« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

The Instruments of Their Own Destruction

[Cross-posted at Koch's Tour]

"Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds"

.
Liberals in this country have brought about their own demise – they just don’t realize it yet.

Ever since the Sexual Revolution, liberals have been on a path of species self-destruction. Through their “enlightened” policies over the past 40 – 50 years, they have quite literally managed to socially engineer themselves into obscurity.

In another 20 years it is quite possible that Liberals will no longer be able to drive the national conversation, because they will have ceased to be relevant. They will have become just another minority; they are already well on their way down that path.

Over the past 40+ years, the cult of liberalism has shunned traditional religion in favor of their own Holy Trinity – Free Love, Reproductive Rights, and the crown jewel of them all, Abortion. Ironically, they don’t realize that by their very actions they have become just one more species that is driving itself to extinction.

.

.
Those of us who have been watching from the sidelines are starting to see the very real results of this ongoing social experiment. While it has been disastrous for their side, I think that those of us who have stood firm against their attempt to remake society are about to see our patience rewarded.

Prior to the 1970′s, most couples got married young and started having babies, just like men and women had been doing for thousands of years before them. Prior to the discovery of antibiotics, the spectre of venereal diseases kept people from engaging in risky sexual behavior. If a couple remained chaste before marriage, there was no danger of becoming infected with a potentially fatal disease.
.

.
When birth control pills came on the scene, for the first time in history couples had more than a couple of options if they wanted to delay starting a family. At the time, it seemed like a good thing for society – women were encouraged to go to college, get a degree, and have a career. Many couples began to put off getting married until they were older and in a better financial situation.

In 1978, the first “test tube baby” was born, and that technology gave many infertile couples the hope that they might finally be able to have a child of their own. And whereas before women had been encouraged to “not wait too long” to start having children, as IVF technology improved, people started to think that it was OK to put off starting a family – after all, if all else failed, everyone assumed that a couple could just help nature along with the assistance of a petri dish and a turkey baster.

It has only been recently that a large amount of data has been available about womens’ fertility, but the sad fact of the matter is that it is harder to get pregnant as a woman ages. The number of viable eggs declines over time as well (increasing the chance of miscarriage or birth defects). By the age of 35, the biological clock starts ticking with a vengeance.

Unfortunately, by putting off starting a family until they are older, many couples – if they are able to have children at all – find that they are only able to have one or two before Mother Nature steps in and closes up shop. Meanwhile, the couples who have kids when they are younger are often able to have 3 or more children.

.

.
Instead of having children when they were 18, 19, or 20, many couples started waiting until they were 25, 30, or 35. The most well-educated, enlightened, and socially liberal among the first generation of this movement were oftentimes the ones putting marriage and family off the longest.

What they failed to take into account, however, was that many of their conservative peers – most of them just as well-educated and enlightened – were getting married and starting families while they were still in their 20s.

By the time liberal couples got around to starting their families at 30 or 35, many more of their conservative counterparts already had 2 or 3 children of their own, having started their families 10-15 years earlier.

While liberal couples were busy potty-training their children, conservatives’ children were entering high school and/or college. By the time liberal couples’ children were starting elementary/middle school, many conservative couples’ children were entering the work force, getting married, and starting their own families.

.

.

Let’s take two hypothetical ladies, Julia and Jane – both born in 1950, and both on the front lines of the women’s movement:

Julia takes the message of the women’s movement to heart. She puts off getting married, and doesn’t have her first daughter until the age of 30 (1980). She has one more child (2 kids).

Her first daughter puts off getting married until she is 30 (2010), puts off trying to have a baby another couple of years, has to go through several IVF cycles, and finally has her first daughter at the age of 35 (2015). She is unable to have any more children; her sibling is able to have 2 children (3 grandkids).

By the time Julia is 70 years old, only 2 generations have been completed, and the Women’s Movement only has 5 more Liberals to show for it.
.

Hillary Clinton - b. 1947, m. 1975; 1 child (b.1980), no grandchildren

.
Jane, on the other hand, gets married at the age of 20 and has a daughter a year later (1971), then 2 more children (3 kids).

Her daughter grows up, gets married at the age of 20, and has a daughter a year later (1992), then 2 more children. Jane’s other children also have 3 children apiece (9 grandkids).

The first granddaughter grows up, gets married at 20 (2012), and has a daughter a year later (2013), then 2 more children after that. Each of Jane’s grandchildren has 3 children apiece (27 great-grandkids).

