Comments on: White Birth Rates And The Red/Blue Divide

By: Carl

Carl — Sun, 19 Dec 2004 20:21:43 +0000

There was a fascinating study about two weeks ago, I can’t remember the site, which talked about the number of abortions over the past 30 years, and their propensity to vote. It showed, (obviously these numbers have to be taken with a grain of salt), that abortion numbers are far skewed towards Democrats, and, in Florida for example, thousands of presumed Kerry voters never got that chance, as they were aborted. It is somewhat frightening to note, that of all the Western Nato nations, the only one with a positive birthrate today are the red Bush states.

By: Ken

Ken — Thu, 16 Dec 2004 17:34:18 +0000

don’t they also have more divorces? why is that?

By: DarkStar

DarkStar — Thu, 16 Dec 2004 01:30:19 +0000

Didn’t that run contrary to the recent studies that showed that the most wealthy in 04 overwhelmingly gave to Kerry and voted Democrat?

Actually, if I remember correctly, the top voted for Bush, the near top, Kerry. But this is more than Bush or Kerry, it’s Republican and Democrat.

By: Robert

Robert — Wed, 15 Dec 2004 21:50:09 +0000

I wonder what happens with Sailer’s numbers if you factor in adoptions and not just biological biths? I’m an adoptive parent and anecdotally, it seems like most of our adoptive-parent friends are also pretty politically (and often religiously) conservative. Many also tend to subscribe to the large-family ideal, adoption being an option if they are infertile or too old to have biological children.

By: The Pryhills

The Pryhills — Wed, 15 Dec 2004 15:51:50 +0000

Carnival of the Vanities #117
Welcome to the 117th Carnival of the Vanities! With the holiday shopping season in full swing, I’ll be taking you folks on a trip to the Carnival of the Vanities Mall to get your weekly ration of rich, bloggy goodnessTM….

By: Chris Roberts

Chris Roberts — Wed, 15 Dec 2004 06:10:38 +0000

DS- Didn’t that run contrary to the recent studies that showed that the most wealthy in 04 overwhelmingly gave to Kerry and voted Democrat?

By: DarkStar

DarkStar — Wed, 15 Dec 2004 00:21:18 +0000

One of the vdare articles.

By: Stephen

Stephen — Tue, 14 Dec 2004 22:21:46 +0000

My primary beef with Sailer is not that he is a “racist” but that he’s an evolutionist, and uses the framework of that theory as the basis for his assertion of racial differences. My rejection of his theory is that I subscribe to the Scripture which plainly states in Acts 17:26 “And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings,…”
We are bound by a common humanity based in our creation by a common Creator. As human beings we are all truly made in the image of God. That invests every human being with a worth so surpassing that God the Son gave his own life for some in every racial group on Earth.
Further, IQ is not the ultimate gauge of a person’s worth. Sailer seems inordinately preoccupied with discussions of IQ and the black/white gap, in my opinion. His website is replete with references to The Bell Curve, notices as deferential as some held The Origin of Species (using the short title here, I know).
He quotes Thomas Sowell in one article to support his own contention but admitted that Sowell thinks many racial differences are the result of cultural influences whereas Sailer thinks they are genetic.
Note that I am NOT dismissing Mr. Sailer out of hand; I’m simply saying that as a Christian, I have to be completely aware of the bases for his positions and upon examination, I find them to be wholly contradictory to the Word of God.

By: michael

michael — Tue, 14 Dec 2004 20:24:51 +0000

The data is very interesting. Why is reporting on it racist? I don’t purport to know exactly what it means, but to categorize reporting it as racist seems, well–bigoted– to me. I guess reporting that a preponderance of white clouds in the sky indicates fair weather and a preponderance of dark clouds indicates foul weather is racist then? TILL: Typical Idiotic Liberal Logic.

Anyway, once you have kids you tend to value children at a much greater level than you did before, including those that are unborn. When it comes to raising your own children you become less willing to use them as social experiments to prove a point, so you opt for more traditional methods that have been proven over time. And when it comes to protecting your children’s well being, it supercedes race, politics, location, economics, etc. So once people have children, all preconceptions are off the table and the most paramount thing in the world becomes that child’s overall welfare.

And that is best done in red state areas. And many former liberals are proving that with their feet, as the red states grow and the blue states contract.

By: RepJ

RepJ — Tue, 14 Dec 2004 15:34:59 +0000

If your daughter doesn’t want the government expecting results from her and using tests to figure out said results, then she should be against the government owning the education system overall.

By: Charles

Charles — Tue, 14 Dec 2004 10:41:39 +0000

Maybe I overlooked this in someone else’s comment, but did not see what I think is obvious. People with kids voted against liberal trends in marriage and abortion that the Dem’s represented. i.e., What kind of country do you want your child growing-up in? It seems the whole election was what someone was voting against, not for. For example my daughter, a teacher, voted against the Republican “no child left behind” education reforms.

By: SCSIwuzzy

SCSIwuzzy — Tue, 14 Dec 2004 04:44:45 +0000

Where did they posit that the wealthy are more likely to be republican?

By: DarkStar

DarkStar — Tue, 14 Dec 2004 03:42:49 +0000

Interesting.

Vdare.com is complaining that U.S. whites are having less babies, overall, then other races in the U.S. They go further to say that wealthy whites have less kids than poorer whites, that wealthy Blacks have less kids than poorer Blacks, etc. They posit that since the wealthy are more likely to be Republican leaning, wealthy whites should have more kids.

By: RepJ

RepJ — Tue, 14 Dec 2004 03:13:16 +0000

How come when a white person tries to explain scientific differences in races by trying to come up with scientific explanations for such differences, he gets accused of eugenics and racism?

As for white women’s birth rates and such, I have endometriosis and so do alot of other women. IT’s something else he should look into.

By: Andy

Andy — Tue, 14 Dec 2004 02:57:24 +0000

SCSI Who’d thunk culture w/o God=culture of death and fear