Posted on 11/16/2004 1:44:24 PM PST by Steel and Fire and Stone
We're not sure we agree. It's doubtless true that if Roe is overturned, some women seeking abortions would travel to states where it's legal, as they did in the olden days before 1973. But it's hard to imagine that people would vote with their fetus to such a degree that they'd decide where to live in the hope of aborting future pregnancies.
Still, what if they do? In the short term, it would increase the population of states like Connecticut, while making "red" states even redder. But in the long run it'd be hard to sustain a culture that defines itself by the refusal to reproduce. They may not be celibate, but after a few generations (or the lack thereof) Haar's movers would look a lot like Shakers.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Which made me think of an interesting bumper sticker:
Well.. from the peanut gallery...
SFS
Now THAT's witty! Bump for Shaker humor!
If Roe v Wade can't be overturned, maybe we should just let the leftists 'select' themselves out of existence.
I think Taranto has also elsewhere made the point that, without abortion, there'd have been many millions more children born to Dimocrats over the past 30-odd years, a sizable proportion of whom would have voted in the recent election.
What could Kerry have done with say another 10 million votes?
Don't you love the irony?
Pffft Yeah, like the state you "chose" to live in has little to do with where you were born, where your family lives, and economic conditions (like where you can find work). No, no, it's mostly about where you can find an abortion.
Problem with this theory:
Liberal people often become conservative once they have kids.
There's no way of being sure about the kids voting the same as the parents, though. A lot of kids vote very differently from their parents - just being raised by a Republican doesn't mean that the kid will vote Republican. If the kids is rebellious he may have voted for Kerry or even Nader.
LQ
ProLife Ping!
If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
My rebellious middle daughter rejects all my teaching. She voted for Kerry, hates Bush, supports gay marriage...If I'm for it, she has to be against it. My oldest and youngest are to the right of me, and that isn't easy. I'll take two out of three anytime.
The red states have higher birth rates than the blue state. Utah has the highest birth rate in the nation.
I figured out a while back that we should just let these commie places like Berkely, CA and Takoma Park, MD go on along with their pro-abortion, pro-homosexual agendas and in 20 years there wouldn't be any of them left. Queers won't have kids and the others will murder most of theirs, so - problem solved!
Dreadful way to wipe them out.
Even liberal's kids should be given the benefit of the doubt.
What I find amusing is that if a 'homosexual gene' is every really identified, it would then be possible to determine if a baby is homosexual before it's born. As per the modern pro-choice ideology, any woman who did not want homosexual children could just have it aborted. This pits two factions of the liberals against each other. :)
It's not actually "wiping them out" in any active sense. Not genocidal "cleansing" which I'd never endorse. Just a recognition of what they are, in fact, doing to themselves and their offspring; and we're powerless to stop them anyway. If I sounded cruel, I'm sorry. No child should suffer for the stupidity or selfishness of its parents.
-"Liberal people often become conservative once they have kids."-
The minute I knew I was pregnant was enough for me to finally take the side of pro-lifers. That's a baby in there, make no mistake!
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.