By the time Jane is 70 years old, there are 3 “complete” generations, and the country has gained 39 more Conservatives.
.

Ann Romney - b. 1949, m. 1969; 5 children (b. 1970-1981); 18 grandchildren

.
Like it or not, it is a woman’s biology which drives this whole equation, since only women are capable of getting pregnant. All of the “liberation” in the world will never be able to change that evolutionary fact.

We may never know how many children were never born as the result of the Pill, but we DO know how many were never born as the result of abortion, thanks to the studious recordkeeping of the folks of the Guttmacher Institute (the Heinrich Himmler arm of Planned Parenthood).

Since 1973, over 50 million abortions have been performed in this country. Given that the majority of abortion advocates tend to self-identify as socially liberal, I think that we can safely assume that most of those unborn children would have been raised in socially liberal households and would have gone on to vote for primarily Democrat candidates.

.

Projected number of US births by 2050, with and without legal abortion

.

So, what does 40 years of legal abortion mean for the future of the liberal movement (and by extension, the Democrat party)?

The population of this country – according to the 2010 US Census – was 308.7 million.
The number of people determined to be old enough to vote in 2010 was 229.7 million.

Any citizen born by November 6, 1994 is eligible to vote in the 2012 Presidential election.
The number of abortions performed between 1973 and 1994 was 31.4 million.

Unfortunately for the Democrats, none of those unborn children will be voting this year.
.

COMMENTS

  • Cornholio

    I hear what you’re saying, but I don’t think a person’s political philosophy automatically passes to his/her offspring. Especially, for example, in cases of divorce where the politics of the divorcing spouses are more likely to be in conflict, or where the child grows up with no philosophical leadership.

    That’s probably why Liberalism relies so heavily on post-secondary education (e.g. colleges and universities). Without a core family structure to pass along traditional conservative values, children often face these questions for the first time in college, where the Liberal academia is more than ready to fill the vacuum left by the child’s upbringing.

    • http://teresainfortworth.wordpress.com/ Teresa in Fort Worth, TX

      Kind of like our current President.

      Most conservatives value unborn life; I would imagine most of their kids are raised to value it as well.

      If someone aborts a baby, it really doesn’t matter what their political leanings are – they won’t be “passing” them along. The unborn child will obviously never have any children.

      • avagreen

        I’ve seen your posts on….HotAir? You make much sense.

        • avagreen

          I’ve lived in the HEB area and in Arlington in the past. We were neighbors. At one time.
          :)

        • http://teresainfortworth.wordpress.com/ Teresa in Fort Worth, TX

          I do hop in on the comments every once in a while, though….

          They haven’t banned me yet :P

          • http://teresainfortworth.wordpress.com/ Teresa in Fort Worth, TX

            We live near downtown FTW, so all of the former “bedroom” communities are just a hop, skip, and a jump from where we are –

            If you’re ever out this way again, give me a heads-up; we’d love to take you to dinner!

    • demsaresatanic

      and no such claim was made in the article, that is a strawman argument. Political predispositions do appear to be genetically transferred to a significant degree, as confirmed by studies of siblings raised in different home environments.

    • adair

      conservatives’ children were starting high school or even college.

      But the problem is that the conservative kids went on to start businesses or go to work in a productive industry that enlarged to provide jobs for even more folks.

      When the liberals’ kids finally made it through school, they became teachers and professors and were able to begin brainwashing the conservatives’ grandchildren.

      Our daughter went away to school listening to Rush Limbaugh. After her several degrees in psychology and social work, she’s a far-left Dem. I regularly rend my garments over our failure as parents.

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    During the subcommittee hearing, Rep. Tim Murphy (R-Pa.) said that contraception provided by insurance companies to people employed by religious organizations under the future form of the rule Sebelius described would not be was not free.

    • http://teresainfortworth.wordpress.com/ Teresa in Fort Worth, TX

      I had to ask them how much we were going to be expected to pay for their fertility treatments when they couldn’t get pregnant at 35.

      How much we were going to be expected to pay for their high-risk pregnancy at that age.

      How much we were going to be expected to pay if their babies ended up – like so many babies born to older mothers – needing more neonatal care due to prematurity or birth defects.

      Amazingly, they didn’t respond back…..

