The Roe Effect: Is Abortion Killing the Left?

I read about this theory a while ago, but haven't seen it discussed on ATS...

Abortion was legalized nationwide in the U.S. by the 1973 Supreme Court ruling in the Roe v. Wade case (it existed is some states beforehand as well). Beginning in the early 1990's, the people who would have born if not aborted would have begun reaching voting age. As the decision moves further into the past, we are "missing" more and more people of voting age due to abortion.

It's pretty well accepted that the ideology of one's parent(s) as well socioeconomic status have an impact on a child's likely political leanings when they mature and begin to vote. These factors also weigh heavily on the likelihood that a woman would choose to have an abortion rather than carry a child full term. If left-wing mothers give birth to babies that grow up to be Democratic voters, does an increase in the abortion rate among these women since 1973 account, at least partially, for the realignment to the right/Republicans seen in American politics today?

A related article:

www.americanthinker.com...

Note: I don't mean for this to become a slugfest on abortion, please just post regarding this theory, Thanks!

Originally posted by djohnsto77
It's pretty well accepted that the ideology of one's parent(s) as well socioeconomic status have an impact on a child's likely political leanings when they mature and begin to vote. These factors also weigh heavily on the likelihood that a woman would choose to have an abortion rather than carry a child full term. If left-wing mothers give birth to babies that grow up to be Democratic voters, does an increase in the abortion rate among these women since 1973 account, at least partially, for the realignment to the right/Republicans seen in American politics today?

I don't think so. I was raised in an arch-Republican household and I'm a Darn Liberal Democrat. There are a lot of other things that contribute to a person's political choices.

Furthermore, historically the poor have tended to vote Democrat, since Democrats support social reforms that are to their advantage. Republicans tended to support big business and no government programs.

And, if you look at the latest polls, we're still pretty much 50-50. There's not much to choose between either party,y'know?

Wouldn't the European population start leaning more to the right themselves if this were the case?

Abortion have been legal over there for quite sometime so the population of the left should be dwindling while the right increases but that doesn't seem to be happening.

Byrd: Of course this is only a tendancy, of course some children do grow up in complete political opposition to their parents' beliefs.

AceOfBase: That's an interesting point, perhaps abortion is more generally accepted in Europe.

Here's a graph showing party affiliation by age, it does appear that younger people do tend more Republican. Of course many factors could affect this.

You're forgetting that women who have an abortion frequently go on to have children at a time in their life which they feel is more appropriate, thus the overall affect of abortions is limited.

Lukefj

Originally posted by Lukefj
You're forgetting that women who have an abortion frequently go on to have children at a time in their life which they feel is more appropriate, thus the overall affect of abortions is limited.

Lukefj

Usually when they're more financially independent, and eager for tax breaks! The whole arguement for abortion was that it should be made availabe to people who weren't finacially abole to raise children. it has also been argued that abortion unfairly discriminates against black americans, the idea being that poor blacks are more likely to get abortions than middle class whites.

Abortion in europe occurs in a different social context. Europe is a more liberal society. There isn't the same left/right dichotomy. By making abortion availabe to the disavantaged, liberals are argueably distroying their own constituency.

Then again liberals have traditionally employed a 'defensive' or 'responsive' strategy. Wait for the other guy to mess up, then stand back and point. Just like those old "I'm with stupid" T shirts. It's the traditional stance of an 'oppostion party'. When they began taking the intiative, and pushing their agenda, they starting going off the rails!

It's like asking the difference between 'birth control', and 'population control'. Much in theory, little in practise.

Issac Newton says, "Every action creats an equal, but opposite reaction." Call it karma.



Besides, I think everyone knows that the political winds have changed in North America. The left is in exile, and it doesn't look like they're coming back anytime soon. The public seems turned off by their 'slick', media savy approach. They seem to concerned with 'using issues, to manipulate 'public opinion'. Government by PR. "How's your image", and "did we come out of that looking good?"

It's not only a transparently manipulative style that turns people off. Part of it is that NAFTA has broken the trade unions, tradional supporters of the left. Information Technology has also taken a 'byte' out of the blue collar base of support. The left supported IT, as a means of de centralization, an erosion of the power base.

The idea was capitalists are supported by business and industry. Erode industry, with de centralized IT economy, and you undermine the staus quo. Of course they themselves were the other side of the coin. You can't have 'workers' with out indistry. Another instance of 'killing their own supporters'?

Of course abortion may have played it's role. For one thing, who's more likely to get an abortion, a Catholic, or a protestant? A liberal, or some one from an religious fundementalist background?

Remember, as Marge Simpson says, "One person can make a difference, but most of the time, they probably shouldn't"


[edit on 6-4-2005 by Agent Orange]

[edit on 6-4-2005 by Agent Orange]

You confuse my point here though. The fact that at a particular moment individuals are inclined to have an abortion does not mean that they will do so in the future. Thus, these same people who have had an abortion do still end up having children...perhaps this is the balancing effect? If htese people were excluded from having an abortion they may not have children at a later date when they are more able and willing to raise a child.

