Abortion will kill the future of the Republican Party

I thank John Derbyshire for mentioning my recent abortion post at the National Review Corner, giving the idea a much deserved public airing.

Unfortunately, the response demonstrates why the Republican party is probably doomed to irrelevancy. Too many of the National Review people are fixated on the “abortion is murder” mantra. The problem for Republicans is that the overwhelming majority of the country’s intellectual elite do not consider it to be murder. No amount of huffing and puffing is going to change the opinion of the intellectual elite, and if the person doing the huffing and puffing is strongly associated with a religious movement, it will likely even have the opposite effect. Whether or not abortion is as evil as murder is pure opinion and impossible to prove or disprove with facts. Anti-abortion people should just take solace in the fact that they personally won’t commit abortion and that the mothers and abortion doctors will go to Hell after they die, and they should stop trying to make their viewpoint the law of the land.

The interesting thing about the national opinion on abortion is that Hollywood is scared of the anti-abortion movement. It’s the opposite with the gay marriage movement. Despite years of Hollywood showing us cool gay characters in TV shows and movies, the majority of the people don’t want gay marriage when they have the opportunity to vote against it. In contrast, I don’t think there has ever been a character on a broadcast TV show who had an abortion, and Hollywood has given us two big pro-life movies in recent years: Knocked Up and Juno. Yet the people, especially the influential intellectual elite, favor keeping abortion legal despite Hollywood’s pro-life tilt.

Abortion gives the upper middle class a strong reason to vote Democratic. What they get from voting Democratic is protection from the anti-abortion movement. Every upper middle class parent fears that their daughter would get pregnant and suffer a huge drop in social class because she is forced to bear the baby and become an unwed mother. Every unmarried woman with career and marriage aspirations fears that she could get pregnant and become a poor low class unwed mother if abortion were to become illegal.

The Republican Party has the superior message on most issues, but the insistence on being the anti-abortion party is shutting out the nation’s smart people from listening to any of the messages. All they can hear is “CRAZY CHRISTIANS WILL FORCE ME TO BECOME A WELFARE MOM!”

Hardly anyone is even considering the huge disaster it would be for this country if the anti-abortion people actually got their wish. It would mean a million extra babies born each year to mostly poor and stupid mothers. The welfare rolls would expand, the public schools will fill up with more uneducatable bastard children, crime will increase when these children become teenagers, and as adults they will disproportionately wind up in prison or become single mothers themselves, repeating the cycle.

Maggie Gallagher, in response, correctly points out that “illegitimacy continued to rise dramatically after abortion was legalized,” and I will even concede that legal abortion contributed to changing the norms about premarital sex by reducing the riskiness of it. But Pandora’s Box has been opened and the norms have permanently changed. Making abortion illegal again is not going to magically stop the nation’s lower classes from having sex (it would probably reduce somewhat the premarital sex of the more responsible classes); instead it’s going to hasten the new norm of unwed motherhood. Make abortion illegal and those million extra babies each year are going to be coming.

Comments

[Patrik]

>>>>>Every upper middle class parent fears that their daughter would get pregnant and suffer a huge drop in social class because she is forced to bear the baby and become an unwed mother.http://isteve.blogspot.com/2009/10/my-new-vdarecom-column-on-asian-voters.html

"My wife worked with a Korean immigrant lady named (unsurprisingly) Ms. Kim. The poor woman’s husband had died in a car crash a few years before, leaving her with two small children to raise.

I was startled to learn that Ms. Kim referred to herself as a "single mother" rather than as a "widow," which seemed to me to be the more accurate and more respectable term.

But that just showed what an out-of-date fuddy-duddy I was. As a relative newcomer to America in the Age of Oprah, Ms. Kim had noticed what I hadn’t: that it’s now uncool for modern American widows to attempt to distinguish themselves from unwed mothers. That would be insensitive and discriminatory."

[kurt9]

I think "half-sigma's" analysis is essentially correct.

Political correctness is usually associated with the liberal-left. However, the social conservatives also have their version of political correctness as well. It is interesting that the social conservatives are just as obsessed with denying the reality of HBD and sociobiology as are the liberal-left. Even the libertarians deny this reality as well.

