A thought experiment, re: Abortion

[TitanTiger 20,472]

First, this question is for self-described "pro-life" people who see abortion more or less as a non-negotiable issue of extremely high importance in national elections.  If abortion doesn't register on your list of important issues or it's way down the list, this question/thought experiment isn't really for you.  You're welcome to chime in and ask questions of course, but your particular thought process on who to vote for isn't really relevant.

It’s election time and we're down to two candidates for US President. Candidate A is "formally" pro-life, meaning he promises to take measures to limit abortion rights through legislation and regulation, and appoint judges who will overturn Roe v. Wade. As a conservative, Candidate A also opposes expanding the social safety net, which he believes fosters dependency, encourages bad behavior, and wastes government resources.

Candidate B is "formally" pro-choice, meaning he supports Roe and will work to protect and even extend abortion rights. As a liberal, he also supports an expanded social safety net, including universal healthcare; a higher minimum wage; paid family and medical leave; expanded government support for childcare, pre-K education, and nutritional assistance for women, infants, and children (WIC); and child and family tax credits.

Despite your pro-life convictions, you have come to be persuaded that Candidate A’s social policies would result in a minimal net reduction in the number of actual abortions that take place in the United States, and could well lead to a flattening or slight rise in demand. Conversely, you are now convinced that the social policies Candidate B favors, if enacted, would result in a noticeably significant reduction in the abortion rate.

Who would you vote for: the pro-life candidate whose policies are likely to maintain or increase the rate of abortion, or the candidate whose policies are likely to reduce it? 

[DKW 86 7,419]

Just my observation and personal decision. 

While being Very Pro life, i have no objection to a limit of say 12 weeks at the Mom's Discretion.  

Now, after qualifying all that, After following the "Republican" talking points on this for almost 40 years, They mean not one word of it. I have no problem voting for a candidate that acknowledges he/she is Pro-Choice. The other side has been talking about being Prolife for 40 years and accomplished Nothing. I mean Nothing. 

So B. 

[homersapien 11,366]

Abortion doesn't even come close to making my list of important issues for evaluating who to vote for. 

Having said that, it seems pretty obvious what the logical choice should be for a reasonable person:  are you more interested in reducing abortions or simply instituting a ideological/theological - based law simple for the sake of appearance or symbolism?

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

I would have to write-in a third candidate because neither A nor B would have the authority to actually fulfill their assurances. 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

13 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I would have to write-in a third candidate because neither A nor B would have the authority to actually fulfill their assurances. 

Not sure I understand, but nonetheless let's go with it:  Have you used this criteria in previous presidential elections and voted third-party as a result in the general election?

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Not sure I understand, but nonetheless let's go with it:  Have you used this criteria in previous presidential elections and voted third-party as a result in the general election?

Let me clarify: (And I'll focus on Candidate A, with the hope that the liberals reading this might try to understand my take)

When Candidate A promises to take measures to limit abortion rights through legislation and regulation, Candidate A is full of crap because such measures are not in the province of the office that he seeks to hold. Even if he could take such measures, abortion is a fundamental right (like it or not) under the much broader right to privacy. This means that any legislation limiting that right in general will be reviewed under strict scrutiny. When strict scrutiny applies, that's almost dispositive of invalidating the legislation. I can count on one hand how many pieces of legislation have survived that standard of review. 

Secondly, I detest assurances of appointing judges for the sole sake of "overturning a case for the political base." The highest Court is not a political chess board, nor should it be portrayed as one. Prioritize appointing judges who are faithful to the Constitution, and the laws enacted under its authority, not judges who are faithful to a political agenda.

While Roe is an important case, I think the cases which have had the most direct impact on our daily lives are the ones that 95% of people have never heard of.

 

To answer the question:

I will confess that I have not, but I am trying to examine political assurances with more criticism moving forward, particularly assurances that come from the person who enjoys the highest office in the land - as well as assurances coming from candidates who seek that position as well.  

If I was truly faithful to this idea, I would have to vote for a third-party in every election moving forward. President Trump made the assurances referenced above. Every single democrat currently running for President has done similar (I.e.,  Harris "promising" she would repeal the tax act [on day one]; an unattainable and patently false assurance on its face because she would have no such authority).

