Do you realize that more conservative babies will be born, as liberals keep aborting theirs?

Question

Actually I thought this one up all by myself, Kennny

You do have a point there Mark, esp. with all the liberal colleges around.

Answer 1

Ain't that the truth

They will kill their own baby and fight for the right to have abortions done later on in the pregnancy.

But they are against the death penalty and they fight for a killers rights.

Answer 2

One point I'd like to make. Conservative and Liberal are both points of view so how can you be born with a point of view. I really find it funny think a baby will be born with a copy of the Economist or a spliff in his hand.

Answer 3

That's so funny.....liberals are realistic enough to provide their teens with condoms and information to prevent pregnancy. At least moreso than conservatives who talk in whispers at church about which teen girl had an abortion that week.

One good thing for conservatives is that priests generally like little boys so there's not a lot of potential for additional young girls getting pregnant....some might say the priests are quite thoughtful that way.

P.S. Every girl I ever knew growing up who became pregnant (and had the baby) before she should have, was a fat, ugly daughter of some ultra-religious non-catholic church. The catholic girls ALWAYS had the abortions. It would wreck Sunday Brunch at the local Big Boy otherwise. Plus, they don't make the cheerleader uniforms with a stretch belly for the last trimester.

P.P.S. I just found this joke....it reminded me of your post: Closely related, anyway.

Q: What's the difference between a pimple and a priest?

A: A pimple waits till you're about 15 till it comes on your face.

Answer 4

you're taking a single person and attempt to color every person that way. If we've been a race, you would be seen racist. Oh wait liberals regularly think of COnservatives are white men. hi wager what that makes you!!! I somewhat have reported that the OWS has various ideals, and reported that a pair of the tea party team has reached out in the direction of them. AS for college , i think of we dumb down college. My concept somewhat got here from a liberal. the guy who wrote doonsbury. Theroux or something. As for Soros, even liberals are venture approximately him.

Answer 5

You're assuming that no conservatives have abortions. A third of republicans are pro choice. As for the rest of conservatives, as we've seen lately, there are conservatives that may talk the talk but don't walk the walk.

Answer 6

The trouble is you are assuming that children of conservatives are always conservative (which is true in my case) and that children of liberals are always liberal. In real life, it doesn't work that way.

You're a little bit funny, though. A little bit.

Answer 7

No because we see that conservatives may preach at one altar, but they often worship at another.

Some of the highest incidences of teen pregnancy and abortion are in Red states (predominantly southern US states).

Besides, do you think that just becuase people are pro-choice, that they're pro-abortion. Many liberals, while supporting choice would not have an abortion themselves.

Answer 8

That's mean. Sure chances are if you are a pregnant conservative then you will not have an abortion, but that does NOT mean that being liberal means that you are going to have an abortion.

Answer 9

You're absolutely correct. It's not just the United States. It's the same in Europe, Australia and New Zealand. There was a good article published on this subject a couple weeks ago in USA Today (McPaper).

Read and learn.....

The liberal baby bust
By Phillip Longman

What's the difference between Seattle and Salt Lake City? There are many differences, of course, but here's one you might not know. In Seattle, there are nearly 45% more dogs than children. In Salt Lake City, there are nearly 19% more kids than dogs.
This curious fact might at first seem trivial, but it reflects a much broader and little-noticed demographic trend that has deep implications for the future of global culture and politics. It's not that people in a progressive city such as Seattle are so much fonder of dogs than are people in a conservative city such as Salt Lake City. It's that progressives are so much less likely to have children.

It's a pattern found throughout the world, and it augers a far more conservative future — one in which patriarchy and other traditional values make a comeback, if only by default. Childlessness and small families are increasingly the norm today among progressive secularists. As a consequence, an increasing share of all children born into the world are descended from a share of the population whose conservative values have led them to raise large families.

Today, fertility correlates strongly with a wide range of political, cultural and religious attitudes. In the USA, for example, 47% of people who attend church weekly say their ideal family size is three or more children. By contrast, 27% of those who seldom attend church want that many kids.

In Utah, where more than two-thirds of residents are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 92 children are born each year for every 1,000 women, the highest fertility rate in the nation. By contrast Vermont — the first to embrace gay unions — has the nation's lowest rate, producing 51 children per 1,000 women.

Similarly, in Europe today, the people least likely to have children are those most likely to hold progressive views of the world. For instance, do you distrust the army and other institutions and are you prone to demonstrate against them? Then, according to polling data assembled by demographers Ron Lesthaeghe and Johan Surkyn, you are less likely to be married and have kids or ever to get married and have kids. Do you find soft drugs, homosexuality and euthanasia acceptable? Do you seldom, if ever, attend church? Europeans who answer affirmatively to such questions are far more likely to live alone or be in childless, cohabiting unions than are those who answer negatively.

This correlation between secularism, individualism and low fertility portends a vast change in modern societies. In the USA, for example, nearly 20% of women born in the late 1950s are reaching the end of their reproductive lives without having children. The greatly expanded childless segment of contemporary society, whose members are drawn disproportionately from the feminist and countercultural movements of the 1960s and '70s, will leave no genetic legacy. Nor will their emotional or psychological influence on the next generation compare with that of people who did raise children.

Single-child factor

Meanwhile, single-child families are prone to extinction. A single child replaces one of his or her parents, but not both. Consequently, a segment of society in which single-child families are the norm will decline in population by at least 50% per generation and quite quickly disappear. In the USA, the 17.4% of baby boomer women who had one child account for a mere 9.2% of kids produced by their generation. But among children of the baby boom, nearly a quarter descend from the mere 10% of baby boomer women who had four or more kids.

This dynamic helps explain the gradual drift of American culture toward religious fundamentalism and social conservatism. Among states that voted for President Bush in 2004, the average fertility rate is more than 11% higher than the rate of states for Sen. John Kerry.

It might also help to explain the popular resistance among rank-and-file Europeans to such crown jewels of secular liberalism as the European Union. It turns out that Europeans who are most likely to identify themselves as "world citizens" are also less likely to have children.

Rewriting history?

Why couldn't tomorrow's Americans and Europeans, even if they are disproportionately raised in patriarchal, religiously minded households, turn out to be another generation of '68? The key difference is that during the post-World War II era, nearly all segments of society married and had children. Some had more than others, but there was much more conformity in family size between the religious and the secular. Meanwhile, thanks mostly to improvements in social conditions, there is no longer much difference in survival rates for children born into large families and those who have few if any siblings.

Tomorrow's children, therefore, unlike members of the postwar baby boom generation, will be for the most part descendants of a comparatively narrow and culturally conservative segment of society. To be sure, some members of the rising generation may reject their parents' values, as often happens. But when they look for fellow secularists with whom to make common cause, they will find that most of their would-be fellow travelers were quite literally never born.

Many will celebrate these developments. Others will view them as the death of the Enlightenment. Either way, they will find themselves living through another great cycle of history.

Phillip Longman is a fellow at the New America Foundation and the author of The Empty Cradle: How Falling Birthrates Threaten World Prosperity and What to Do About It. This essay is adapted from his cover story in the current issue of Foreign Policy magazine.

Answer 10

Abortion is a pillar of the temple of liberalism... That's why if we want to kill terrorists, we should dress them up as fetuses. XD