[moralist]

What's especially interesting about the abortion debate is the extent to which it's a fight for the sake of fighting.

It would be easy to reduce the abortion rate by a huge amount by promoting temporary sterilization measures among the young. If you really think abortion is murder (and you have some kind of strong moralistic drive to right wrongs that happen in far-off places) then you should be strongly in favor of such sterilization measures.

Nobody actually supports such measures. This is because the abortion issue is just a blunt cudgel with which the two sides of the debate can bludgeon one another. Argument for the sake of argument; power struggle for the sake of power struggle.

[The Undiscovered Jew]

I don't see why we need to rally around abortion because the issue has been pretty much settled, hasn't it?

Even if Roe v Wade were overturned, the issue would just get thrown back to the states where very few states would actually vote to ban all abortions.

There is a risk the GOP might try to ban abortion with federal legislation, but how many GOP congressmen and Senators would actually vote to ban abortion if it came up for an up or down vote? I'll bet most of the "Prolife" Republicans in Congress are just posing to get votes from Christian conservatives and don't actually care about the issue.

As long as Roe stands, Republican candidates can make all sorts of promises knowing that abortion isn't going anywhere.

Btw, I thought this comment from the Ace of Spades blogger re: abortion politics was interesting:

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/288453.php

But I don't believe their "support" is very deep or well-considered. And I don't think they're willing to suffer much economic pain (and by "much" economic pain, I mean "any" economic pain) in pursuit of this unicorn-friendly agenda.

The other thing I think is that the public doesn't mind supporting certain policies so long as the parties championing them treat them as mostly gestural in nature. I have written before that I think the a good chunk of the pro-life sentiment in the public is gestural rather than serious. If 50% now call themselves pro-life, I'd guess 10% of those folks would peel off if the Republican Party seemed intent on, and capable of, making dramatic changes in the law to outlaw abortion.

I think the same thing is true of this climate-change applesauce. The Democrats played a cynical but effective game in years past -- they postured as environmental champions and criticized the GOP relentlessly for killing the trees, but when push came to shove, they voted, for example, almost unanimously against serious carbon control in a test vote taken under President Clinton.

[DaveinHackensack]

"The interesting thing about the national opinion on abortion is that Hollywood is scared of the anti-abortion movement."

I don't think that's the case at all. They generally avoid writing abortions into their movies (with some exceptions, e.g., remember Fast Times at Ridgemont High?) not because they're afraid of pro-lifers, but because most people -- even pro-choicers -- find abortion icky and depressing. Hollywood loses enough money with icky and depressing antiwar agitprop like In the Valley of Elah; if Juno had an abortion the movie probably would have bombed at the box office, because no one -- not just pro-lifers -- wants to watch a movie about abortion.

"The Republican Party has the superior message on most issues"

Really? I ask that as a registered Republican, mind you, but the Republican party's message is mainly lower taxes and less government spending; how appealing do you think that message is to the 40% of Americans who aren't even net federal income tax payers? It's an epic fail in a country with a highly progressive income tax system and an increasingly generous welfare state. The Dems promise to give average folks more government goodies and make the rich pay for them. The GOP promises to give fewer goodies and cut taxes on the rich. Which message do you think has broader potential appeal?

Fortunately for the GOP, the country's balance sheet will constrain the Dems' Santa Claus strategy sooner rather than later.

[robert61]

Do you think overturning Roe v. Wade would defuse this controversy? The debate tends to be framed as abortion legal versus abortion illegal - that's the implicit model of your argument. Yet if Roe v. Wade were reversed, the result would not be to outlaw abortion but to take it out of the national debate. Some individual states would outlaw it. Most probably wouldn't. I can't see any way that private charities could be prevented from arranging and funding abortions and transportation for women in states where it is illegal. The legal change would probably have some negative impact in terms of desirable abortions prevented, especially at first, before said charities got up and running and ironed out the kinks. But wouldn't it be worth it to push this obnoxious, divisive issue, which has plagued US politics for as long as I can remember (and I'm not young) - off center stage?