[TitanTiger 20,472]

14 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Let me clarify: (And I'll focus on Candidate A, with the hope that the liberals reading this might try to understand my take)

When Candidate A promises to take measures to limit abortion rights through legislation and regulation, Candidate A is full of crap because such measures are not in the province of the office that he seeks to hold. Even if he could take such measures, abortion is a fundamental right (like it or not) under the much broader right to privacy. This means that any legislation limiting that right in general will be reviewed under strict scrutiny. When strict scrutiny applies, that's almost dispositive of invalidating the legislation. I can count on one hand how many pieces of legislation have survived that standard of review. 

Secondly, I detest assurances of appointing judges for the sole sake of "overturning a case for the political base." The highest Court is not a political chess board, nor should it be portrayed as one. Prioritize appointing judges who are faithful to the Constitution, and the laws enacted under its authority, not judges who are faithful to a political agenda.

While Roe is an important case, I think the cases which have had the most direct impact on our daily lives are the ones that 95% of people have never heard of.

Then read "promises to take measures" more like Candidate B's aims are written, meaning he opposes Roe and will work to protect the unborn and restrict abortion rights as much as he possibly can in terms of signing or supporting legistlation, and judicially by selecting conservative (or to use the current code, "strict constructionist" or "textualist") judges for the federal courts and Supreme Court.

In other words, obviously we know that presidents have limited power and can't always deliver on the promises they make or things they say they will push for.  But we believe they will make good faith attempts to push the country in their stated and intended direction on these matters, with some reasonable degree of success.

 

Quote

To answer the question:

I will confess that I have not, but I am trying to examine political assurances with more criticism moving forward, particularly assurances that come from the person who enjoys the highest office in the land - as well as assurances coming from candidates who seek that position as well.  

If I was truly faithful to this idea, I would have to vote for a third-party in every election moving forward. President Trump made the assurances referenced above. Every single democrat currently running for President has done similar (I.e.,  Harris "promising" she would repeal the tax act [on day one]; an unattainable and patently false assurance on its face because she would have no such authority).

Ok.  I think the point is, you know what kinds of legislation each will support, advocate for, sign.  You know what they will oppose, argue against, and veto.  And you know what their stated position on abortion is.  But you feel have good reason to believe that despite these respective stances, the kinds of programs Candidate B supports and will seek to get through Congress and sign will expand the social safety net with the result being that the abortion rate goes down noticeably and significantly compared to what it would do under Candidate A.

How do you vote in a situation like that?

[jj3jordan 2,051]

A.  Your paragraph four and the assumptions and conclusions you reach are ludicrous.  Lots of rationalization. Rationalization is how liberals justify immoral and illegal acts.  Someone has to draw the line on pure evil. That's abortion.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

1 hour ago, jj3jordan said:

A.  Your paragraph four and the assumptions and conclusions you reach are ludicrous.  Lots of rationalization. Rationalization is how liberals justify immoral and illegal acts.  Someone has to draw the line on pure evil. That's abortion.

This isn't a debate over whether you, in real life, personally believe that the proposed social safety net of Candidate B will result in fewer abortions.  It's a hypothetical for the purposes of a thought experiment.  For the purposes of the experiment, in this hypothetical, you believe they will.  If you don't wish to participate, that's ok. 

 

[jj3jordan 2,051]

3 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

This isn't a debate over whether you, in real life, personally believe that the proposed social safety net of Candidate B will result in fewer abortions.  It's a hypothetical for the purposes of a thought experiment.  For the purposes of the experiment, in this hypothetical, you believe they will.  If you don't wish to participate, that's ok. 

 

It is not a legitimate thought experiment.  It attempts to lead one to a liberal conclusion abandoning principles and dismissing evils under the guise of resulting in fewer abortions. We all know that won’t happen.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

1 minute ago, KolchakAU85 said:

OK, I'll play.  I've got nothing better to do tonight than to draw a bunch of "Thumbs Down" replies form the liberals here.

I'd vote for the pro-life candidate, hands down.  No doubt, no question, no hesitation.

Abortion has taken more innocent lives than all the US wars combined.  Add in the "mass shooting victims", and it's still not even close.

Abortion is murder.  The murder of one's own child.  A sick act.  It cheapens life, and has no place in society.

Get pregnant at 16?  Then have the baby and raise it responsibly.  You were mature enough to spread your legs for some stupid boy in the back seat of a car, then be mature enough to raise the child.  Hopefully along with the father.  But even if not.

Rape or incest?  That's a tough question to answer, and admittedly I have no good answer for that.  But it doesn't change my (right) stance on abortion otherwise.

Hell, let's allow stupid young people to take out college loans and then have US taxpayers pay the loans back.  And let's blame guns for killing people when guns can't pull their own triggers.  And lets allow people to kill their own babies in the name of "reproductive rights".