In any case this is all "what ifs" which are very difficult to prove either way.

Coming from Canada I am interested in American politics, but only in a gaffaw kind of way. I find the motives used by the public to defend their choices for who they voted for are incredible to say the least. There is a lot of anger in the voting population and I don't think it is good to have political leaders chosen based on anger and hatred, but that is just one Canadians view, there are many others out there.

Having children later in life could still mean less total number of children.

I agree with Agent Orange about Europe -- Western Europe has totally different demographics than the U.S. and surprisingly abortion is much rarer there than in the U.S.

Highly unlikely wishful thinking in my opinion.

As has already been pointed out a woman who has an abortion will not always be averse to having children and just because she is in a position of fiscal stability does not mean she automatically becomes a republican. By this logic all the people in America not in stable fiscal positions should be voting democrat. As the past election shows this is obviously not the case. Political leanings are not as fluid as they are being made out to be.

Besides left wing people are not the only people who have abortions. Not every right wing person in America is Prolife the same way not every left wing person is Prochoice. This is only perpetuation of the stereotype that left wingers are amoral femnazis hellbent on the emasculation of mankind.

[edit on 6-4-2005 by boogyman]

According to this site, which collects different polls, most Americans seem to support the Roe v. Wade decision.

www.pollingreport.com...

The first poll on the page seems to indicate that the numbers have remained pretty much unchanged since 1975. In my opinion, the crucial question asked is:
"Whatever your own personal view of abortion, do you favor or oppose a woman in this country having the choice to have an abortion with the advice of her doctor?"

Favor 69 %
Oppose 24 %
Don't know 7 %

It's going to take a lot for the pro-lifers to change people's minds given that it seems that even some people against abortion still see the pro-choice position as being reasonable, whereas I doubt that the opposite is true.

Originally posted by unclelester
According to this site, which collects different polls, most Americans seem to support the Roe v. Wade decision.

www.pollingreport.com...

Exactly why the abortion issue will kill the social far right. I call it the backlash effect.

It's mainstream morning again in America!

[edit on 6-4-2005 by RANT]

RANT & unclelester,

Your points really don't have anything to do with this discussion. Many conservative women/families who may be a bit soft on the abortion issue and respond to a poll saying they would want to keep abortion legal, would still never have one themselves.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
RANT & unclelester,

Your points really don't have anything to do with this discussion. Many conservative women/families who may be a bit soft on the abortion issue and respond to a poll saying they would want to keep abortion legal, would still never have one themselves.

I think it does in that the author you cite seems to equate support for choice to literally having to have an abortion to some extent, though both you and he go on to clarify there's something called a "soft supporter" presumably out there (someone that doesn't have an abortion but supports it I suppose).

It seems plausible to me that of the 40 million-plus abortions which have occurred since the early 70s, a disproportionate number of them were likely to have been to women who are politically liberal, rather than politically conservative. In fact, having chosen to have an abortion, might be a critical reason why a woman is committed to defending the “right to choose”, a mainstay of liberal social policy. Of course there are also some Republican women who favor abortion rights, though they do not have the influence or numbers in Republican politics the way pro-choice women do in Democratic Party politics.

Well, I'm never going to have an abortion. It's not physically possible. But I'd still be considered a staunch supporter of choice. I guess "soft supporters" exist, but do they raise children differently than non-parents? (DOH!) Guess they do. Just like regular parents. Is there any other kind?

But I do realize from examples like your gender graphs, that it's a gender driven issue to a large extent (presuming that to be driving factor in party identification here). In some ways, 100% gender driven. Men aren't about to have abortions or babies! At least not without the help of one of those significantly more pro-democratic liberal women around.

But a selective genocide on party affiliation or potential affiliation? I've heard it before, but I'm still not buying it. To the extent though that the reverse is true, that there is an active movement to breed ranks among certain religious (aka political) ideologies... is not in question!

If that has beat down the "liberal ranks" with it's own surge (and I can't see how it hasn't), then there's the "effect" you're looking for and it's not 40 million abortions over 40 years. It's much bigger.

It's social conservative Catholic hispanic immigration, it's Southern Baptist churches pushing their teens to marry and have babies (heard the sermons first hand), it's suburban explosions of familial homogeny reducing exposure to "liberal" ideals and probably a host of other things having nothing to do with the lack of a few hundred thousand 18 year old voters in 2004 (both potentially conservative and liberal) from abortions back in 1986.

[edit on 6-4-2005 by RANT]

I never had an abortion and I support the right to chose, actually I think most Americans female and male from both sides ot the political arena pretty much support the right to chose.

