Asymmetrical Information

Yes, abortion is the single most important issue to me--trumps all the rest, so I suppose there are pro-choice people who feel the same.

I'm still trying to figure out the essay on redstate.org about women who've had abortions dying at a much higher rate in the following 12 months than those who carry to term.
http://thespis148.redstate.org/story/2005/11/7/103024/558

"if men could get pregnant abortion would be a sacrament"

so sayeth the pro abortionist

The answer to why the abortion debate is so simplistic is contained within your own posts. That debate contains within it all the debates about what humans will be in the future:

1. Is sex just a public plaything and/or is it meaningful, spiritual and private? Or both?

2. Do we want a society in which women and men are not just equal, but the same?

3. Is it really that important for women to have careers, or should child-bearing and child-rearing be the central focus of women's lives? Or somewhere in between?

4. Is homosexuality an equal, but different, method of sexual expression?

Since I am a traditionalist and I am religious, my answers might seem pretty predictable, but they are not. I agree that the abortion debate is overly simplistic, because I think that abortion should be available only as a last resort and I think that abortion is the killing of a child.

Unlike many others on this board, I fear and dislike the loss of tradition. Part of this is because I am a traditional jazz and blues musician. I admire the beauty and wisdom of the past. I feel and see the loss that the destruction of tradition brings about.

And, on the other side I see something that I very much dislike. As an example, I have seen something I supported early in my life, tolerance for homosexuality, turn into gay worship and ridicule of heterosexuality in liberal big cities. The gay worship hysteria in places like NYC has long struck me as the ridiculous conformity of a high school clique.

The abortion debate should be more complex, but it is not because all these other issues fold into it.

Well, keep it up. You're on a thought-provoking roll right now.

That's it, Jane, stir the pot, you . . . you pot stirrer, you.

And for Jane's next trick, she will attempt to reconcile the "Bush lied!" camp with the "WMD's were moved to Syria!" camp. ;)

I agree that the abortion issue, particularly on the pro-choice side, is blown out of proportion. I recall talking with a very bright professional women about the upcoming election. She said she would never, under any circumstance, vote for a republican. I asked why. She said she was not going to take any risk that she lost her right to choose.

We were discussing the mayoral race. In no way shape or form could the mayor have had any affect on anyone's right to choose, yet abortion was THE factor in determining how this bright person would vote.

Shamefully simplistic, ridiculously overblown, and a distraction from other important issues to boot: I agree completely. But I don't think the temperate discussion you're looking for is going to happen any time soon.

As you say, the human brain only works in certain ways. Moreover, the signalling mechanisms in American democracy are not perfect. Doctrinaire pro-lifers see an ongoing holocaust, and doctrinaire pro-choicers see an imminent and unconscionable violation of women's rights. Obviously, they feel they have to act -- if the squeaky wheel gets the grease, big problems demand that we make a lot of loud noise. But I suspect that if ballots could perfectly reflect the wishes of the body politic, "Talk less about abortion" would win a clear majority.*

Is the abortion debate inevitable then? Other countries don't seem to suffer the same kind of imbroglio that we do over abortion. My limited knowledge of the world tells me that a lot of other countries lack functioning churches (France), or subscribe to religions that don't worry much about human dignity (Korea), or else restrict abortion as a common-sense measure to keep women in their place (Japan). Anyone want to set me straight about this? I'd be particularly interested in how abortion works in countries like Italy and Poland, where the people are strongly religious but secular and statist elements are stronger than in the US.

* based on poll results I can quote if anyone is interested

The abortion debate is irrelevant. Those who choose abortion are choosing to make themselves irrelevant to the future. The solution is contained within the problem.

You might get a kick out of this: Why Roe V. Wade Must Be Overturned, Encased in Lead, and Sunk to the Bottom of the Marianas Trench, There to Lie Forever Among Tubeworms and Busted Russian Submarines

And, on the other side I see something that I very much dislike. As an example, I have seen something I supported early in my life, tolerance for homosexuality, turn into gay worship and ridicule of heterosexuality in liberal big cities. The gay worship hysteria in places like NYC has long struck me as the ridiculous conformity of a high school clique.

Just a suggestion, offered as a friendly observation - I think this is the (semi-inevitable) creeping-conservatism that happens as one gets older. I live in NYC, and see nothing akin to 'gay worship'. Yes, of course there are extremists, who even sometimes get their way and then pout about how it was just thier due, and look at the other 97 things they want. (Actually, that sounds like a description some of the social conservatives these days...) I think nearly all of the rest of us could care less what people do in their (tiny) bedrooms.