Sounds a lot like "Sieg Heil" to me.

Thanks for the straightforward answer.  

But let me ask then, why?  If you believe abortion is murder, why would you willingly go against your belief that you'll actually have fewer babies killed in the womb by voting for Candidate A? 

[KolchakAU85 430]

7 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Thanks for the straightforward answer.  

But let me ask then, why?  If you believe abortion is murder, why would you willingly go against your belief that you'll actually have fewer babies killed in the womb by voting for Candidate A? 

Well, I deleted my post, because I was afraid it might get me banned here.

But since you quoted it, I'll stand by it, and hope I'll still be allowed to participate in the sports forums.

And since you're a moderator, please feel free to re-post the post I deleted.

Now, to answer your question: honestly, I don't know.  You posed an excellent "damned if I do, damned  if I don't" question.

I guess if painted into a corner, I'd be more afraid to support abortion than to walk on wet paint.  Messed up paint is much easier to fix than the death of an innocent child as a matter of "convenience".

[TitanTiger 20,472]

2 minutes ago, KolchakAU85 said:

Well, I deleted my post, because I was afraid it might get me banned here.

But since you quoted it, I'll stand by it, and hope I'll still be allowed to participate in the sports forums.

And since you're a moderator, please feel free to re-post the post I deleted.

Now, to answer your question: honestly, I don't know.  You posed an excellent "damned if I do, damned  if I don't" question.

I guess if painted into a corner, I'd be more afraid to support abortion than to walk on wet paint.  Messed up paint is much easier to fix than the death of an innocent child as a matter of "convenience".

Believe me, I get it.  I am pro-life and make zero apologies for it.  I believe that one day people will look back on some of the arguments for virtually unfettered abortion access and wonder how in the world we became such monsters.

But it's a tough dilemma isn't it?  Do you take a "results oriented" approach, or a "principles oriented" approach?

[KolchakAU85 430]

3 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Believe me, I get it.  I am pro-life and make zero apologies for it.  I believe that one day people will look back on some of the arguments for virtually unfettered abortion access and wonder how in the world we became such monsters.

But it's a tough dilemma isn't it?  Do you take a "results oriented" approach, or a "principles oriented" approach?

It's definitely a tough dilemma.  Absolutely.  I admittedly have no good answer for the fate of an unborn child in the case of rape or incest.  I sometimes try to imagine being a pregnant woman in one of those two situations, and I'd sure as hell not want some holier-than-though man telling me what I could or could not do with my own body in that situation.

And I firmly believe that if men could get pregnant, then abortion rights would be in the Constitution of the United States.  But I guess "men" (biological women identifying as such) can get pregnant these days...but I (intentionally) digress...

I guess I take more of a "principles oriented" approach. 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Just now, KolchakAU85 said:

I guess I take more of a "principles oriented" approach. 

Unpack that a little more.  Why would you in this situation knowingly choose an option that will actually result in more abortions for the sake of an ideal?

And a further question, could a pro-life person vote for Candidate B in spite of that candidate's support for Roe and all that entails, but because of the end result - less babies get killed?  

[KolchakAU85 430]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

Unpack that a little more.  Why would you in this situation knowingly choose an option that will actually result in more abortions for the sake of an ideal?

And a further question, could a pro-life person vote for Candidate B in spite of that candidate's support for Roe and all that entails, but because of the end result - less babies get killed?  

OK Tiger, I'll be glad to answer this question (if possible) tomorrow night.  Hell, you pose a great question.  Not trying to dodge, but it's bed time and I haven't even eaten supper, which is a Zaxby's chicken salad with ranch dressing. 

I promise, I'll revisit this question and provide a full answer tomorrow night.

[DKW 86 7,419]

11 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Believe me, I get it.  I am pro-life and make zero apologies for it.  I believe that one day people will look back on some of the arguments for virtually unfettered abortion access and wonder how in the world we became such monsters.

