|
| THE EXTINCTION OF LIBERALS |
| Tuesday, May 03, 2005 |
| This has always been an interesting article to me...
Check it out.
OpinionJournal - Extra |
posted by Jack Mercer @ 5/03/2005 04:14:00 PM   |
|
| 5 Comments: |
-
Now I am pro-choice. This in no way means I like abortion- I don't. There is nothing right about it, but it is not my place to say and tell a woman what she should do. The TOPIC of the article is interesting, but the article itself is one fallacy after another, and Eastland misleads right from the start. When they ask if people 'close to them' have had abortions, they emphasize 'close to them,' as if that is not a broad definition. Close to me? I consider family, of course. Then I consider friends. The study Eastland alludes to uses the surveyees political leanings, assumes that those are the leanings of the woman who had the abortion, then, based on the woman's views, assumes that her child will have those views. Children may "tend" to share the same views as their parents, but it excludes too many factors. First thing, you have to consider the margin of error, which would far exceed that of any public opinion poll, given that the real subject of this argument has yet to develop any sort of thought process. That, and asking about someone close to you; I can think of about 50 people "close" to me, with a variety of backgrounds, whether it be race, economics, or ideals. I have an uncle from Kansas, a cousin from Australia who married into my family, one of my Dad's best friends is from Trinidad, many of my uncles are veterans who are staunchly Republican. If a public opinion poll of people that are alive and you can positively confirm their political side has a MOE of +/- 3%, for a poll regarding unborn children that assumes 1)that those unborns would still be alive today, or 2) they would even be registered to vote or 3) would have similar ideals to the person who was "close" to their mother, I would assume that we have a MOE of +/- 100%. You also have to assume that people even know the answer to the question they are being asked. Now, I am NOT arguing that liberals do or do not have more abortions; I am arguing about the impact on any elections this would have. I also argue if Eastland is the least bit serious about this ridiculous load of bullshit he offers after introducing the Wirthlin survey. This one is great, 'Democrats account for 30% more abortions than Republicans (49% vs. 35%).' When using math though, that appears to be a 14% difference. It IS 30% when you add the 16% represented by independents to Democrats total. Ill let that one slide. Let us move on to Tables 8 and 9. Let's humor Eastland and assume those numbers are correct. Take a look, play with some numbers, and get back to me if that any way indicates that 41% of democrats or that even 26% of Republicans have abortions. Table 9 will give you an ulcer. It is the most bloated load of bullshit ever.
I would also advise Eastland that when you provide phony facts, you should not also list the evidence that completely refutes them in the same article. Either way though, I will not let a moron like Eastland undermine the pro-Life argument; irresponsible journalism is the standard today. I wonder, has abortion truly hurt Democrats that bad in elections? That cannot be proven. Is Eastland's conclusion complete garbage? Yes. Interesting topic to think about though? By all means. What is not worth thinking about?
-
Jack, you do know how to start a discussion!
I am looking within myself now and analyzing what appears to be a pro-choicelife stance...
-
Hi CH!
Thanks for stopping by. MAN! You put the analysis in...I'll have to take a bit of time to digest what you say. This article came out a while back in the Journal and I thought drew some interesting conclusions. I think there is one thing that is for certain...history teaches that as society becomes more affluent and self-centric then people start having less children. This has always led to two things: 1. The decrease in societal and cultural strength and 2. decline in affluence and civilization. This opens a nation or an empire up to invasion, or assimulation into another culture. Europe, a largely "Christian" nation has secularized to the point that the largest growing demographic is Islam. When "ideals" that built society are not passed along to children who function on the same, it leaves a void to be filled with...something. In the case of affluent liberals who are pro-choice and likely to have abortions, the same may be a case for the decline in their ideological base. Not necessarily true, but definitely worth thinking about.
