This is funny because it's true.
Here is a cartoon from a Texas primary lawsuit thread. Fits to a tee.
Posted on 07/01/2004 6:25:49 AM PDT by Between the Lines
Is it possible that Al Gore lost the 2000 election because the very people who would have voted for him have long been dead -- killed by abortions years ago?
That's the theory behind an article by writer Larry L. Eastland in the June edition of The American Spectator. The article was reprinted by The Wall Street Journal June 28.
Eastland's theory is simple: Democrats are more likely to favor abortion, and their children -- like all children -- are likely to take on the voting habits of their parents. Because Democrats are more likely to abort their children, he posits, they literally are aborting future Democratic voters.
If the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision had never taken place, he asserts, there would have been thousands of additional Democratic voters in Florida to put Gore over the top in that state.
"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?" he asks.
Pro-life advocates have long used reasoning similar to Eastland's -- arguing, for instance, that the person who would have found the cure for cancer may have been aborted in the past three decades. But Eastland takes that argument a different route, arguing that pro-choicers have hurt their own cause by aborting the very voters they crave.
Eastland says that there were 12,274,368 people of voting age population missing from the 2000 election because of abortions performed between 1973-82. If they had followed voting habits of 2000, then 51.2 percent of them -? or 6,033,097 -- would have voted.
A Wirthlin Worldwide survey, he says, shows that Democrats have 30 percent more abortions than do Republicans. Combining all the data, Eastland asserts that, nationwide, there were 2,978,605 missing Democratic voters in 2000 compared to 2,096,406 missing Republican voters -? a difference of some 882,000 voters.
How would that have impacted Florida? Eastland says that Gore would have received 153,163 additional votes, President Bush 107,799 additional votes. That Democratic advantage would have translated into a 45,366-vote victory for Gore -? a complete reversal from the 537-vote margin Bush enjoyed. Such a win would have put Gore over the top in the Electoral College.
"Missing Voters -- through decisions made in the 1970s and early 1980s, encouraged and emboldened by the feminist movement at the height of its power -- altered the outcome of the U.S. presidency a generation later, in a way proponents of legal abortion could not have imagined," Eastland asserts.
Of all the differences between the two parties, abortion is one of the largest ones. Since 1980 every Republican presidential nominee has been pro-life, every Democratic nominee pro-choice. Both parties have opposing positions on abortion in their platforms.
The post-Roe Republican advantage, Eastland says, began in the 1992 election -- the first one in which babies aborted in 1973 would have been of voting age -- and it continues to grow. This year, he says, there are 18,336,576 missing voters. In 2008, that number will be 24,408,960, he asserts.
"Examining these results through a partisan political lens, the Democrats have given the Republicans a decided advantage in electoral politics, one that grows with each election," Eastland argues. "Moreover, it is an advantage that they can never regain. Even if abortion were declared illegal today, and every single person complied with the decision, the advantage would continue to grow until the 2020 election, and would stay at that level throughout the voting lifetime of most Americans living today."
One irony in Eastland's theory is that most missing voters -- if alive -- would be advocating the very policy that led to their abortion in the first place.
The absence of missing voters this year, Eastland says, may again tip the election to Bush.
"Like an avalanche that picks up speed, mass, and power as it thunders down a mountain, the number of Missing Voters from abortion changes the landscape of politics," Eastland says. "The absence of the missing voters may not be noticed, but that doesn't mean its political impact disappears. As seen during a famine, what no longer exists becomes as relevant as what does."
Stating the obvious.
I have been saying this for the last eight years.
Chewbacca, the Democrats don't need births to support them.
They import their votes, primarily from Mexico.
The Democrats have figured that imported votes are far more predictible than natural born ones.
It's more than that. Except for minorities, I am of the personal opinion, from what I see in my everyday life, that Democrats simply don't have as many children.
Part of it is the environmental "zero population growth" ethic, and part of it is the idea women should work. Most liberal (non religious) types have the idea that you should have one or two children, if any, and pour your resources into them. While people of faith regard many children as "a blessing" and tend to have large families.
For instance my girlfriend, who already has 5 kids, has been feeling lately that she wants to help more, and is adopting 3 more. She lives in a liberal area and her neighbors all have one or two and look down their noses at her.
They don't believe the welfare --- unwed mothers --- should have to work. They might believe the middle class women should work to pay higher taxes to provide money for huge Socialist programs for those who don't feel like working.
They saw how long those voters kept the PRI party --- very much like the democrat party here --- in office --- over 70 years. Of course they like the idea of these voters coming over, they also have over 70% union membership in Mexico --- as opposed to USA union membership of 15% or maybe less now.
That said, abortion is still demonic. The effect it is having on it's adherents is ...diabolical.
Even liberal's babies are innocent, though. Return legal abortion to hell from where it comes- outlaw it.
AV
Seriously, before she does that I'd check local zoning ordinances. Some places have occupancy rules that limit how many people can live in "x" square feet or with a minimum number of bedrooms for "x" number of occupants.
And if her neighbors are hostile, bet the lunch money that they'd 'drop a dime' on her.
I always thought they just resurrected the votes from the dead.
"That's the theory..."
Actually, it's merely a hypothesis and will always be so, since there's no way to actually prove the idea, since there's no way to poll aborted lives to see how they would've voted.
Not that I disagree with the point of the article, btw.
Democrats are going to start demanding extra votes to compensate for this.
I think there are lots of relatively simple cause-and-effect histories lying about. Highly controversial mind you, but here go a few:
1) Jews are smarter because the Cossacks' pogroms killed the stupid ones.
2) Europe will become a Muslim continent in about 50 years due to low birth rates among the post-Christian community, and immigration and high birth rates among the Muslim community.
3) America's Black Community will continue with exceptionally high incarceration rates until they decide fatherhood counts.
4) India will succeed to the extent its populace rejects the caste system which locks families into one profession and station in life.
5) Africa will continue to have an AIDS crisis until monogamy is valued.
6) Palestinians will continue to live in poverty, rage and violence until they replace the teaching of hate with the teaching of morals, math and reading.
7) The freest countries will be the richest countries, ever and always.
8) Until dictatorships are kicked out, the U.N. will always be useless.
.....and on and on and on.
Some things are relatively self-evident. One long-standing truth is that Democrats abort theirs.
This is funny because it's true.
The really sorry thing is that they still try to get all the aborted ones to vote for them...
"Eastland's theory is simple: Democrats are more likely to favor abortion, and their children -- like all children -- are likely to take on the voting habits of their parents"
- I don't think this is true either. My parents vote Rat but me and my brother vote Republican.
He writes this like it's a bad thing...
This part - pour your resources into them - is slightly misworded.
It should read, "pour your and my tax dollars into them". That is the liberal view.
I agree. They tend to be more selfish (and broke more often, because they spend everything they make), so they either go childless or they keep the numbers small so they can have more "me" time.
This is funny because it's true.
Here is a cartoon from a Texas primary lawsuit thread. Fits to a tee.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.