This day is coming. It will be an awful day when we see the carnage we have allowed just so people can be irresponsible about birth control and just as importantly sex outside of marriage. I have been around or involved in 3 abortions. 1) I paid for my best friend's abortion back when i was 19. They were just idiot horn-dog teens that had free access to birth control and just refused to use it. They were both children of fairly Liberal RNs. Plenty of money and access to anything they would use. I truly regret being part of the death of that child. I have blood on my hands to this day because of it. 2) A close friend stole some money from me so she could finance her abortion. She knew I would have nothing to do with it at the time. .So, she stole some very nice jewelry from my home. I went and got it all back and then learned about the abortion second hand. She had lied to her boyfriend, a guy that was MADLY in love with her. She lied about the abortion because she had lied about being divorced. She was shacked up with this poor schlub while she had never filed from divorce from her husband.  She got pregnant, again using no birth control, and rather than do the right thing, she had the abortion to avoid being humiliated in front of friends and family for shacking up with a man while still fully married to another. Poor guy was totally unaware until the divorce was placed as a notice in the paper. 3) My ex's daughter turned up pregnant. She wanted a baby out of wedlock "so someone would love her." Her sperm donor was a complete louse and she still has huge hole in her where her real dad should have been. She got pregnant on purpose and her mom, my ex was bound and determined to have the abortion and was going to drag the girl to PP and force the abortion. (She was still a technically a minor. Pregnant in high school.) I stopped that abortion and helped raise the child big time and the lil girl is a beautiful happy young woman married to a great guy and the sanest one in all the family. 

Abortion is the worst answer to a bad situation caused by poor thinking in most situations. But the outcomes do not have to be bad. Their are so many people in my church adopting, so many childless couples...

[jj3jordan 2,051]

2 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

This day is coming. It will be an awful day when we see the carnage we have allowed just so people can be irresponsible about birth control and just as importantly sex outside of marriage. I have been around or involved in 3 abortions. 1) I paid for my best friend's abortion back when i was 19. They were just idiot horn-dog teens that had free access to birth control and just refused to use it. They were both children of fairly Liberal RNs. Plenty of money and access to anything they would use. I truly regret being part of the death of that child. I have blood on my hands to this day because of it. 2) A close friend stole some money from me so she could finance her abortion. She knew I would have nothing to do with it at the time. .So, she stole some very nice jewelry from my home. I went and got it all back and then learned about the abortion second hand. She had lied to her boyfriend, a guy that was MADLY in love with her. She lied about the abortion because she had lied about being divorced. She was shacked up with this poor schlub while she had never filed from divorce from her husband.  She got pregnant again, using no birth control, and rather than do the right thing, she had the abortion to avoid being humiliated in front of friends and family for shacking up with a man while still fully married to another. Poor guy was totally unaware until the divorce was placed as a notice in the paper. 3) My ex's daughter turned up pregnant. She wanted a baby out of wedlock "so someone would love her." Her sperm donor was a complete louse and she still has huge hole in her where her real dad should have been. She got pregnant on purpose and her mom, my ex was bound and determined to have the abortion and was going to drag the girl to PP and force the abortion. (She was still a technically a minor. Pregnant in high school.) I stopped that abortion and helped raise the child big time and the lil girl is a beautiful happy young woman married to a great guy and the sanest one in all the family. 

Abortion is the worst answer to a bad situation caused by poor thinking in most situations. But the outcomes do not have to be bad. Their are so many people in my church adopting, so many childless couples...

You are a true warrior 86.  It is a huge spiritual battle that we must fight. Think of what a great lady the world would have missed had you not fought for your ex's daughter's baby. 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

11 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

It is not a legitimate thought experiment.  It attempts to lead one to a liberal conclusion abandoning principles and dismissing evils under the guise of resulting in fewer abortions. We all know that won’t happen.

It's a completely legitimate thought experiment.  There are other issues where a pragmatic/result-oriented approach vs a principle-based one puts a person in conflict over the right course of action.  

And actually, we have indications that it has already happened.  Looking at roughly the past forty years, from 1973 through the rest of the 70s the abortion rate climbed steadily, more or less peaking in the early 80s.  Under pro-life Ronald Reagan, the abortion rate remained static at around 24 per 1,000 women. Under pro-life George H.W. Bush, it fell very slightly to 23 per 1,000 women.  

But under Bill Clinton, the rate fell dramatically, from 23 to 16.2 per 1000 women. Then under pro-life George W. Bush, the rate mostly stayed constant, dropping to 15 at the end of his term. Under Obama it dove again to 11.8 in 2015, the last year for which I could find statistics.  Granted, there is a downward trend overall from the early 80s to 2015, but even so, why did it level off for 8 years of GWB then nose dive again under Obama?

In summary, in the 34 years between 1981 and 2015, the abortion rate dropped a total of 2.2 per 1,000 women during 20 years of pro-life presidencies and 10 per 1,000 women during 14 years of pro-choice presidencies.  Put another way, whether intended or not the policies of pro-choice presidents were three and a half times as effective at reducing the abortion rate as pro-life presidents.

