Tully Borland’s dopey essay gets a D-minus

A markup of the essay by Tully Borland appearing in The Federalist

I am going to argue for the very unpopular, even shocking, view that, even if Roy Moore did what he is accused of doing, Alabamans are within their rights to vote for him, and they shouldn’t let Democrats and Never Trumpers shame them into not voting.
Here Borland says “even if” Moore dated teenagers, and in the very next paragraph, says he DID date them. Which is it?

Here is one thing we know and should admit from the start: in his early thirties, Moore had a penchant for dating teenagers. Apparently, this was not an uncommon occurrence during this time. 
I love the weasel phrasing here. “Apparently?” Based on what evidence was it acceptable in the 1970s and 1980s for older men to troll the malls for teenagers? 

In fact, this practice has a long history and is not without some merit if one wants to raise a large family.
This reference goes to a study of the Sami people in Finland hundreds of years ago. The study is not applicable today because it focuses on the evolutionary fitness of a people who had no access to sophisticated health care.

To have a large family, the wife must start having kids when she is young.
The key here is “how young” and “what is a large family.” A woman who gives first birth at age 30 is certainly capable having five children before her fertile years are over. This does not justify the pursuit of 14-year-olds. 

The husband needs to be well-established and able to support the family, in which case he will typically need to marry when older.
Maybe, but lots of husbands make good money while in their 20s. And there’s still no justification here for targeting 14-year-olds.

Consider Keith Burgess-Jackson’s (philosophy professor at UT Arlington) account of his own grandparents:
Here we get anecdotal evidence that (of course!) supports Borland’s point.  He could have found other anecdotal evidence of teenage brides being horribly abused.

By now this essay is already too full of holes to be taken seriously, but in the next paragraphs Borland weasels again, saying maybe the charges against Moore aren’t credible. A few sentences later, the charges become credible again:

There is no sugar-coating what he did. Moore was a dirt bag and is currently lying about his actions rather than confessing the truth and asking for forgiveness.

After a few paragraphs of wishy-washy blather, he goes on to attack Moore’s rival, Doug Jones:

Jones has gone on record that not only does he support abortion, but he supports unrestricted abortion, even opposing a ban on abortion after 20 weeks. This is morally equivalent to supporting infanticide. So either Jones knows exactly what he’s doing in supporting killing babies in utero but doesn’t care, in which case he’s a moral monster, or his moral compass is in such need of calibration that one should never trust his judgment in moral matters. Politics, of course, is inextricably bound with such matters.
Abortion opponents have a right to their views, but exaggerating doesn’t help. It is not “equivalent to infanticide.”

Why are no Republicans or Democrats calling for Jones to step aside if not for the fact that they are really not that serious about the immorality of supporting infanticide in the womb? If Moore should step aside, so should Jones. Of course there is another alternative, one that I support: Elect Moore and support the Senate not giving him a seat. This would bring about another special election.
There’s more to his argument but it boils down to the “lesser of two evils.” Here he calls for Alabamians to elect Moore, “a liar and a dirt bag” and then somehow hope the Senate won’t seat him.