I've often said that the single biggest thing the Libertarian party could do to stop being cast as wingnuts is to convince the NYC Democrats that they're actually libertarians - socially liberal, economically free market.

Anti-abortionists take heed. No government - absent a vicious police state - can enforce any law which isn't supported by an overwhelming number of people. So as long as the abortion debate is 50/50 that it's murder or it isn't, a government founded on the principles that ours was founded on, should not be legislating that the act of abortion is "murder." Alcohol prohibition failed because there was no super-majority support, and the War on Drugs fails for largely the same reasons. So you gotta change
minds before you can change the law.

One reason I can see the abortion question being an overriding concern for a pro-choice person is that a pro-life stance often serves as a quick means of identifying a specific religious attitude.

If men could become pregnant, they couldn't make abortions sacrosanct because they couldn't have risen in power to control the world. They would have stayed home with the babies, whining about how women don't pay enough child support.

John Deszyck, actually abortions are easy to obtain in Japan but the pill was banned until recently.

"if men could get pregnant abortion would be a sacrament" so sayeth the pro abortionist

The problem with that line of reasoning is that there is no statistically significant difference in support for the pro-choice position among men and women.

Abortion is the best issue there is, if what one wants to do is clearly seperate the two major American parties from each other, and simultaneously unify both of their activist bases. No other issue is nearly as effective at that task.

Come on. Think of an issue. Any issue. As long as it _isn't_ abortion. I'll bet any amount of money that I can find significant numbers of both Republicans and Democrats on either side of any other issue. And as long as that's true, the issue will necessarily be less effective at partisan fighting than abortion.

Of course, to most people who aren't professional politicians, this is a fairly unimportant goal. But to those who _are_, it's the only one that matters.

I'll bet any amount of money that I can find significant numbers of both Republicans and Democrats on either side of any other issue

You can find significant numbers of Democrats and Republicans on either side of the abortion issue, too. Polls typically find that Democratic and Republican attitudes towards abortion only differ by 10-20%.

"The problem with that line of reasoning is that there is no statistically significant difference in support for the pro-choice position among men and women."

There is, however, a enormously signifcant difference in the holding of positions of power between men and women and this is where abortion laws get made

There is, however, a enormously signifcant difference in the holding of positions of power between men and women and this is where abortion laws get made

That's irrelevant to my point. I was responding to a claim that men would feel differently about abortion if we could get pregnant. Since women feel approximately the same about abortion as men do, that is pretty clearly not the case.

If women held the reigns of power, we'd be having the exact same debate about abortion that we are now, with the likely exception that the opinions of men on the issue would be even more widely ignored.

Randy's wrong. You can have an abortion and then go on to have other children. I did (2 kids). So did my mother (4 kids). And my sister (3 kids).

ten or so low-population states will, or will not, be allowed to outlaw abortion.

Um. The #2 population (Texas) and #4 population (Florida) states would probably ban abortion if Roe was completely struck down.

I believe one thing most are missing in this is the fact that abortion is kept at the forefront partly as a diversionary tactic and partly because of the underlying meaning.

As a diversionary tactic, it works wonderfully. Emotion is high on both sides and the actual impact of abortion can be severely overstated by either side.

Roe v Wade was a triumph of big Federal Government over State's Rights and as such its overturning would spell a distinct change in power structure between the States and the Feds on a judicial level. If Roe falls, then what other ruling that allows the Feds to control everything goes out the window? With a Supreme Court that overturns Roe, would the eminent domain ruling be far behind. Trust me, in the grand scheme of things, the talk about possibly overturning Roe is more about a shift in judicial philosophy than about abortion itself.

On a state-wide level, overturning Roe would do little to outlaw abortion. The debate would shift from the Federal level to the local level and with support for either side evenly split, no legislator who wants to be re-elected will do much more than pass some sensible restrictions on timeframe for abortion-on-demand or require more counselling, etc. Abortion is so prevelant that it probably never could be completely outlawed.

Florida is a swing state, and Texas is not in the bible belt.

Actually, the group that most favors abortion is young men. For the obvious reason...'drat, my girlfriend is pregnant, that means she's not ready to part-ay like a wild child on Friday night!'

A completely selfish logic...which needs to be resisted since allowing barbarians full sway is a bad idea.

Jane, Florida isn't a swing state. Its voted GOP for president in all but one election since 1980, has a GOP governor, two GOP senators, A GOP attorney general, a GOP dominated House delegation and a GOP dominated state legislature. Where is it "Swinging"?
Texas, or part of it anyway, is considered to be in the Bible belt. Not that this matters, a state need not be in to be conseravtive and want to ban abortion.

Comments are Closed.