, never had an abortion; she gave birth to me, a woman who is also pro choice, who has never had an abortion. +2 pro choicers, 0 abortions.

I'd be more interested in seeing a breakdown of family size based on liberal/conservative identification. Anecdotally, families I know with only one child (like mine) are generally more liberal, while families with 3+ children are generally more conservative. I have this sense that "liberals" engage in more active family-planning (be it with or without abortion) for a variety of reasons, and that conservatives don't; but I have no data to back that up.
posted by junkbox at 8:28 AM on June 29, 2004

The irony of the abortion debate is that the anti-abortionists already won.
For while there is still a fight going on about the legality of abortion, the level of abortion safety has dropped terribly.

There are very, very few good doctors performing abortions left in the US. The rest are horror stories of incompetance, ineptitude and greed. One example of many.

I would strongly suggest Canada for any woman seeking a SAFE, legal abortion.
posted by kablam at 8:32 AM on June 29, 2004

You Metafilter liberals should be ashamed and embarrassed of those pictures. I hope there's a little life left in your consciences.

I'd rather live in a country where Democrats rule, minus the sucking the brains out of babies, rather than where Republicans rule, but with the barbaric, God-dishonoring practice of abortion. Abortion is the decisive issue for me when I vote. I'd rather keep innocents alive and punish murderers rather than slaughter the innocent and keep mass murderers alive.

That, Space Coyote, is because of my principles, not because of utility.
posted by aaronshaf at 8:55 AM on June 29, 2004

Feh.
posted by FormlessOne at 9:00 AM on June 29, 2004

By "those pictures" I meant these.
posted by aaronshaf at 9:29 AM on June 29, 2004

wtf?
posted by matteo at 10:06 AM on June 29, 2004

I'd rather keep innocents alive and punish murderers rather than slaughter the innocent and keep mass murderers alive.

aaronshaf, we've been slaughtering the innocent in Iraq--do you feel the same way about them? Or is it just the not-yet-born that you care about?
posted by amberglow at 10:10 AM on June 29, 2004

he probably cares about spermatozoa, too
posted by matteo at 11:17 AM on June 29, 2004

aaronschaf's post reads better when edited:
You Metafilter liberals should be ashamed ... sucking the brains out of babies ... with the barbaric, God-dishonoring practice of abortion.
posted by dodgygeezer at 12:12 PM on June 29, 2004

aaronschaf's post reads better when edited:

Indeed it does.

You Metafilter liberals should be ashamed of discussing abortion in a calm and rational manner. My hysteria will put this thread back on the derail where it belongs.

Feh indeed.
posted by junkbox at 12:48 PM on June 29, 2004

aaronsahf, if you let the Democrats rule the country long enough, abortions would die out because they'd become largely unnecessary: we'd have universal healthcare, more people with jobs that pay a living wage, more jobs that pay one person enough to support a family, fewer corporate practices that punish workers for starting families, more sex education, more freely available contraceptives, less poverty, etc. etc.
posted by eustacescrubb at 6:35 PM on June 29, 2004

The only thought provoking idea I got from this article was: Is there a Pulitzer Prize for most retarded piece of writing?

How about self-reporting error? How many "conservative" women with "conservative" friends are going to admit to having an abortion? Take special note that the author is relying on second-degree reporting here. (i.e. "Do you know of any friends who have had an abortion?") What about predicting the future? Maybe a one-time abortion has put mothers in a better position to raise (one or more) politically conscious children at a later date. What about all the lives saved by the obsolecence of back alley abortions? What about the depressingly low percentage of voter participation in the US to begin with? What about the changed distribution of resources? (e.g. planned families will have more resources to donate to political parties which in turn will influence more undecided fetuses voters.)

It's maybe an intriguing question in a sci-fi, alternate universe kinda way, but to actually pretend that you can use statistics to guess at any kind of conclusion here is utterly, utterly inane.
posted by Skwirl at 10:39 PM on June 29, 2004

NaaNanaNANA
posted by HTuttle at 8:27 AM on June 30, 2004