Simply put, liberals/progressives are the ones who, IMO, are going to utilize these services the most. So, yeah, the fewer babies they get to raise, and the earlier we can stop them from voting, the better. On the conservative side we have the Duggars and highly religious people breeding like crazy and clinging to life for every breath they can take – which puts and keeps more conservatives in the voting pool longer.
So, as a pragmatic political matter, I say let ’em abort their young and kill themselves off to their heart’s content.
In full, in case he comes to his senses:
“Simply put, liberals/progressives are the ones who, IMO, are going to utilize these services the most. So, yeah, the fewer babies they get to raise, and the earlier we can stop them from voting, the better. On the conservative side we have the Duggars and highly religious people breeding like crazy and clinging to life for every breath they can take – which puts and keeps more conservatives in the voting pool longer.
So, as a pragmatic political matter, I say let ’em abort their young and kill themselves off to their heart’s content.”
You should limit access to education also, William – that’s a large factor in voting.
Nice role model William.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/duggars-sex-shocker-19-kids-6035851
I think conservatives and the religious are developing a means to bypass the institutionalized progressive narrative in academia. The more the left aborts and euthanizes themselves, the quicker the conservative alternatives will flourish.
I wonder if there’s really a strong correlation between people who sign/arrange for health care proxies or Do Not Resuscitate orders and voting tendencies. I kind of doubt it, but I don’t know.
lol
I had a somewhat different piece in mind. But this will do.
Obviously a disproportionate number of males in a Duggar-type.; family are going to turn out to be casual rapists and/or child sex-abusers. Their boys and girls are raised from infancy totally surrounded in a subculture which considers females “property” and all children “willful” creatures who must be broken and tamed in order to grow up to be happy and submissive to the male head of the family and to god the father. Boys are taught that sexual desires are shameful but that if they give in, the girl was really at fault because “she tempted him”. A quiver-full-type family’s girl child is taught that she is always at risk for not being sufficiently modest and that if someone abuses her, she must reconcile with the abuser in a spirit of love.
Abortion is a tough call at a personal level. Each time mom was pregnant with my sisters she was extremely sick, especially with one of them. Pharma companies refuse to develop drugs for hyperemesis because of the liability issues for a misfire (Thalidomide being the worst example), and mom had such a bad case that the 3rd world Doctors treating mom (they lived in the 3rd world at the time) recommended an abortion to save Mom’s life (she could not eat). Since it was such a late stage pregnancy, they told Dad they’d have to basically dismember his daughter in the womb to extract her. I suspect Mom and Dad could already feel my sister kicking in the womb. My parents couldn’t bare the thought…
The Catholic priest said dismissively “let them both die.” Mom and Dad had permanently low view of the clergy from that point on, but they prayed anyway and decided to risk both Mom and daughter’s life. They both survived and my sister became a medical professional. They believed it was miraculous they survived and hence there was a strong religious viewpoint in my family thereafter.
All this to say, I have compassion on certain abortion cases. I have compassion on Euthanasia cases. Though I’m against such things personally, I hope I never have to be confronted making that call. It feels in such cases, every decision made could result in some regret, there is a risk there will be no satisfying outcome whatever one decides.
The only exception is when waiting things out to let the cards fall where they will, like Mom and Dad did, and you get dealt a good hand which you didn’t expect.
That’s a lovely, balanced response Sal,
Thanks.
The difference there, I think, Richard, is that William is looking not strictly for RULES or top-down strategies that would produce voting results he’d like (for that he could just exterminate various races, ethnic groups, religions, etc. as well as cut down on education availability). He’s looking for stuff that will make the results more to his liking based on what he predicts the populace will (voluntarily) do to itself.
But as I said, I’m not convinced. I mean, Catholics will oppose euthanasia, presumably, but that’s not a particularly conservative block, AFAIK.
I see opportunity for you William. Partner with the Discovery Institute and start the “William J. Murray unaccredited institute for kids who don’t want to learn the truth and stuff”.
It will ensure a healthy stream of of line-level unskilled workers to pander to the liberal elites.