Look what happen in Florida with the pro life activist and the way the rest of the nation reacted to them.

No..........deep inside we American reserve the right to make our own choices.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
RANT & unclelester,

Your points really don't have anything to do with this discussion. Many conservative women/families who may be a bit soft on the abortion issue and respond to a poll saying they would want to keep abortion legal, would still never have one themselves.

I thought the point was that abortion was somehow killing off future pro-choicers, yet we see that for thirty years, the numbers have remained virtually unchanged. Does this mean that no one under 30 today is being polled? Or is it more likely that the theory is a pro-lifers wet dream despite the fact that many people against abortion personally still support a woman's right to choose, at least in some circumstances? Perhaps I misunderstood your first post, if so I apologize.

I'm not of the effect on party affiliation, but it sure seems to be having an effect on the crime rate. Go look at the stats anywhere you want and you'll see the crime rate start to drop 18 years after abortion was legalized.

The inference is that a lot of unwanted children that would have turned to a life of crime were not born.

Originally posted by Lukefj
You confuse my point here though. The fact that at a particular moment individuals are inclined to have an abortion does not mean that they will do so in the future. Thus, these same people who have had an abortion do still end up having children...perhaps this is the balancing effect? If htese people were excluded from having an abortion they may not have children at a later date when they are more able and willing to raise a child.

In any case this is all "what ifs" which are very difficult to prove either way.

Coming from Canada I am interested in American politics, but only in a gaffaw kind of way. I find the motives used by the public to defend their choices for who they voted for are incredible to say the least. There is a lot of anger in the voting population and I don't think it is good to have political leaders chosen based on anger and hatred, but that is just one Canadians view, there are many others out there.

I don't think that I confuse the point. Peoples politics change throughout life too. the person who has an abortion, in youth, may be liberal. By 30 they're more well off, less like to abort, and more likely to be conservative, for all the usual reasons. The only consant is change, yet the world still stay the same, you'll never change it. the more things change, the more they stay the same.

"Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity." There are many men who wouldn't screw anything else. I've heard people say that, and in the next breath they want to kill George Bush. It comes off a little hypocritical, don't you think? How about this for a slogan? "Join in, get invovled, become part of the problem!"

[edit on 9-4-2005 by Agent Orange]

[edit on 9-4-2005 by Agent Orange]

Regarding the topic in general, I have seen a similar type of argument presented by 'Green' type people. The idea was, that Greens or Enviro sorts should have more kids because their kids would then grow up to be like them, be party supporters, expand the party, etc. More people to save the environment, so to speak (which, IMO, is rather ridiculous because over population is a great detriment to the environment).

I think such arguments are rather specious because they operate off the assumption that kids are going to be clones of their parents.

I think the numbers of Repubs v. Dems speaks for themselves: As someone else stated, it's still about 50/50.

They say that it is part of the basis on which the Catholic Church opposes birth control. They want Catholics to make more Catholics.

Of course the left is basically finished as a political movement anyway. You have a Republican Pres, and the party dominates both houses. That's a big mandate. The left is beginning to sound like a group of people who are still fighting the last war. many of their ideas have become irrelevant. The Iron Curtian collapsed, Cuba is waiting for Castro to die, so they can update their automobiles, and China has basically gone 'free enterprise'. The experiment has failed, but here are people who can't accept that.

PS. Marshall McLuhan, in his ground breaking writings, points out that communism uses a 'mechanistic paradigm', ie sociaty is a machine in which workers must seize the levers of power( under the careful guidance of the intelligensia, or party elite). As the world moved into the information age, marxism would become irrelevant. It's a post machine age.

This was proved correct, since it was hi tech that was communisms undoing. America's SDI (Strategic Defense Intiative) broke Russia's bank. It didn't matter how many missles you had anymore, since it was no longer a 'numbers game', in which war heads were positioned about the world like chess pieces on a playing board. It was now a technological one (think 'Space Invaders'). China's Tiannoman Square was broadcast to the world. The authorites couldn't keep it under wraps, as they might have done in years past, because the story was 'faxed' out of the country. HiTech breaks borders, and undermines 'nationalism', another out dated idea.

A great question is: 'what part is the Internet playing in the current war on terrorism?' Remember that these factions keep in touch via web sites, and it is also how they are monitored. The story is largely being shaped by the Net.

[edit on 11-4-2005 by Agent Orange]

[edit on 11-4-2005 by Agent Orange]

[edit on 11-4-2005 by Agent Orange]

[edit on 11-4-2005 by Agent Orange]

* shameless self-bumping of thread *

I think this thread bears a review in light of the recent controversial comments of William Bennett. The effect of legal abortion in America is real and is changing U.S. demographics.

Bennett Thread: Bill Bennett's Morning In America: Brain Food for 1.25 Million Americans in 115 Markets