Abortion: a problem too useful to solve

[TheTrueCentrist]

I propose that the reason abortion hasn’t been definitively dealt with over the past 40 years is that the usefulness of the abortion *debate * itself is too great. Pro life organizations are incredibly numerous and bring in millions of dollars to religious causes. There is a whole industry built up around the cause, from newspapers to pro-life insurance. The abortion debate is also a useful political cudgel, it allows both sides to present abortion as a lynchpin issue to ensure voters that may otherwise be undecided vote for them. Not to mention abortion’s ability to drive up voter turnout. Pro-choice organizations are more successful in soliciting donations for their cause when they can raise the specter of “anti-choice” organizations. Abortion providers get free publicity every time a protest happens at one of their locations.

Because of these factors, both sides have incentives to not actually resolve the debate, which explains why nothing decisive has happened on the abortion front since Roe V. Wade.

 

[Operalan]

Rubbish!

 

[buffalo]

Your argument pales to the 35 Trillion dollars in economic loss due to abortion to the US.

 

[couponfit]

I propose that the reason abortion hasn’t been definitively dealt with over the past 40 years is that the usefulness of the abortion *debate * itself is too great. Pro life organizations are incredibly numerous and bring in millions of dollars to religious causes. There is a whole industry built up around the cause, from newspapers to pro-life insurance. The abortion debate is also a useful political cudgel, it allows both sides to present abortion as a lynchpin issue to ensure voters that may otherwise be undecided vote for them. Not to mention abortion’s ability to drive up voter turnout. Pro-choice organizations are more successful in soliciting donations for their cause when they can raise the specter of “anti-choice” organizations. Abortion providers get free publicity every time a protest happens at one of their locations.

Because of these factors, both sides have incentives to not actually resolve the debate, which explains why nothing decisive has happened on the abortion front since Roe V. Wade.

It’s a debate. If abortion was illegal, it would still be a debate. It’s a debate because even in nations where it is illegal, there are still many abortions, sometimes at higher rates than in the US.

 

[thomass]

Taking a systemic perspective in the search for the failure of either side to make any “progress” in this most central issue of our times is wise and, I believe, the only way forward. That money and votes are at stake is relavent and, no doubt, partially to blame. It has always seemed to me that the Republican party has benefited the most from this situation in that by co-opting the abortion issue they guarantee votes from the Pro-life faction without any need for results. Similarly, Democrats ensure the support of pro-abortion voters as long as they can maintain the illusion of fighting off the “right-wing” evangelicals who want to impose their religious views on the rest of us." Neither “side” need do much more than that to continue to ensure support. As such, I believe, it would be counter-productive for politicians to actually support anything that would achieve movement. So, as you have pointed out, there are systemic reasons to maintain the status quo.
However, because I believe that the solution to this issue does not lie in the political realm, I do not put much stock in the politicians in the first place. In fact our failure to find common ground on this issue is precisely because our entire “strategy” has been a political and legal strategy. Doomed to fail from the get-go.

 

[Kasama]

I propose that the reason abortion hasn’t been definitively dealt with over the past 40 years is that the usefulness of the abortion *debate * itself is too great. Pro life organizations are incredibly numerous and bring in millions of dollars to religious causes. There is a whole industry built up around the cause, from newspapers to pro-life insurance. The abortion debate is also a useful political cudgel, it allows both sides to present abortion as a lynchpin issue to ensure voters that may otherwise be undecided vote for them. Not to mention abortion’s ability to drive up voter turnout. Pro-choice organizations are more successful in soliciting donations for their cause when they can raise the specter of “anti-choice” organizations. Abortion providers get free publicity every time a protest happens at one of their locations.

Because of these factors, both sides have incentives to not actually resolve the debate, which explains why nothing decisive has happened on the abortion front since Roe V. Wade.

Someday the murdering of babies will be overturned, just as the enslavement of African Americans was overturned in the Dred Scott case. Even though slaves were useful, just as you suggest abortion is useful, science eventually prevails, and people will see that babies are human. Recall that the Dred Scott case established that African Americans could be slaves because the Supreme Court determined that they were not human and should not have rights. We learn as science progresses, for example people thought Columbus was insane because he was going to sail off the edge of the earth, but now science has shown us that the world is round. Its just a matter of time before people recognize that babies are human.

 

[St_Francis]

It’s a debate. If abortion was illegal, it would still be a debate. It’s a debate because even in nations where it is illegal, there are still many abortions, sometimes at higher rates than in the US.

FYI: these numbers tend to be gross exaggerations put out by people who support abortion’s being legal(ized).

 

[St_Francis]

Your argument pales to the 35 Trillion dollars in economic loss due to abortion to the US.

Politicians tend not to look further than the next election so rarely mention the long-term effects of anything unless it will help them win.