Regards,
-Jack
-
I will remain pro choice. BUT, I will say it is undermining to a society because so many are so vehemently against it; it has certainly divided us. Instead of bitterness from both sides and defensiveness, though, I would like to see more outreach; more so from pro-choice crowds, and not necessarily to dissuade someone from their choice, but act like you give a damn to a woman who is making such a serious decision; if she doesnt care, show her that her wishes will be granted, but she needs to understand several things: 1)responsibility and 2)that abortion is not a healthy operation- it just strikes me that any artificial means of initiating a bodily function is not. To the indifferent ones, they have their right to choose and they should, but they should be educated as well in their decision making.
-
Jack, I've previously stated my position about abortion and it hasn't changed. I'd love to see the Dems brought down a couple of notches. That would be a great turn of events.
I've posted something about my trip to the UK and about my conversations with the peeps on the streets.
Cary on!
Hen
|
| |
| << Home |
| |
|
|
|
| About Me |
|
Name: Jack Mercer
Home:
About Me:
See my complete profile
"Snipet" (pronounced: snipe - it) is not a word.It is a derivative of two words: "Snipe" and "Snippet".
Miriam Webster defines Snipe as: to aim a carping or snide attack, or: to shoot at exposed individuals (as of an enemy's forces) from a usually concealed point of vantage.
Miriam Webster defines Snippet as: : a small part, piece, or thing; especially : a brief quotable passage.
In short, "Snipets" are brief, snide shots at exposed situations from a concealed vantage point.
WARNING! With due reverence to the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment there is NO comment policy on the News Snipet.
|
| Other things |
| Archives |
|
| Politics |
|
| Template by |
|
|
Now I am pro-choice. This in no way means I like abortion- I don't. There is nothing right about it, but it is not my place to say and tell a woman what she should do. The TOPIC of the article is interesting, but the article itself is one fallacy after another, and Eastland misleads right from the start. When they ask if people 'close to them' have had abortions, they emphasize 'close to them,' as if that is not a broad definition. Close to me? I consider family, of course. Then I consider friends. The study Eastland alludes to uses the surveyees political leanings, assumes that those are the leanings of the woman who had the abortion, then, based on the woman's views, assumes that her child will have those views. Children may "tend" to share the same views as their parents, but it excludes too many factors. First thing, you have to consider the margin of error, which would far exceed that of any public opinion poll, given that the real subject of this argument has yet to develop any sort of thought process. That, and asking about someone close to you; I can think of about 50 people "close" to me, with a variety of backgrounds, whether it be race, economics, or ideals. I have an uncle from Kansas, a cousin from Australia who married into my family, one of my Dad's best friends is from Trinidad, many of my uncles are veterans who are staunchly Republican. If a public opinion poll of people that are alive and you can positively confirm their political side has a MOE of +/- 3%, for a poll regarding unborn children that assumes 1)that those unborns would still be alive today, or 2) they would even be registered to vote or 3) would have similar ideals to the person who was "close" to their mother, I would assume that we have a MOE of +/- 100%. You also have to assume that people even know the answer to the question they are being asked. Now, I am NOT arguing that liberals do or do not have more abortions; I am arguing about the impact on any elections this would have. I also argue if Eastland is the least bit serious about this ridiculous load of bullshit he offers after introducing the Wirthlin survey. This one is great, 'Democrats account for 30% more abortions than Republicans (49% vs. 35%).' When using math though, that appears to be a 14% difference. It IS 30% when you add the 16% represented by independents to Democrats total. Ill let that one slide. Let us move on to Tables 8 and 9. Let's humor Eastland and assume those numbers are correct. Take a look, play with some numbers, and get back to me if that any way indicates that 41% of democrats or that even 26% of Republicans have abortions. Table 9 will give you an ulcer. It is the most bloated load of bullshit ever.
I would also advise Eastland that when you provide phony facts, you should not also list the evidence that completely refutes them in the same article. Either way though, I will not let a moron like Eastland undermine the pro-Life argument; irresponsible journalism is the standard today. I wonder, has abortion truly hurt Democrats that bad in elections? That cannot be proven. Is Eastland's conclusion complete garbage? Yes. Interesting topic to think about though? By all means. What is not worth thinking about?