Abortion
Winning elections
Here is a recent, interesting poll on voter priorities: https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meetthepressblog/poll-democracy-abortion-are-top-priorities-single-issue-voters-rcna126225
The pollsters inquired which issues were most important to voters, grouped by party affiliation.
Republicans who identified as single-issue voters prioritized immigration and border security over any other issue.
Democrats who identified as single-issue voters prioritized two issues: protecting democracy and constitutional rights (I don’t know what they are talking about, but it has that emotional hook); and abortion.
Abortion alone determines the vote of 24% of Democrats, compared with only 14% of Republicans.
Tellingly, the pollsters did not offer the economy or crimes as options for voters’ highest priority issues. “None of the above” accounted for 21% of voter preferences on highest priority issue, and I think we can guess where that was headed.
The purpose of this column is to discuss the place of abortion policy in national Republican politics.
I remember hearing for 49 years, from 1973 (Roe) to 2022 (Dobbs), that the error of Roe is that it nationalized abortion law, which is properly the responsibility of the states. Almost as soon as Roe was overturned, Senator Lindsey Graham proposed a national abortion law endorsing the pro-life position. The predicted runaway Republican victory in 2022 turned into defeat. President Trump blamed Graham, and understandably so. It seemed that the pro-life camp suddenly favored national abortion laws after all.
Having been involved indirectly with the local pro-life movement for decades, I can tell you their position: no abortions ever, even when the mother’s life is in danger, or even when the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest. There seems to be no philosophical distinction for them between the failure of a fertilized egg to implant on the uterine wall on the one hand, and the Holocaust on the other hand.
This is certainly a legitimate position to take. But as President Trump said, “You have to win elections.” The absolutist no-exceptions we-don’t-care-if-she-dies position is going to take candidates down to defeat. Some years back, I saw a nationally known great Republican representative get replaced by a pro-abortion Democrat because the local pro-life community saw him as insufficiently zealous. He wanted to restrict abortion, not to outlaw it; and so we wound up with a leftist representative instead.
This type of dynamic played out recently in Ohio, where a mildly conservative state rejected an extremely restrictive abortion law in favor of a referendum expanding abortion rights. Pro-lifers are simply outnumbered.
It is frustrating to observe the national dialogue on abortion being controlled by two small opposing groups. There is a broad consensus in the middle that would win majority support, and President Trump knows this. I suspect that the details would be as follows: permit abortion only in the first two trimesters, with exceptions for danger to the mother’s life, rape, and incest.
I would personally prefer that the limit be at the end of the first trimester (maintaining the exceptions for the remainder of the pregnancy). Thirty European countries have an end to abortion on demand by the end of the 14th week (while maintaining the exceptions). No European countries allow abortion on demand until the end of pregnancy. America seems to have a different culture around abortion, however.
As I look at the state of America and the state of the world, my top priorities for the next election are: 1) ending the deep state and the bureaucratic state; 2) deporting the approximately 30 million illegal aliens and building the wall; 3) exposing the dangerous COVID jab and its proponents; 4) ending the race and sex wars. I would prefer my candidate to be pro-life, but that candidate must also be a pragmatist about what can realistically be accomplished. We have lost too much ground following idealists who crash and burn in the general election because they can’t read the room.
There is a tide in the affairs of men. Some young adults are growing repulsed with the excesses of the woke culture. We should be available to welcome them back to the camp of common sense without demanding a loyalty test.
Politicians and most others have no knowledge of embryology. In fact, no embryologist was consulted during the determination of the Roe v. Wade decision.
Most extremely inaccurate is the suggestion that a "fertilized egg" implants. Almost immediately upon fertilization, which occurs in the upper portion of the fallopian tubes, the evanescent zygote divides, and therefore no longer exists as such. The new human organism quickly differentiates and becomes a blastocyst or early embryo consisting of multiple tissue types by the time it implants into the wall of the uterus. This docking procedure is directed by complex chemical communication between the embryo and mother.
Conflating the unfortunate situation of treating ectopic pregnancy with elective abortion has been one effective way to scare people into rubberstamping the latter recreational killing practice. Perhaps the popularization of methotrexate for treating non-emergent ectopic pregnancy has cemented this idea.
Abortion itself is traumatic to the mother and is not done to save the mother's life. Early delivery is sometimes necessary to save the mother's life, and efforts to keep the baby alive are done. This is much different than dismembering and sucking out the parts of the baby as is done in surgical abortions. (There is not currently a way to successfully save an ectopic human embryo, though this will become possible for the civilization that replaces us.)
Sentencing an innocent bystander to death for the crime of rape is profoundly illogical and immoral. Studies indicate that such practices significantly increase the suicidality of the affected women. Therefore it is more likely that this malpractice is much more for population control than for the sake of traumatized women.
Expressing personal preferences as to the timing of killing humans in the name of pragmatism is likewise illogical. There is no logically consistent, developmental dividing line which has been put forth as a time when the human organism may be willfully killed, and when it may not.
That republicans have been unable to articulate these and related facts for 50 years is more evidence of their weakness and unsuitability as a political party.
Either premeditated, capricious / recreational killing of humans will be recognized as wrong and illegal, or this civilization will fall, and be replaced as many have throughout history. It's only a matter of time.
Exodus 20:13 Some 1st degree murder is essential in seeking domination politically? (Amplified version)