I have touched on this subject in this post. Tech central brings it up again, I am not convinced they are right. The problem with the tech central article is they give some numbers on how the population has changed in certain areas (ie New York and Texas). I see their point more people in a red state. I think that is more of demographic shift not powered by abortion. Until I see average the number of children, average age of birth (for the parents), and average birth rate broken down by party affiliation I will not be convinced by either side.
Lets say that the tech central article is wrong, because of this reason found in this post on the internet: "The abortion changes the timing of birth but not the total number of births."
I think that is a very reasonable statement to counter tech centrals argument, and intuitively makes sense to me.
Moving the time of birth instead of stopping birth. Lets run some simple numbers to show you the effect of changing the time of birth.
|liberal: 1 generation = 30 years||conservative:1 generation = 20 years|
|1 kid in 2004||1 kid in 2004|
|2 kids in 2034||2 kids in 2024|
|4 kids in 2064||4 kids in 2044|
|8 kids in 2094||8 kids in 2064|
|16 kids in 2124||16 kids in 2084|
|32 kids in 2154||32 kids in 2104|
These numbers show that even if liberals have the same birth rate of conservatives, but have children later (this example is extreme), then conservatives will in effect out produce liberals. Though it might take a few hundred years. So while tech central may be right, they are not right for the reason they think they are. While the other guy might be right about abortion not affecting the birth rate, he wrong because of the generational span.
I call this my generational span inequality theory.
As a counter point, the liberals do have a few points in their favor. Some conservatives will join the army and die in a war, which could even up the odds a little bit.
Remember you saw it here first.