[HS: It's extremely unlikely the anti-abortion people would happily let California and New York sanction the "murder" of hundreds of thousands of fetuses annually: they'd demand a federal law to put a stop to all abortions.]

[not too late]

This focus on abortion is an alternative to focusing on the other demographic problem, immigration. If the kids who were aborted were more likely to be losers as compared to those who weren't, yeah so. We still let in an equivalent number of similarly dysgenic folk who are even more fertile. Sure would be nice to stop the flood of parasites into the country. The fact is abortion is legal. Assuming it has done anything to improve the genetic stock of the US, it was just as quickly undone by immigration. So we have abased ourselves to no purpose. Political correctness is the enemy of us all and is evident in the idiotic policy of paying women to have illegitimate kids, while at once trying to persuade them not to. Then granting illegals citizenship if they are willing to birth their kids here. Totally irrational.

[OneSTDV]

Come on Derb. When am I going to be on National Review?

[The Undiscovered Jew]

"It's extremely unlikely the anti-abortion people would happily let California and New York sanction the "murder" of hundreds of thousands of fetuses annually: they'd demand a federal law to put a stop to all abortions."

I doubt the evangelicals could muster the votes in Congress to abolish abortion nationwide. Even a majority of "Prolife" Senators and congressmen would be reluctant to do anything beyond a gestural law against "partial birth" abortion.

[The White Detroiter]

[HS: It's extremely unlikely the anti-abortion people would happily let California and New York sanction the "murder" of hundreds of thousands of fetuses annually: they'd demand a federal law to put a stop to all abortions.]

But they would fail in their attempt. Look at the extremely unpopular procedure called partial birth abortion. A pro-life Republican President took office in January of 2001 and large majorities of both Houses had previously announced support for a ban on partial birth abortion. It wasn't until November 2003 that a bill actually made it into law though and it needed a health of the mother exception to get it through Congress. All other forms of abortion are vastly less unpopular than partial birth abortion and really don't stand a chance of being banned. I'm a pro-abortion right-winger and I'm not worried at all. I agree with the above commenters that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. It has no constitutional basis at all.

[Alex]

"Do you think overturning Roe v. Wade would defuse this controversy? The debate tends to be framed as abortion legal versus abortion illegal - that's the implicit model of your argument. Yet if Roe v. Wade were reversed, the result would not be to outlaw abortion but to take it out of the national debate. Some individual states would outlaw it. Most probably wouldn't. I can't see any way that private charities could be prevented from arranging and funding abortions and transportation for women in states where it is illegal. The legal change would probably have some negative impact in terms of desirable abortions prevented, especially at first, before said charities got up and running and ironed out the kinks. But wouldn't it be worth it to push this obnoxious, divisive issue, which has plagued US politics for as long as I can remember (and I'm not young) - off center stage?"

This would be an improvement. I can imagine that abortion bans would be past across the south and the midwest - possibly in California because of the large catholic/hispanic population. I'm not sure what would happen after the stalemate though.

--

Also, on the note of Hollywood being pro-abortion, watch the film District 9. That film was consistently pleasent, and liberal. But it offered a strong anti-abortion message in the exposition.

[Del Fuego]

"All they can hear is “CRAZY CHRISTIANS WILL FORCE ME TO BECOME A WELFARE MOM!"

This is totally true. If you're a woman and you want to live nicely, SWPL life (trips to Checkoslovakia, clean apt, advanced degrees), getting pregnant and having a baby will mess you up BAD. I don't know if most pro-choicers consider it murder or not, I do know that most women are adamant about not having kids when they don't want them.

I have to say though, I think the Repubs made this calculation a long time ago. They figure they get more Pat Robertson voters than SWPL ones so they gave up that chunk of the electorate.

Too bad fat, Christian, NAMS are never going to vote for the GOP. Mr Rove never got that. (I'm sure he still doesn't).

[Peter A]

"The Republican Party has the superior message on most issues"

For intelligent people? Hard to think of any. There's a reason smart people hold Republicans in contempt.

[rob85]

Personally, I do think abortion is murder, and if I were running the circus every single member of planned parenthood would be arrested and charged with mass murder, genocide, along with crimes against humanity.

Sadly, I'm not in charge...

