Wow.
It's really hard to imagine a more absurd argument than the one posited by this article.
? There were 12,274,368 in the Voting Age Population of 205,815,000 missing from the 2000 presidential election, because of abortions from 1973-82.
? In this year's election, there will be 18,336,576 in the Voting Age Population missing because of abortions between 1972 and 1986.
? In the 2008 election, 24,408,960 in the Voting Age Population will be missing because of abortions between 1973-90.
These numbers will not change. They are based on individual choices made--aggregated nationally--as long as 30 years ago. Look inside these numbers at where the political impact is felt most. Do Democrats realize that millions of Missing Voters--due to the abortion policies they advocate--gave George W. Bush the margin of victory in 2000?
The number of abortions accumulate in size and political impact as the years roll along. Like an avalanche that picks up speed, mass, and power as it thunders down a mountain, the number of Missing Voters from abortion changes the landscape of politics. The absence of the missing voters may not be noticed, but that doesn't mean its political impact disappears. As seen during a famine, what no longer exists becomes as relevant as what does.
Is this guy smoking crack? Could anyone's thinking really be so simplistic that they think that all of the people who were never born due to abortions are somehow relevant to our current political landscape? Is there any evidence at all that people who have abortions end up with fewer living children? If there is, this guy doesn't bother to mention it. He just assumes that a good percentage of these unborn children would have grown up to vote Democratic and that liberal abortion rights activists are decimating their own ranks.
It's really scary stupid.