I propose that the reason abortion hasn’t been definitively dealt with over the past 40 years is that the usefulness of the abortion *debate *itself is too great. Pro life organizations are incredibly numerous and bring in millions of dollars to religious causes. There is a whole industry built up around the cause, from newspapers to pro-life insurance. The abortion debate is also a useful political cudgel, it allows both sides to present abortion as a lynchpin issue to ensure voters that may otherwise be undecided vote for them. Not to mention abortion’s ability to drive up voter turnout. Pro-choice organizations are more successful in soliciting donations for their cause when they can raise the specter of “anti-choice” organizations. Abortion providers get free publicity every time a protest happens at one of their locations.

Because of these factors, both sides have incentives to not actually resolve the debate, which explains why nothing decisive has happened on the abortion front since Roe V. Wade.

John Rao in one of his talks explained that the Civita Catolica staff considered the idea of having a Catholic political party and thought that political considerations would overtake moral considerations just as you describe. Those priests suggested instead something similar to what we have now: a pressure group which would pressure *all *political parties to move towards moral solutions to the problems under consideration.

 

[_Abyssinia]

It’s a debate. If abortion was illegal, it would still be a debate. It’s a debate because even in nations where it is illegal, there are still many abortions, sometimes at higher rates than in the US.

Provide some evidence for your claim.

 

[_Abyssinia]

I propose that the reason abortion hasn’t been definitively dealt with over the past 40 years is that the usefulness of the abortion *debate * itself is too great. Pro life organizations are incredibly numerous and bring in millions of dollars to religious causes. There is a whole industry built up around the cause, from newspapers to pro-life insurance. The abortion debate is also a useful political cudgel, it allows both sides to present abortion as a lynchpin issue to ensure voters that may otherwise be undecided vote for them. Not to mention abortion’s ability to drive up voter turnout. Pro-choice organizations are more successful in soliciting donations for their cause when they can raise the specter of “anti-choice” organizations. Abortion providers get free publicity every time a protest happens at one of their locations.

Because of these factors, both sides have incentives to not actually resolve the debate, which explains why nothing decisive has happened on the abortion front since Roe V. Wade.

I think you are undermining the real authenticity of belief and the want for protection for the unborn from many politicians.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I propose that the reason abortion hasn’t been definitively dealt with over the past 40 years is that the usefulness of the abortion *debate * itself is too great. Pro life organizations are incredibly numerous and bring in millions of dollars to religious causes. There is a whole industry built up around the cause, from newspapers to pro-life insurance. The abortion debate is also a useful political cudgel, it allows both sides to present abortion as a lynchpin issue to ensure voters that may otherwise be undecided vote for them. Not to mention abortion’s ability to drive up voter turnout. Pro-choice organizations are more successful in soliciting donations for their cause when they can raise the specter of “anti-choice” organizations. Abortion providers get free publicity every time a protest happens at one of their locations.

Because of these factors, both sides have incentives to not actually resolve the debate, which explains why nothing decisive has happened on the abortion front since Roe V. Wade.

I think it’s a stretch to say prolife politicians are prolife only to gain political support. A totally prolife standpoint is not a majority view, so they’re automatically swimming upstream. Furthermore, being prolife absolutely guarantees the severe hostility of the media, Hollywood and, of course, the Democrats.

Prolife politicians could have it much more comfortable to weasel around with the issue, sort of like the “I’m personally opposed, but…” Dems do. You don’t take the harder road for convenience.

And the real reason why no great prolife progress has been made is due to the election of Barack Obama. Had he been defeated in 2008, there would have been two Republican appointments to the Supreme Court, and a likely prolife majority.

So, blame needs to be placed where blame belongs; on Obama and on those who supported him.

 

[sw85]

I propose that the reason abortion hasn’t been definitively dealt with over the past 40 years is that the usefulness of the abortion *debate * itself is too great. Pro life organizations are incredibly numerous and bring in millions of dollars to religious causes. There is a whole industry built up around the cause, from newspapers to pro-life insurance. The abortion debate is also a useful political cudgel, it allows both sides to present abortion as a lynchpin issue to ensure voters that may otherwise be undecided vote for them. Not to mention abortion’s ability to drive up voter turnout. Pro-choice organizations are more successful in soliciting donations for their cause when they can raise the specter of “anti-choice” organizations. Abortion providers get free publicity every time a protest happens at one of their locations.

Because of these factors, both sides have incentives to not actually resolve the debate, which explains why nothing decisive has happened on the abortion front since Roe V. Wade.

Nothing decisive has happened because nothing decisive is able to happen. This isn’t an issue open to democracy, and that’s by design, and it’s not by the design of pro-lifers.