It wouldn't be so bad if not for the blatant double-standards in the law.

Hypothetically: If a guy impregnates his girlfriend, she can go have an abortion, and suffer no legal consequences. If that same guy decides that the prospect of fatherhood isn't for him and stupidly decides to kill his girlfriend, then he is charged with not one, but two murders ie: Scott Peterson.

There is no way for a man to get out of fatherhood. There are dozens of ways for women to get out of motherhood. If it were possible for a man to disown any and all rights and responsibilities for fatherhood things would be much fairer.

[Melykin]

Cider House Rules was a movie about abortion, and it wasn't particularly depressing.

But I agree that it is generally an unpleasant subject. I don't think anyone wants to be put in the position of deciding to have an abortion. However if it was illegal then desperate women would seek illegal abortions, as they have from time immemorial. So legal abortion is sort of the lesser of the evils.

Morally, is it really much different from leaving baby girls out in the hills to perish, as the Chinese were said to do? But from a practical point of view, it is a good idea to have safe, legal abortion available to anyone who wants it.

[The White Detroiter]

"The Republican Party has the superior message on most issues, but the insistence on being the anti-abortion party is shutting out the nation’s smart people from listening to any of the messages."

The elite class of academics, lawyers, news media-types, and technocrats has been pro-Democrat and anti-Republican long before the rise of the Religious Right in the Republican Party. Also I disagree that the Republican Party "insists on being the anti-abortion party". The Democrats suddenly became so dogmatic about Roe v. Wade in the 1970's that what we now call Religious Right types didn't have any choice but to switch to the GOP. As bad as things appear now for Republicans, they are in much better shape than they were in the 1960's before social conservatism became big in the party. The harsh truth is that the Republican Party does better electorally with social conservatives. It pains me to say it, but Barry Goldwater's small government, anti-New Deal message can only get so many votes.

[robert61]

Of course pro-lifers would demand a federal law against abortion. I just doubt they'd get it, especially when everybody has the awful federal law legalizing abortion fresh in memory.

Reversing Roe v. Wade wouldn't usher in an age of peace and comity - it would simply stop this issue from occupying so much national mindspace. Rather than defining the soul of America or its national parties, it could define the soul of particular states.

Pro-lifers actually have a pretty good point - abortion is the purposeful taking of innocent life. I favor keeping it legal for reasons of social utility and women's rights to their own bodies, but I hardly feel morally unassailable for that. I'm weighing one suite of evils and benefits against another and coming out on a particular side. No amount of subtle argument is going to sway somebody who considers it murder based on moral conviction.

Reversing a bad decision won't eliminate the problem, it will just shift the debate.

[DaveinHackensack]

"Of course pro-lifers would demand a federal law against abortion."

Did they demand it in the few years before Roe v. Wade, when abortion was already legal in many parts of the country? I think part of the heat surrounding this issue is that Roe v. Wade decided it by fiat* (as opposed to the gradual, grassroots way it was already on its way to becoming legal throughout the country). I think there's a similar resentment with the court decisions in favor of gay marriage, which helps explain why gay marriage referendums get slapped down even in blue states like Maine and Oregon.

*Also, the speciousness of the "right to privacy" argument. Someone whose name I forget said the Court would have been better off basing it on equal protection, noting the inherent danger in giving birth and arguing that women shouldn't be forced to take on that risk.

[Roe Roe Roe Your Boat]

" . . . the overwhelming majority of the country’s intellectual elite do not consider it to be murder."

forget the "intellectual elite." The overwhelming majority of Americans don't consider abortion murder, nor do the majority of Republicans.

If Roe vs. Wade were overturned -- which I doubt it will be -- many states would revert to the position they held before 1973, which was that abortion was legal if the pregnancy threatened the health of the mother. It doesn't take a legal genius to see that this offered a loophole for lots of pregnant woman and their physicians. Similar loopholes would be reinstated because, again, the majority of Americans, even conservative Republicans, don't really consider abortion to be murder, though they may be morally uncomfortable with it.