      • teaforme2012

        I was under the impression that fertility treatments are usually out of pocket costs for most families, since insurance won’t cover it. Are you saying that’s not the case? I always assumed that older families usually had insurance in the event of high risk pregnancies, and were at least part of the risk pool.

        My understanding was that younger couples were less likely to have coverage, so society got stuck with this tab more often, and that higher divorce rates among young parents were more likely to lead to higher poverty and crime rates, bringing more costs to society. Less likely to vote, too. Or is that just more of a inner city statistic and not the case in the Christian pockets of conservatism? (Not even sure how many inner city teen marriages there are. I’m betting very few.)

        • http://teresainfortworth.wordpress.com/ Teresa in Fort Worth, TX

          and what “tab” are you talking about? Paying for “birth control”? Last time I checked, condoms are plenty cheap, and they protect couples from STDs as well.

          And why should society have to pay for single mens’ offspring? Why not force them to pay if they want to play?

          The “women’s movement” was only good for young men.
          Women got a raw deal…..

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            Nt

          • teaforme2012

            I wasn’t even talking about birth control. I was talking about Medicaid and Social Services picking up the tab for the thousands it costs to have a baby in a hospital without insurance. You’d be surprised how much the taxpayer gets stuck with by the uninsured. Hospitals just pass those costs along, and it’s much more than the cost insurance companies pay for the same services. Our efficient government at work.

            Also, insurance companies never complain about paying for contraception because it keeps their birthing costs low! They would probably make birth control free for everyone if they could do it without backlash!!

          • http://teresainfortworth.wordpress.com/ Teresa in Fort Worth, TX

            I know it sounds heartless, but if hospitals weren’t required to take every patient that walked in their doors, people would be finding a way to insure themselves.

            Last time I looked, “abstinence” is completely free of charge.

            And there is no such thing as “free” when it comes to insurance companies – they roll those costs into the cost of their premiums and pass the cost along to the consumer.

            People really need to understand HOW “insurance” works…..

    • http://teresainfortworth.wordpress.com/ Teresa in Fort Worth, TX

      It’s obvious she hasn’t given this any thought beyond the amount of power that her party is going to wield.

      She isn’t going to be HHS Secretary much longer – but none of these idiots seem able to think more than a couple of days in advance.

      And they always think that things are going to fall into place exactly the way that they envision them.

  • demsaresatanic

    Maybe that is what she meant.

    • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

      More likely she’s into population control.

      Besides, imagine the jobs and wealth those unborn babies might have created. We’ll never know, will we?

      • demsaresatanic

        and birth control for Republicans from the America hating Christian hating leftist scum.

  • teaforme2012

    all those older liberal parents are likely to be living in metropolitan areas of blue states and paying higher taxes. God bless ‘em, the clueless lefty patriots!!

    The Obamas are perfect examples of this liberal, “wait until you get your career going before you marry and have kids” mentality. You know those two Obama girls aren’t going to marry anytime soon–not until they’ve gone the Chelsea Clinton path of college, graduate school and partnership at Goldman. Does Chelsea have a baby yet? I don’t think so! You can just feel the elitist contempt dripping from any liberal when they talk about Bristol Palin and her decision to bring a child into her family at a young age.

    • http://teresainfortworth.wordpress.com/ Teresa in Fort Worth, TX

      So Hilary has contributed a grand total of 1 voter to the Liberal side.

      Ann Romney has contributed 23 (and counting) to the Conservative cause.

      Like I said, they won’t ever be able to catch up…..

      • PowerToThePeople

        and he rolled over and opened his eyes.

        Yuck………

        Alcohol consumption only blinds you for so long.

      • teaforme2012

        No wonder Obama is so anxious to bring illegal Hispanics onto the voting rolls. We need more Ann Romneys out there!

        • http://teresainfortworth.wordpress.com/ Teresa in Fort Worth, TX

          But the Romneys just welcomed grandchildren #17 and #18 – I’m guessing that all of those grandkids will grow up to vote Conservative, and all of them will have children of their own (who will also vote Conservative).

          As with investing, starting families early “pays off” big-time in the future. And the more money you save/kids you have early on, the larger your return down the line.

          And you can bet that I am starting to point this out – with a GREAT deal of glee – on as many liberal sites as I can….. :P

          • teaforme2012

            I made a similar point about Mormons once and was reminded by a cynical GOP friend that it took quite a few elections before Mitt Romney started voting conservative!