WSJ disturbing article about abortion and "demographics".

[MyUncle]

I know it is the Wall Street Journal but I am not sure if the author is using extreme satire or he is serious.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005277

THE ROE EFFECT

The Empty Cradle Will Rock
How abortion is costing the Democrats voters--literally.

BY LARRY L. EASTLAND
Monday, June 28, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT



"• Republicans have fewer abortions than their proportion of the population, Democrats have more than their proportion of the population. Democrats account for 30% more abortions than Republicans (49% vs. 35%).

• The more ideologically Democratic the voters are (self-identified liberals), the more abortions they have. The more ideologically Republican the voters are (self-identified conservatives), the fewer abortions they have.

This isn't particularly surprising given the core constituencies of both political parties. But translating percentages into numbers for the purpose of evaluating their impact on politics makes the importance of these numbers real. It's one thing to quote percentages and statistics, it's quite another to look at actual human beings. For example:

• There are 19,748,000 Democrats who are not with us today. (49.37 percent of 40 million).

• There are 13,900,000 Republican who are not with us today. (34.75 percent of 40 million).

• By comparison, then, the Democrats have lost 5,848,000 more voters than the Republicans have."

[mzmolly]

1. I didn't know that they *quizzed* vulnerable women on their political

views before such an event. :eyes:

Read some responses here.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/responses.html?article_id=110005277

Welcome to DU.

[MyUncle]

3. Thanks for the welcome.

I was wondering if this piece was in the tradition of extreme satire a la "A Modest Proposal". It was just too strange to be real.

[abelenkpe]

2. I hope its satire

If not this is the most ridiculous and obnoxious thing I have read in at least...... a week or so.

[Book Lover]

4. One minor point

About half of all fertilized eggs do not make it past blastocyct-hood, so since the republicans are breeding more, doesn't it follow that they are losing more "babies" by this (incredibly flawed) logic?

Expect more of this bullshit as we get closer to November.

[RobertSeattle]

5. Some of the most inane "analysis" I've ever seen

Gee, let's figure out how many African Americans would be around if it weren't for slavery, lynching, limitted health care due to racism, etc.

Let's figure out how many Native Americans would be around today if it weren't for European based diseases, wars, prosecution...

[MyUncle]

8. People vs. Statistics

Confirms my long held belief that Conservatives think in terms of aggregate Demographics, vs Liberals think in terms of individual people.

[lolly]

6. WSJ Opinion Page

Is foam-at-the-mouth stuff. As Alterman repeatedly points out, they seem utterly ignorant of the real news printed on their own front pages.

Aside from the statistical problems involved in asking people after-the-fact, relying on questionnaires, beginning the survey with a bias, etc.--my question would be

"How many woman who were apolitical OR Republican before faced with an unwanted or dangerous abortion became Democrats afterwards?"

Also, are the birth rates for Republicans that different?

Some polls have suggested that within at least one officially anti-abortion constituency--Roman Catholics--abortion rates are slightly higher, possibly due to restrictions on birth control.

Finally, how reliable are these ask-around polls? Do you think a Republican woman who had had an abortion might lie about it when asked by a pollster? Maybe the pollster is actually revealing that Republican women are more likely to lie about abortions or sexual behavior than Democrats?

[kikiek]

7. Also is assuming all of the children would have followed the parents

political affiliation. Some of the best liberals I know tell me their parents were very conservative.

[loudsue]

9. That's the point, kikiek

WHO is to say that someone growing up in a repuke household will follow their parents' political insanity? And...there are a bunch of former hippie/protester babies that are now in the nazi camp.

I'd say abortions has absolutely NOTHING to do with how many babies "grow up to be cowboys"!

:kick::kick:

[gatlingforme]

28. Yeah and that is just a small part of why this piece of shit article

is rediculous.

[tom_paine]

10. They are some sick Nazi MONSTERS

Every day I see the evidence.

[stinkeefresh]

11. abortions aside...

I know a whole hell of a lot of people who have decided not to become parents (through birth or adoption). Invariably, these are wise, intelligent people with a lefty attitude. I understand the reasons for the descision: overpopulation, the vanity thing...

BUT. It does mean that there are less people in the next generation being raised by the sort of people who would be great parents.