[Yawner]

"The problem for Republicans is that the overwhelming majority of the country’s intellectual elite do not consider it to be murder. No amount of huffing and puffing is going to change the opinion of the intellectual elite, and if the person doing the huffing and puffing is strongly associated with a religious movement, it will likely even have the opposite effect."

The overwhelming majority of the country's intellectual elite disagree with the Republicans on MANY if not most issues, not just abortion. If the solution you advocate is that they shut up on issues with which the elite disagrees, then the Republican party might as well just go away right now and tell all its followers to become liberal Democrats just like the smarty-pants elites.

No amount of huffing and puffing is going to convince the country's elite that HBD is true, either, but that's not stopping you from huffing and puffing about it.

"Whether or not abortion is as evil as murder is pure opinion and impossible to prove or disprove with facts."

If you abort a fetus that has a brainwave, that is a provable fact that clearly makes it as evil as murder (i.e. you are killing a thinking being).

A "fact" you can use to prove the evil of abortion is to employ high-res ultrasound to show infants in the womb being killed. Nobody could watch that and not agree that this was murder.

Derbyshire is an atheistic nihilist anyway, so who gives a damn what he thinks?

FWIW I agree that single motherhood is a greater threat to family values than abortion.

[Turambar]

"The problem for Republicans is that the overwhelming majority of the country’s intellectual elite do not consider it to be murder."

Like the Hitchcock movie "Rope", the majority of intellectual elite probably dont have a problem with any murder under the right circumstances.

I dont see why I should be swayed by them.

[Stopped Clock]

As a low income individual from a low/middle income family I can't say I have ever seen any Democratic politician enact a policy that would benefit me. Can anyone name one? Arguably, the extensions of unemployment benefits have, but that started under Bush, and anyway, unemployment theoretically comes from money that I've earned myself, not from "the rich", unless you consider the owners of the companies I've worked for to be "the rich". If I had never worked, I would not be getting the free money.

[Stopped Clock]

//The Dems promise to give average folks more government goodies and make the rich pay for them. The GOP promises to give fewer goodies and cut taxes on the rich.//

I agree that the Dems have the advantage here, but I genuinely honestly have not seen Democrats, here or anywhere, enact a transfer of wealth policy that benefits the whole middle class, or those who have steady incomes, however small, either immediately or in the future. It's always a special interest group which I'm not a part of, or nobody at all (e.g. environmental regulations). I'd be willing to discuss this over email since this thread isn't a great place to hold an off topic discussion.

[Peter A]

Environmental regulations punish a small minority (the business owner, probably people employed by the business if they get laid off as a result of the regulations) but benefit the majority, including you, since you now have cleaner air, cleaner water, etc. There's nothing inherently left-wing about environmental regulation if done pragmatically - well designed regulations prevent a business owner from socializing his costs (i.e. making the public bear the burden of the waste he creates) and thereby create a more efficient market. Notably in Communist countries there were no environmental regulations.

[TGGP]

It sounds intuitively plausible, but is there any evidence abortion lowers the number of single mothers? I've been reading Greg Clark's book "A Farewell to Alms" and he notes that illegitimacy & fertility rates over time seem to have absolutely no connection to birth control.

[CC]

How do norms permanently change? How is it they can change, permanently, and not change again except by magic? Rhetorical.

[Yawner]

"Environmental regulations punish a small minority (the business owner, probably people employed by the business if they get laid off as a result of the regulations)"

Environmental regulations punish EVERYBODY, period.

Do you think the owner not going to pass on his increased costs to everybody, i.e. his customers, with higher prices? Of course he is! Businesses do not pay for environmental regulations any more than they pay taxes - in both cases, they pass them along to YOU.

[kurt9]

"All they can hear is “CRAZY CHRISTIANS WILL FORCE ME TO BECOME A WELFARE MOM!"

This is totally true. If you're a woman and you want to live nicely, SWPL life (trips to Checkoslovakia, clean apt, advanced degrees), getting pregnant and having a baby will mess you up BAD.

This is sooo true. This is the reality that the social conservatives refuse to come to grips with.

In the same vein, I will also say that there will never be a woman of means for whom abortion will not be an option. In reality, debate about abortion is really a debate about low-income having access to it.

