ok, here's my abortion question...not a right or wrong issue but a question of the survival of a way of life

Yes, I guess there would be more liberals. Oh no, now you make me ponder, do I want more liberals? No I don't, but I don't want anymore murdered babies either. In my state we don't get to choose whether to wear a seatbelt or not, their stopping smoking almost everywhere. My choices are being took away more and more thru the years. But how could we ever dare to take away the right to choose to kill babies.

You are coming close to an issue raised in the book Freakonomics. (Good read, highly recommended.) In the book the author puts forth the idea that the drop in violent crime in the 90s is in large part caused by the legalization of abortion. Fewer unwanted babies in the 60's and 70's equals fewer criminals in the 90s.

By the way, in the first year after Roe v. Wade there were 750,000 abortions done. By 1980 this number reached 1.6 million per year and has remained roughly at that level ever since. Your 1/2 million babies statistic is a large underestimate.

Keep in mind that many of those aborted fetuses would never have reached adulthood anyway (unwanted children rarely fare well), but I do think most of those that survived would have voted Democrat (not because the were born to liberal parents but because they were born into a hard life), so I suppose it could have made a difference. I don't think it's grounds to consider banning abortion though; the idea of depriving women of their right to choose to further a political cause is abhorant.

I think, however, that your assumption that most abortions are preformed on liberal mothers is flawed. You're forgetting all the teenage mothers whose parents are opposed to premarital sex. While abortions are more tolerated in liberal circles, so are unusual (out of wedlock, etc.) or unwanted pregnancies.

Also, making abortion illegal doesn't mean it won't happen. People will still have abortions illegally, but many will die in the process.

______

People are missing the point. It has nothing to do with people voting based on the issue of abortion, but rather with how the fetuses that were aborted would have voted had they been allowed to grow into people.

First of all, that's an assumption to suggest the mothers were liberal...how about apolitical instead? What are the chances that an woman who has an abortion even votes? Not sure...

Secondly, the issue is a fringe issue and didn't have an impact on the 2000 election. I really don't think it would have made any difference.

I think if it were still illegal, women would be dying in the back alleys like they used to before 1974. And enough voters from the center and left of the political spectrum would be angry enough to actually go to the polls and vote against these dark age politicians that are running the country now. (If turnout were higher, the Republican party would cease to exist, and both parties know it.) But if there are few stakes and little on the table, then Democrats have less reason to vote; they tend to be lazier about going to the polls than conservatives. Low turnout has killed the Dems in recent elections, and the margin was so close in both 2000 and 2004 that almost any reason would have changed the outcome.

Abortion is not an election issue to enough people to make a difference in an election. In other words, very few people cast a vote just based on the abortion issue. One reason is that the president or congress have very little to do with it other than choosing supreme court justices. Another reason is that most people don't think about it until personally touched by the issue. Most people vote based on issues like the enonomy and national defense.

I think that it is an assumption the most abortions were done by liberals.

Dear Troublemaker,

I think you are reaching.

What are you trying to stir up?