Home

Catholic Apologetics International

Ellen Goodman: Another Case of Defending Abortion and Contraception at All Costs

Ellen Goodman's article is first, with my letter to the editor immediately below it.
Michael

http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=287454&category=OPINION&newsdate=9/21/2004

Babies Don't Come In Shades of Blue and Red

First published: Tuesday, September 21, 2004
BOSTON -- Just think of all the time we wasted worrying about the culture gap, the religious gap, the class gap and even the gender gap. Now we are told that the political future will rest in the fertility gap.

This is the latest bulletin from the demography-is-destiny crowd. The fate of red and blue America will come down to who is filling those pink and blue nurseries.

These tidings were brought to us recently by Phillip Longman, who worried in The Washington Post that liberals aren't having enough little liberals: "Conservative, religiously minded Americans are putting far more of their genes into the future than their liberal, secular counterparts."

I never knew there was a conservative gene. If so, can it be tweaked? Is that another reason to support stem cell research?

Longman went on to say, "When secular-minded Americans decide to have few, if any, children, they unwittingly give a strong evolutionary advantage to the other side of the culture divide." Imagine giving an evolutionary advantage to folks who don't believe in evolution.

Longman is the author of "The Empty Cradle," a book warning that the empty cradle won't be able to support a full rocking chair. But he isn't the only one saying that the right is out-breeding the left.

Earlier this month, James Pinkerton agreed archly in a Newsday column that "the left has birth-controlled, aborted and maybe also gay-libbed itself into a smaller role in American society." And last winter, The Wall Street Journal's James Taranto explained the "Roe effect": "It's almost a truism that women who have abortions are more pro-choice ... so that if liberal women are having abortions, the next generation will be more conservative than it otherwise would be." Apparently good liberal women should give up their right to choose in order to protect it.

We now have a number of, um, fertile male minds from left, right and center -- talk about your strange wombmates -- agreeing that the political future belongs to the fecund female.

This idea hinges on some numbers from 2000. High fertility states such as Utah went red. Low fertility states such as Massachusetts went blue. As Longman figured it, women in Gore states were having 12 percent fewer babies than women in Bush states. Presumably that doesn't include Florida, where the hanging chads were post-menopausal.

I confess to a certain weakness for statistics. I love to correlate things like, say, sushi eating and support for the Global Warming Treaty. (I made that up.) One of my all-time favorites was Pete du Pont's post-2000 correlation between porn-watchers and Gore voters. And what to make of the fact that Bush won in most states with the highest percentage of teenage mothers?

But I'm wary of numbers that may be, in the statisticians' terms "true, true, but unrelated." We live in a world that's been through tremendous technological and social change. The average woman in the world had 4.48 children in 1970 and has 2.69 now. Anyone who thinks that a low birth rate produces a conservative takeover hasn't been to Italy lately.

I am even far more dubious of the claim that political labels are handed down through the DNA or even around the dinner table. In our own swiftly changing country, parents who dutifully plant one ideological seed get some pretty different sprouts. Yet only Pinkerton suggested that persuasion could be a match for procreation.

There's a long history of Americans worrying about right and wrong wombs. A century ago, there was a nativist panic over the fact that the first generation of college-educated women weren't reproducing while immigrants were. Theodore Roosevelt was so worried that he put a line in his State of the Union address accusing them of "willful sterility -- the one sin for which the penalty is national death, race suicide." And that man was a progressive.

But as immigrants went up the economic ladder, their fertility rates dropped. Meanwhile, those college-educated women found other ways of spreading the word and leaving a legacy. Anyone who thinks the first generation of feminists lost the evolutionary struggle hasn't been watching the Title IX soccer players.

Are we supposed to worry about right and left wombs? I hear a rather odd echo in all this. Remember when liberals were told to be "Clean for Gene"? (If so, you are beyond your reproducing years anyway.) Are women now supposed to be fertile for John?

In the last presidential election nearly 9 million women in those fertile years between 18 and 25 didn't vote. Let's not worry about getting them to the maternity wards. Let's just get them to the polling booths.

Ellen Goodman's e-mail address is ellengoodman@globe.com.
END OF ARTICLE

Response:

To the Editor,
I just finished reading Ellen Goodman's article on the differential in birth rates between the "red" and "blue" states. While well-written, of course, it seems to me she is refusing to acknowledge basic logic. Although not nearly an absolute truism, the saying "the apple doesn't fall far from the tree" tends to hold, in general. This wisdom has been learned through experience and observation over millennia. So, while she appeals to several other possible factors to mitigate the meaning of such trends in birth rates, such as the possibility of educating and "converting" children from conservative households, she really only muddies up the waters, in my opinion. Does she believe that conservatives will sit idly by as liberals try to convert conservative children to their world view? I think we may try to reach liberal children, too. And recent statistics on the leanings of young people these days (even from liberal households) would suggest conservatives are more efficient and effective on that front.

So the real question is, all things being equal, is it more or less beneficial to have more children, in terms of passing on a certain view of life to our future? To suggest that such questions are effectively meaningless is illogical and rather convenient, given that she is a liberal, don't you think? I suspect that if the trend were reversed, liberals would all too happy to point out such statistics and crow about them (after all, those of the Margaret Sanger mentality would see it as a sign that the "evolutionarily challenged" are being weeded out). Of course, this doesn't even contemplate all of the studies that show a link between population negative effects such as breast cancer, decreased fertility, divorce and abortion (and I am sure to the chagrin of liberals, even a FRENCH study has recently confirmed the connection between abortion and premature birth:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgicmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14998979&itool=iconabstr ).

Generally speaking, the future belongs to the fertile (and the healthy), not the sterile. If one wants to put almost all of one's eggs into the "here and now" basket, maximizing temporary "fun" and "toys" at the expense of actual human life, one can certainly do that. But there are certain laws of nature that may prove darned inconvenient in the long run... you can't have your cake and eat it too. There will be a price. A simple look at Europe and the balance between Muslim and non-Muslims is informative. At the current rates, we should not be surprised to see sharia enacted in a few European countries by mid-century. But, I suppose, one could retort that such statistics ignore the fact that Christians and other religionists will be trying to win converts from the Muslim population in the mean time....except that I also suspect she wouldn't much care for that eventuality, either. And while I agree with Goodman that liberals will always exist (I have no delusions about that) it is not so impossible or unlikely that they will become increasingly irrelevant…..especially if they remain short-sighted and self-centered (I mean "self-centered" literally, not pejoratively).

Sincerely,
Michael W. Forrest

Facts of Life:
From the moment of conception, an unborn child's DNA is as complete as an adult's. At 3 weeks, an unborn child has a heartbeat and her own blood supply. At 6 weeks she has measurable brainwaves. Yet, in this country, she can be killed by choice through all 9 months of pregnancy for any reason or no reason whatever. 1 out of 4 unborn children are killed before birth in this country. Since Roe v. Wade, over 45 million unborn children have died by a choice not their own.

Contraception Fact:
"The Pill" works two ways: first, by preventing fertilization and if that fails, second, by preventing implantation AFTER a new human being has been created, causing an early chemical abortion that is usually unrecognized by the mother.

Catholic Apologetics International