[matne]

One of the largest turn-offs to the Republican party is their extreme devotion to abortion. It leaves many educated and uneducated moderates looking to Democrats because they at least focus on other issues.

I have always voted a split ticket, slightly more Republican, since I am fiscally conservative but socially liberal. Slowly I have been voting more Democrat. During the 2008 election though I became thoroughly disappointed with the Republican Party. The economy was crumbling quickly, we were at war in two countries, and yet Republicans felt one of the most important issues was banning abortion. To me that was like arguing over what color carpet to install while your house is on fire. There are many more important issues that need to be dealt with, and personally I am pro-choice.

I definitely agree with,

"Hardly anyone is even considering the huge disaster it would be for this country if the anti-abortion people actually got their wish. It would mean a million extra babies born each year to mostly poor and stupid mothers. The welfare rolls would expand, the public schools will fill up with more uneducatable bastard children, crime will increase when these children become teenagers, and as adults they will disproportionately wind up in prison or become single mothers themselves, repeating the cycle."

Republicans want abortion to be outlawed, but have no intention of dealing with the consequences. Women in college will still get the abortion they need, but the lower class will be stuck with a baby that they can't afford. We can't let the baby and mother starve to death so we will have to support them on a welfare system. The cycle will perpetuate and only get larger.

[Peter A]

"Environmental regulations punish EVERYBODY, period."

You're ignoring the costs of pollution and waste, which are very real. It's just as socialist to make everyone share costs as it is to make everyone share profits. Republicans, being mostly conservatives in name only, never seem to get this point.

[abelard Lindsey Tyler Mavrides]

The social conservatives have to accept the reality of the sex revolution, that it is irreversible, and focus on reduction of illegitimate births. This can only be accomplished by allowing technology to complete the separation of childbirth from sexuality. This is the reality and the only way that this problem can be resolved.

[J.L.]

"The problem for Republicans is that the overwhelming majority of the country’s intellectual elite do not consider it to be murder."

This definitely creates a political problem with regard to the elites. However, it is also my understanding that a recent poll found that a majority of Americans considered themselves pro-life (51%) rather than pro-choice (42%). When asked about whether abortion should be illegal in all circumstances vs. legal in any circumstance, the numbers were about equal (23% to 22%). See here:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/more-americans-pro-life-than-pro-choice-first-time.aspx

More importantly, who does and who does not agree that abortion does not remove the question of whether it is or is not morally wrong. Most of "the elite" appears to disbelieve HBD, but that doesn't negate its existence.

I think a strong case can be made that even if one does not consider the fetus a full-blown human being, it nevertheless should still be entitled to some protection as a developing sentient being... moreso since that developing being is ultimately a human. As I said in a prior post, if we are going to treat animal life as worthy of protection from maltreatment, I do not see why a procedure like "partial birth abortion" can escape scrutiny.

"In contrast, I don’t think there has ever been a character on a broadcast TV show who had an abortion, and Hollywood has given us two big pro-life movies in recent years: Knocked Up and Juno."

The Bea Arthur character (Maude Finlay) in the TV show Maude famously had an abortion during the shows 1972 season. Prior to the ruling in Roe.

"The Republican Party has the superior message on most issues, but the insistence on being the anti-abortion party is shutting out the nation’s smart people from listening to any of the messages."

I used to be staunchly "pro-life"/anti-abortion in that I did equate abortion to being an absolute wrong, and supported strongly limiting its availability. I have come to see that effort as impracticable, although I still see abortion as a moral wrong on the basis that the fetus is at least a developing sentient entity entitled to some level of protection and concern.

I suggest that there is another possible stance between being rigidly in favor of a total ban on all or most abortions, on the one hand, and being unquestioningly pro-choice, on the other. I have noticed that there is an increasing tendency see abortion as something which is impractical to ban entirely, but which nevertheless presents moral questions which militate in favor of seeking alternatives. (See, for example, the poll I mentioned, above.) One can be, for example, "pro-life," but concede that an outright ban is not possible, and focus instead on creating conditions which reduce the number of abortions. This would include dissuading the overall use of abortions, in general (while keeping them legal), and banning the most morally questionale procedures (i.e. "partial birth abortion".)

