Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (11731)	6/22/2004 2:25:17 AM
From: 49thMIMOMander	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

Did you ever figure out when everything went totally wrong for you??

To: Brumar89 who wrote (11731)	6/22/2004 4:29:29 AM
From: zonder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

When you talk about more children being around in the absence of abortion, you are talking about an effect on the total fertility rate. I realize that. But That Is Not What We Were Talking About. (1) Total fertility rate (2) Less people likely to vote Democratic If you don't see the difference, this conversation has no point. Or more likely, you are trying to confuse the issue and incidentally waste my time. As it happens some of the groups with high abortion rates are also groups which tend to vote primarily Democratic. Thus over a period of decades, abortion logically will have an impact on the number of likely Democratic voters. There are a whole lot of assumptions in that statement and we went over them twice - political affinity is not a genetically transmissable trait, women who have abortions can have lots of children once they feel like it, etc. If you don't feel like understanding all this, I sympathize. But that still doesn't make your statement above a scientifically sound one. Still, I see you are not going to be swayed by the mistakes pointed out in your theory. Let's see if a more practical approach will work: About thirty years passed since Roe vs Wade. Here is the data on every presidential election since then. users.metro2000.net The data shows no decrease in Democratic votes. In fact, the 1972 election, a year before the legalization of abortion in the US, shows: 1972: Dem. 38%, Rep: 61% Adding 18 years to 1973, the first generation of your alleged decrease in Democratic-voting population comes to voting age in 1991. What happens in the elections since that date? 1992: Dem. 44.9 mn, Rep: 39.1 mn votes 1996: Dem. 49%, Rep: 41% 2000: Dem: 48.4%, Rep: 47.9% (Ralph Nader: 2.7% - with the votes of "people likely to vote Democratic") So you are wrong both theoretically AND in practice. Q.E.D.