 

[Khalid]

Someday the murdering of babies will be overturned, just as the enslavement of African Americans was overturned in the Dred Scott case. Even though slaves were useful, just as you suggest abortion is useful, science eventually prevails, and people will see that babies are human. Recall that the Dred Scott case established that African Americans could be slaves because the Supreme Court determined that they were not human and should not have rights. We learn as science progresses, for example people thought Columbus was insane because he was going to sail off the edge of the earth, but now science has shown us that the world is round. Its just a matter of time before people recognize that babies are human.

Everyone knew the earth was round from the time of Aristotle on. The myth of Columbus and the flat earth is just another anti-Catholic canard, although, over time, it’s lost some of it’s anti-Catholic milieu and is no longer as easily understood as referring to the ignorance and sloth of Catholics compared to the intelligence and industry of Calvinists.

 

[Kasama]

Everyone knew the earth was round from the time of Aristotle on. The myth of Columbus and the flat earth is just another anti-Catholic canard, although, over time, it’s lost some of it’s anti-Catholic milieu and is no longer as easily understood as referring to the ignorance and sloth of Catholics compared to the intelligence and industry of Calvinists.

“Letronne insisted that early Christian writers thought the Earth was flat. Though they did not, he was widely quoted for many years.”

washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/busting-a-myth-about-columbus-and-a-flat-earth/2011/10/10/gIQAXszQaL_blog.html

Where does it say in the Bible that we should divide the Church into thousands of denominations? A branch separated from its supporting vine cannot live.

 

[wynnejj]

I propose that the reason -]abortion/-] poverty hasn’t been definitively dealt with over the past 40 years is that the usefulness of the -]abortion/-] poverty *debate * itself is too great. -]Pro life/-] Welfare organizations are incredibly numerous and bring in millions of dollars to religious causes. There is a whole industry built up around the cause, from newspapers to -]pro-life/-] Welfare insurance. The -]abortion/-] poverty debate is also a useful political cudgel, it allows both sides to present -]abortion/-] poverty as a lynchpin issue to ensure voters that may otherwise be undecided vote for them. Not to mention -]abortion’s/-] poverty’s ability to drive up voter turnout. -]Pro-choice/-] Pro-Life organizations are more successful in soliciting donations for their cause when they can raise the specter of -]“anti-choice”/-] “anti-Life” organizations. -]Abortion/-] Welfare providers get free publicity every time a protest happens at one of their locations.

Because of these factors, both sides have incentives to not actually resolve the debate, which explains why nothing decisive has happened on the -]abortion/-] poverty front since Roe V. Wade.

Works both ways, I think. The War for Welfare is at direct odds with the War for Babies.
Maybe not the sentence “Welfare providers get free publicity every time a protest happens at one of their locations.” - not a tactic of Pro-Life.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Works both ways, I think. The War for Welfare is at direct odds with the War for Babies.
Maybe not the sentence “Welfare providers get free publicity every time a protest happens at one of their locations.” - not a tactic of Pro-Life.

Poverty has existed a lot longer than the prospect of a quick and safe abortion, and is quite tangential to the issue of abortion. The poor get the most abortions, and there is a case to be made that not having to provide for as many children can help alleviate poverty. I don’t think you can reasonably make the claim that the two are entirely at odds.

 

[wynnejj]

… The poor get the most abortions, and there is a case to be made that not having to provide for as many children can help alleviate poverty…

You articulate the Planned Parenthood solution…
The War on Poverty is won by a War on Babies.

 

[BobCatholic]

Because of these factors, both sides have incentives to not actually resolve the debate, which explains why nothing decisive has happened on the abortion front since Roe V. Wade.

I say that abortion is a result of dehumanizing a group of the human population, something that is a problem throughout human history.

Unfortunately, you agree with that, so you won’t see my POV.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

I say that abortion is a result of dehumanizing a group of the human population, something that is a problem throughout human history.

Unfortunately, you agree with that, so you won’t see my POV.

I wasn’t talking about why it got started. I was talking about why it has not been resolved.

I can understand you want to make me out to be the “bad guy,” I suppose because being exposed to any statement about abortion that is not a simple elaboration on “abortion is evil” makes you uncomfortable.

 

[BobCatholic]

I wasn’t talking about why it got started. I was talking about why it has not been resolved.

It hasn’t been resolved because there are those who want to gain power at any cost, even at the cost of blood.

I can understand you want to make me out to be the “bad guy,” I suppose because being exposed to any statement about abortion that is not a simple elaboration on “abortion is evil” makes you uncomfortable.

Can’t be a centrist in the abortion debate. Either you think it is OK to dehumanize others or not. Anything else is just unnecessary tap dancing.

I personally believe a society that says nobody has any human rights unless they get permission from one person - such a society is not good.