Replies

r-selection strategies are about producing as many offspring, as quickly as possible, regardless of quality. To speed things up, parental attachment goes down. Fathers take off, mothers boot the offspring out after a base level of maturity is obtained. It’s why baby rabbits the size of tennis balls are out on their own, and never see mom again - mom is working on the next litter. This is called diminishing the investment in rearing.

The offspring’s ability doesn’t matter, since resources are free, and there is no competition.

If you accepted the theory, you would predict that in Liberals, emotional attachments to offpsring would be minimal, and the Liberal would take any measure possible to maximize mating investments, and minimize rearing investments.

In the theory, contraception, single parenting, and abortion are all ways to minimize rearing investments. Literally, children are not important emotionally to them, and this would be predicted if they were psychologically r-strategists.

Look at Obama saying if his daughter were pregnant, he wouldn’t want her “burdened” with a baby. He instinctively doesn’t see a grandchild, or anything special. It’s just a lump of flesh his daughter would have to carry around to the market, if she weren’t allowed the throw it in the trashcan. Would Reagan have been capable of saying that, or thinking that?

By contrast, The K-strategy requires an offspring be as capable as possible, and parents will be emotionally obsessed with the well-being and ability of children. This leads parents to put their children first, and raise them for extended periods.

Although there are logical reasons to oppose abortion, I think one unspoken driver is that Conservatives see the young as important, and feel a concern about their well-being, in a way Liberals truly can’t grasp.

If you don’t have that drive, there is little reason to “burden” yourself with concern about the issue, and all the visual aids of fetuses yawning, and little fingers grasping won’t have an effect.