I’m on the Illinois Libertarian Republican list. The topic of abortion comes up frequently. In this bit I posted to the list I explain to a member of the list why the abortion question (although better than 2/3rds of Americans are anti-abortion) is an electoral loser.
==========
Ah. But that is your problem with winning elections on the matter. Although abortion is abhorrent to 2/3rds of Americans and fits the definition of premeditated murder, most abortion foes treat it like misdemeanor manslaughter and the woman (the initiator of the crime) goes free.
Now if you are serious – “abortion is murder” then you must at minimum give the woman and her accomplice life sentences. For consistency.
Odds are you fall into the mainstream of abortion foes and shudder at giving women life sentences for the crime. And if you were to come out in favor of charging it like murder one then you would see Rs lose even bigger on the issue.
And then you are up against the Orthodox Jews who consider abortion a REQUIREMENT if competent authorities declare the woman’s mental health in danger. How will you accommodate them?
If I was a Republican candidate I’d say something like this – “I abhor abortion. But it is a private matter and the government should stay out of it. I do support xxx organization which helps women who are considering abortion.” Since the demise of Rockford Pro-Life I know of no organization which supports women considering abortion and which does not also favor making it an issue of law.
Now think of it from a woman’s perspective if it is a law. She is then a target of surveillance from the government from ages 10 to 55. Why would a woman vote for that? Anyone can look at the results of the Drug War to see where that leads – regular pregnancy tests (urine samples) to make sure the law isn’t being violated. What woman would want that?
You can’t have small government and an anti-abortion regime.
So now you have government in control of the vaginas. What if some evil Democrat gets in and declares those vaginas are producing too many babies? You have the enforcement apparatus already in place. It just needs a small change in focus. You only think of these things in the context of “if everything goes right”. I’m an engineer I think, “What can go wrong?” Basically you have the same problem alcohol foes had in 1920. They only thought of the matter in the context of “if every one obeys the law our alcohol problems will be a thing of the past.” You can do anything you want with laws except make Americans obey them.
“Physicists dream of Nobel prizes, engineers dream of mishaps.” Hendrik Tennekes
And then you have the problem of miscarriage. Every one will have to be dealt with as a potential abortion. Tell me what woman would want to be a target of a murder investigation because of something (a natural process) she has no control over.
I can see it is not clear in your mind why with 65% to 70% support Americans don’t want a law. I hope I have clarified the issue for you. And if not? Well keep promoting your favorite candidates and keep losing elections. I can live under socialism and will do well who ever is in power. The rest of you may not be so lucky.
Comments
4 responses to “Why Abortion Is An Electoral Loser”
Most abortions are best analogized to unjust war instead of murder. (As far as I can tell, this is consistent with Jewish tradition, one reason I remain Jewish.)
Let’s consider the consequences of the war–abortion analogy: If the lives of your citizens are in danger, the appropriate military actions are not only permissible but mandatory. If murder is defined as the homicide of somebody inside your society, then abortion is not a type of murder. If war is defined as the homicide of somebody outside your society, then it is a type of war. (Most abortions in the United States are unjust wars.) This analogy is consistent with Jewish tradition. It explains why abortion is required to save the mother’s life; why abortion in the case of rape is a legitimate opinion (which I disagree with); why sit-ins at abortion clinics are acceptable but assasinating abortionists isn’t, etc.
Joseph,
Thanks for the comments.
My attitude is that women who don’t want children shouldn’t be having them. The odds that such children will turn out well are greatly reduced.
This ties in well with the Freakonomics study that showed drops in crime correlate with increases in abortion. With the caveat of course that correlation does not prove causation.
Another point is that it is Democrats who are killing off their next generation (mostly) and it is Republicans who are the anti-abortion Party. Go figure.
And the different attitudes towards abortion are in part explained by – A thermodynamic explanation of politics
I don’t consider a first trimester fetus a baby, or even human apart from the genes, any more than I consider a separate sperm and egg to be such.
Therefore I do not consider first trimester abortions murder.
It’s a religious position, and an insidious one because how you ask people about it strongly biases how they will respond.
Another aspect of deciding when full and complete human life officially begins is that from that point forward, everything humanly possible to save the life of the fetus must be done, just as if we were considering the life of a full term child. Now when you consider that a significant number of conceptions lead to spontaneous abortions, you will have created at that point a signficant health crisis.