A particularly odious group in California: “My imaginary friend thinks you should suffer, and I’m going to force that on you before you go to hell”.
walto:
I’m looking at an issue that exists, and asking: what position on this issue would most likely benefit me? I’m not encouraging anyone to kill their unborn or take their own lives, but hey, if they want to, and they’re probably my political opponents, why should I stand in their way?
Guano?
Yeah, and they’ve got a couple of Catholic vicious scumwads on the Supreme Court on their side, too.
God cannot possibly call Alito home soon enough.
You’ll be dead before that slow mechanism could work if it did work.
hotshoe_,
You’re welcome, and thanks for the kind words.
Coming soon: William On Gun Control – let the conservative fuckers shoot ’emselves, I’ll supply the arms. Or maybe not.
Yeah, sad truth spoken in jest. Even taking into account the horrible numbers of innocent victims of armed terrorists like Dylann Roof, the gun owners are far more in danger from the guns in their own homes than the rest of us are. (Accidental gunshot, suicide by gun, and “home protection” guns being taken and then used by criminals, all directly correlated with personal ownership of guns and storing guns in their homes.)
Of course gun ownership doesn’t fall only on one side of the conservative/liberal or red/blue divide. But given how the wacko rightwingers have been buying up guns and ammo since Obama was elected, I bet they’ve got ten times their share by now. That would mean they’ve got ten times the self-endangerment and ten times the chance to wipe out their whole families in a drunken rage.
Ya know it would be funny if it weren’t so sad.
Is there any evidence that “liberals” are actually more likely to get abortions or request euthanasia than “conservatives”?
Finally. A thread at TSZ that I can just completely ignore. More time for me to read a book!
Not for abortion, I haven’t looked at any studies of euthanasia.
Conservative religious denominations are formally against euthanasia but that doesn’t mean their congregants believe or obey the church rules when they actually have the option in the civil world.
Church-attending Catholics in the US have the same average number of living children as non-catholic families do. They’re using birth control (medical and surgical, not just “natural family planning”) and having abortions (in non-catholic clinics and hospitals, obviously) basically at the same rate as non-catholics do.
Catholics aren’t the most socially-conservative religious group but their willingness/ability to stand against “big family will of god” specified dogma is evidence of the unlikeliness of the long-term success of WJM’s quiver-full conservatives-outbreed project.
Without looking deeper, I’m willing to bet that the politically/religiously conservative folks are just as willing to act on their own consciences in regards to euthanasia as they are on birth control and abortion. Maybe more so, because dignity in dying is something which everyone can empathize with: they might need it themselves some day. And choosing death with dignity cannot by any stretch of the imagination be said to have a “victim”, unlike the propaganda against abortion.
The churches aren’t going to win euthanasia in the long run.
The OP (while I realise not entirely serious) betrays the common misunderstanding that simply producing more offspring, or killing fewer, will automatically lead to increase in frequency. One only has to look at clutch size in birds, for example, to see that it is not so simple. Stretching resources to cover too many offspring is not a good strategy. Evolutionary ‘strategies’ are about optimisation, not maximisation.
Wjm:
I’m not encouraging anyone to kill their unborn or take their own lives, but hey, if they want to, and they’re probably my political opponents, why should I stand in their way?
Maybe the Obamas were thinking the same thing when they started the push for healthier eating as well. I heard Obama was going to come out with warnings not to eat Drano just before the next election.
That long run might not take very long. It’s crunch time for baby boomers, and there are enough of them to have effects on the politics.
Well, not really, William. Consider your OP.
Moved one post to Guano, though.
For pete’s sake someone post an interesting OP. Unfortunately I’m up to the ears in RL right now.
Indeed.
Actually, you’ll have a well-armed conservative demographic vs an unarmed progressive demographic. I like the way that works out, too.
About time for boomers to finally earn their keep. 🙂
Having recently watched my father die, not as comfortably as he could have done had not the Shipman case made hospitals overly rigid about morphine delivery doses, it does seem idiotic that you can’t have as much help to die as you can have to give birth.
Afterwards, the lovely doctor (all the staff were lovely) looked in to see us, and I thanked, him, and actually said, “you were a good midwife”. But he could have been better.
