Liberals have historically supported the theory of evolution as introduced by Charles Darwin, at least on paper. What they haven’t done is embrace any of the conclusions of evolutionary theory for themselves.
Basically, evolution states that animals evolve because the fittest individuals in any group of interbreeding creatures have the best chance of breeding success. More successful breeding means more offspring that contain whatever bits of genetic coding that made the parent fitter. It doesn’t have to mean that the parent was bigger and stronger and more aggressive than others of his/her species. In fact, the ability to hide is often most important. Fitness is only that characteristic that allows the individual to survive long enough to breed more than his/her fellows. This mark of fitness can change rapidly as conditions change. Those individuals who were most fit in a time of plenty may be least fit in a time of drought.
As a general rule, however, any action which tends to interfere with the individual’s ability to produce more offspring is anti-evolutionary. This can be questioned in such cases as wolf-packs when individuals forgo the mating privilege to support a brother or sister, but the result is the same, his or her genes are transmitted to the next generation, even though it wasn’t done directly. But wolf-packs will generally attempt to kill the offspring of other unrelated wolf-packs. Likewise male lions will usually kill all the cubs of the previous king when they take over a pride.
Only with humans has evolution been thrown on its head. Only a foolish human would imagine that fewer children might be better. Only a foolish human would decide that it was somehow proper to have no children at all. The fitter you are, the fewer children you have, how is that pro-evolutionary? Margaret Sanger was wrong about the relative value of the black race, but she was right about how to deal with a perceived threat to one’s own superiority. She started Planned Parenthood precisely to eliminate the black race. She was like the male lion who prefers his own offspring to those of his supposed inferiors. Yet the Democrats very strongly downplay that face of abortion. But how can any species that follows the dictates of evolution stand up and support killing its own children?
It’s not only abortion that is anti-evolutionary. No evolutionary creature will give up its time and effort to support an individual that poses no benefit to its own breeding success. There is no welfare society in the wild kingdom. No other creature leaves out bits of food for unrelated creatures, either of its own species or another. If you see something that looks like it does, you can bet that at the bottom is a benefit to one’s own breeding success. By forcing others to support those who give back no benefit to oneself, or even allowing yourself to be so forced is completely against all evolutionary ideas.
Now, there are individuals in all species that do seem to be anti-evolutionary. But guess what, they don’t breed and soon die out. I do happen to believe that a greater percentage of homosexual humans are genetically built that way. That is one of the reasons why there are so few homosexual members of any species, those who for one reason or another choose to be homosexual, seldom breed and therefore whatever tendency that caused them to be so will die out.