It seems like all the wise people I know who would be wonderful parents are not having kids, and every "just want to be like everyone else, no idea how to think for myself, never even began to deal with my own psychological damage so I'm sure to pass it on" people are breeding like Mormon bunnies.

Doesn't all this, as understandable as it may be, kinda, I dunno, doom us all?

[Larkspur]

14. I vowed at the age of 10 not to have kids or get married

and at age 42, have no reason to change that opinion.

People opting out of becoming parents most likely realize that they would not make good parents and that is whey they are not pursuing that lifestyle option.

[kikiek]

19. We aren't having any kids by choice

But I was very active in my now 20 year old niece's life. My parents actually raised her. She is a wonderful and intelligent college student who just happens to be a liberal.

[Stargleamer]

12. Of Course, the WSJ doesn't factor in death by coat hangers

if abortion were illegal. For many, perhaps most women, abortion is a life-or-death decision, which they should be allowed to make.

[mzmolly]

18. Indeed. Excellent point.

[arcane1]

22. nor how many embryos are destroyed in fertility clinics

they always like to leave that part out, too

[prodigal_green]

13. What a bizarre poll...the didn't ask the respondant about him/herself

but about someone close to him or her. This says nothing about the person who had the abortion.

The most obvious answer here is that people were more likely to CONFIDE in their liberal friends because they were less likely to judge:

see text from article below:

With these factors in mind, 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.

Of the 2,000 respondents, 636 responded "yes." The various socio-demographic characteristics of these respondents were then imposed on the abortion statistics (Table 1, above), with a special emphasis on the 2000 and 2004 general elections to see what impact they likely would have made had the Missing Voters been present to vote in those two elections.

[filterfish]

15. can't deny there's power in numbers...

but i think repubs have more to worry about being outbred by dems than vice versa

[Mr_Lefty]

16. Actual medical records or interviews?

100 % of catholic priests polled do not want sex with young boys too.

[SheilaT]

17. Wow!

What an amazing set of false conclusions being drawn from crappy data.

To begin with, even if the original sample of 2,000 was a correctly stratified random sample, the fact that only 636 knew someone close to them who'd had an abortion is suspect. Some very high percentage of women ever have an abortion -- I've seen it as high as 50%. Even if it's only a quarter of the population, I can assure each and every one of you out there that you know someone -- several someones actually -- who've had an abortion.

The other assumption is that abortions first began in 1973, with Roe v Wade. Everything I've read leads me to conclude that the abortion rate, legal and illegal, has been quite stable over time. It's only reduced where draconian measures are in place, such as were in Romania, to prevent women from getting them.

And I say, from casual observation of my own, that Republicans get abortions at the same rate as Democrats. Maybe even at a higher rate. They sure as hell get divorced at least as often. Same with fundamentalist Christians. They divorce, abort, and have children out of wedlock at an astonishing rate.

[depakid]

20. A truly astounding piece of sophistry

Only a Republican could put this much effort into something so inane.

[TaleWgnDg]

26. hear, hear !!

:toast:

:kick: :kick: :kick:

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

21. 49% vs. 35% = 84% who have had abortions? so if the rest were all MEN

... we only account for 16% of the population....

????????????/

[struggle4progress]

23. Wingnuts are all aflutter about demographics of late.

I not long ago heard a wingnut talkshow host warning that Muslims would overrun Europe, based on birthrates; apparently, a similar argument has been made in Israel regarding the relative growths of the Israeli and Palestinian populations.

[Cocoa]

24. this is the same publication that carries Peggy Noonan

I have the same reaction to most of her work, "this can't be for real...can it?"

[TaleWgnDg]

25. uummmmm . . . this is the very same rag

that gives editorial space to Governor (Republican, Massachusetts) Mitt Romney's homophobic rantings re anti-gay marriage . . . to be sure, the WSJ represents its fiscal conservative contingency quite well; however, of late it's been delving into the so-called "conservative" social program agenda . . . how stupid.

As a final note, I know for sure that women who've had an abortion do NOT broadcast it . . . so where the hell did this idiot get these pliable "random" respondents? eh? As a family law attorney who's represented many re this issue, this is bunk -- pure and simple, bunk. But, then, again . . . why be surprised?

:boring:

[gottaB]

27. Do these numbers assume that men get pregnant too?

ridiculuous