My father had turned down the offer of dialysis on the Sunday, so it was only going to be a matter of a day or two before he died. He was an anaesthetist. I couldn’t help thinking that this really should be a job for anaesthetists – to ease the process of dying, as an epidural eases the process of birth.
There’s no good reason, religious or otherwise, that I can see, for not.
William J. Murray,
Shame you’re not in charge of the world, really.
I never know how serious William is being. I mean, I’m not taking his OP seriously, but some of his other things have me scratching my head.
Yeah, and we aren’t known for putting up with stuff. We will demand a comfortable death, I think.
I want champagne for mine.
Not really. Just think of those millions of unborn likely-to-be-progressives pre-emptively removed from the system by their progressive mamas. Also, considering that progressives aren’t nearly as likely to have children anyway, and a large percentage of them don’t seem likely to be having their own children at all, things look pretty good for a libertarian/conservative renaissance in the near future.
I’ve done my part 🙂 – 6 children, 12 grandchildren. My genetic line is just more evolutionary fit than any 3 average progressives combined.
I was going to ask you whether you had children, William! You are certainly doing better than our family. My parents had four children, but there are only four grand children. and no great-grandchildren in sight (could be some out of sight I guess).
The only issue is – are you confident that political affiliation is heritable?
William J. Murray,
Nah. One generation is hardly sufficient to tell. Darwin had 10, btw.
Oh yeah, we just had our first great-grandchild 3 months ago 🙂
So far, so good. Only one semi-progressive in the lot, and even she is mostly libertarian.
Congratulations!
ETA: that was for the great grandchild. Not so sure I should be congratulating you on a libertarian…
William J. Murray,
That’s good. You’ll save on ammo, at least!
Wjm:
Actually, you’ll have a well-armed conservative demographic vs an unarmed progressive demographic. I like the way that works out, too.
That is why the Middle East is a conservative paradise
It is trivially easy to demonstrate that human reproduction rates correlate most strongly with 1) standard of living, and 2) level of education. It is also relatively trivial to demonstrate that the political orientation of parents, given 1) and 2), is not a good long term predictor of the political orientation of their offspring.
If the premise is that the offspring of conservatives are more likely to be themselves conservative (and the converse), I would say this is a pretty dubious assertion, though it depends on the semantics of the term “conservatism”, I suppose.
On the other hand, if the premise is that politics is heritable, I would expect at least some corpus of experimental results for it to be worth considering.
First they argue that by and large, whatever religion you’re born and raised in, you stay. When that argument doesn’t look so good for the progressives when it comes to politics, then, well .. maybe not …
I’m only a fiscal conservative. Socially, I’m libertarian. I’m all for letting people kill themselves, their unborn offspring, and engage in any sort of private self-destructive and/or self-degrading behavior they want. In fact, I think we should raise “personhood” status to the age of 18, meaning you can be aborted by your parents all the way up to age 18.
Now that would solve a lot of social problems.
But then the book started dealing with issues like abortion and euthanasia. I can’t win.
The only study I can remember seeing on that indicated that the correlation between parents going/not-going to church and kids doing the same was pretty low, but IF both generations went, the chance of the church being the same was quite high.
Firstly, who is “they” in your first sentence?
Secondly, the argument doesn’t seem to hold true on the basis of the figures. The proportion of people self-identifying with the religion of their parents in Western Europe (and in Australia) has collapsed over the past fifty years. Even in the USA, the “nones” are a rising proportion of the whole. Evidently, the opium is no longer completely addictive.
Thirdly, as reproductive rates correlate most strongly with education and living standards, AND it is possible to lift both of these factors in the lives of all children, one should tentatively conclude the opposite of your argument. Future generations are likely to be irreligious, politically progressive and more reproductively responsible.
ETA: edited for completeness
And yet, society becomes more liberal as it and time progresses. What is William missing?
It seems hard for him to consistently distinguish between what is the case and what he’d like to be the case. He might even agree, or indicate that what he’d like to be the case is more important to him, but I’m actually not sure. As I’ve said, I find that position incoherent.