Such would arguably be a more practical position which may not turn off as many.

"All they can hear is “CRAZY CHRISTIANS WILL FORCE ME TO BECOME A WELFARE MOM!”"

There are large numbers of anti-abortion people who base their stance on conservative religious dogma. But there are many who do not. Pro-life/anti-abortion people can be atheists(Christopher Hitchens, Nat Hentoff); "progressives" (Hitchens, Hentoff), agnostics (George Will); Libertarians (Ron Paul),
and even liberal Mormons(Harry Reid).

[rob]

Guys half of black babies are aborted. I know, it's a BAYBEEE!!! They don't stay babies. They turn into yoofs. The ones who don't rape and rob vote Democrate. Show some non-retardedness.

[kurt9]

What I don't get about this issue is this:

How does the fact that the lady down the street gets an abortion in anyway adversely affect my ability to live my life as I want? I'm pro-choice for the simple fact that I do not see how the existence of abortion adversely affects my life or my freedom of action.

I do not understand why I should care about any political issue that does not affect me personally. More specifically, I see no reason to reduce other people's freedom of action when doing so does not offer any tangible benefit to me personally.

[J.L.]

"I do not understand why I should care about any political issue that does not affect me personally. More specifically, I see no reason to reduce other people's freedom of action when doing so does not offer any tangible benefit to me personally."

So, if the family down the street physically abuses their children, it should be allowed?

Apart entirely from the abortion issue, thats the logical outcome of your analysis.

Note that your formulation isn't even Libertarian in nature, since Libertarians also generally adhere to a "harm principal" or "non agression principal," which would at least prohibit behavior which causes harm to others. Your formulation falls way short of allowing even that. See below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle

Regarding abortion: You may belive or disbelieve that a fetus is a sentient entity deserving of some government protection (as we protect animals from abuse). You may or may not believe that a fetus is worthy of the same protection as a fully formed human being. But we're not even at that point if you dont even accept a "harm" or "non agression" principal which provides that actions harmful to others should themselves be prohibited.

[Tim Kowal]

Half Sigma's argument against overturning Roe seems to be based solely on the supposedly inexorable conclusion that women would be forced into motherhood. And yet nowhere is adoption ever mentioned. Why would adoption not be a suitable alternative?

[ColdHardRationalist]

I do not understand why the status of anything as living or not should affect the legal code at all. The idea of something being “sacred” is a subjective one, often based on religion. The reason murder has been illegal for so long and in so many cultures is not that killing someone is just inherently wrong, but that murder destabilizes society and (generally) violates the Golden Rule—the basis of all ethics. In order for something to have a preference on what should happen to it, they must be conscience. In other words, it would be wrong to destroy the conscience computer, but not the unconscious plant. Likewise, it would be okay to destroy an unconscious computer, but not the conscience human.

Now, many of you might be wondering why you should respect the beliefs of people that repudiate the idea of sacredness. I am going to take this opportunity to explain the importance of religious liberty.

Although there is debate on the existence of God (and debate is always good), it is quite a stretch to say that you are able to objectively prove the validity of your specific religion. Since it is unable to be proven, people generally subscribe to their beliefs on faith. Again, there is nothing immoral about this. However, people have serious difficulty accepting that, because it is based on faith, you cannot force it on other people, for any reason, because the victim holds their beliefs—usually also unprovable—just as strongly. This has resulted in many, many conflicts throughout history and into today (even if the war eventually strays from its religiously based roots). So, in an attempt to prevent this, the founding fathers, in the very first sentence of the Bill of Rights, basically set the precedent for people to practice their own beliefs, provided that, in doing so, the ability of others to follow their own is not hampered.

[DFCtomm]

This issue is simple, and I don't know why people make it so difficult. Three simple questions is all that is needed to make a decision about abortion.

Should murder be legal?

Does a fetus become a person?

Do you know exactly when that transition happens?

If you answered no, yes and no respectively and you're a prudent person then you clearly do not support abortion. If we cannot definitely determine when the fetus becomes a person, then we must err on the side of caution and restrict abortions. Allowing them only in cases where the mother's life is threatened.