Why would this be?  I think looking at some stats cited by Illinois Right to Life might help make a correlation. In the Guttmacher Institute’s 2005 study of 1208 post-abortive women, 73% said they sought the procedure due to economic concerns: unemployment or a single, insufficient income incapable of covering basic needs plus the added costs of baby and child care. Seventy-four percent also said that having a child would interfere with their ability to work or get an education, or would draw resources away from their other children.

If the Guttmacher study is accurate – and it is widely cited, including by pro-life organizations as seen above – then the connection between the abortion rate and expansions and contractions of the social safety net seems reasonable.

The point is, it's a legitimate issue to ponder and think about.  I'm not trying to trick you into anything.  Answer the question or don't, it's up to you.  But a response that's akin to hollering "fake news" just because you don't like some of the possible conclusions isn't a response at all.

[AuburnNTexas 7,140]

There is no real answer here for multiple reasons. The Premise is strongly Pro-Life which I am but then all others things are put in about the candidates Big-Government  Liberal candidate versus Candidate that claims to be for Smaller-Government. Then in the hypothetical you state that the Liberal Big Government candidate would actually reduce the number of abortions. What basis is there for saying a liberal candidate would reduce the number of abortions?  Even if you are correct that the Liberal policies would reduce the number of abortions how would a voter know that?

I tend to vote for Pro-Life candidates but not just because they are Pro-Life but they usually have other policies I agree with. Justices that support a strict interpretation of the Constitution and don't try to usurp the legislature by indirectly writing Law through Judicial review. The court should not write law nor should the Executive branch via Executive orders which I have seen to much of over most of our recent Presidents even when I agreed with what they were trying to do. 

There is no one issue that I would use as a Litmus test for voting for a candidate but I will admit Pro-Life would definitely be one of the things I would look at.With the right two candidates I could vote for somebody who is not Pro-Life if the other candidate is so bad. If I was living in Alabama I could never have voted for Roy Moore.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

19 minutes ago, AuburnNTexas said:

There is no real answer here for multiple reasons. The Premise is strongly Pro-Life which I am but then all others things are put in about the candidates Big-Government  Liberal candidate versus Candidate that claims to be for Smaller-Government. Then in the hypothetical you state that the Liberal Big Government candidate would actually reduce the number of abortions. What basis is there for saying a liberal candidate would reduce the number of abortions?  Even if you are correct that the Liberal policies would reduce the number of abortions how would a voter know that?

I got into that a bit here:  https://www.aufamily.com/forums/topic/167852-a-thought-experiment-re-abortion/?do=findComment&comment=3092065

They would know that, or at least have good reason to believe that, because we have some history of that being the case.

 

Quote

I tend to vote for Pro-Life candidates but not just because they are Pro-Life but they usually have other policies I agree with. Justices that support a strict interpretation of the Constitution and don't try to usurp the legislature by indirectly writing Law through Judicial review. The court should not write law nor should the Executive branch via Executive orders which I have seen to much of over most of our recent Presidents even when I agreed with what they were trying to do. 

There is no one issue that I would use as a Litmus test for voting for a candidate but I will admit Pro-Life would definitely be one of the things I would look at.With the right two candidates I could vote for somebody who is not Pro-Life if the other candidate is so bad. If I was living in Alabama I could never have voted for Roy Moore.

You probably aren't the primary target for this thought experiment then.  I know a LOT of conservative voters who will cite issues like taxes, immigration, 2nd Amendment and abortion for why they vote Republican, but when they have to choose between candidates who are a mixed bag on some of that stuff, the deciding factor comes down to abortion.  If you're great on those other three but are thought to be soft or too moderate on abortion, you're out of consideration.  But what happens when abortion is that level of importance for you but you begin to believe that significantly fewer abortions will happen under a pro-choice candidate's administration because of these social safety net increases?  That's the dilemma.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

On 8/8/2019 at 2:36 PM, TitanTiger said:

Then read "promises to take measures" more like Candidate B's aims are written, meaning he opposes Roe and will work to protect the unborn and restrict abortion rights as much as he possibly can in terms of signing or supporting legistlation, and judicially by selecting conservative (or to use the current code, "strict constructionist" or "textualist") judges for the federal courts and Supreme Court.

In other words, obviously we know that presidents have limited power and can't always deliver on the promises they make or things they say they will push for.  But we believe they will make good faith attempts to push the country in their stated and intended direction on these matters, with some reasonable degree of success.

 

Ok.  I think the point is, you know what kinds of legislation each will support, advocate for, sign.  You know what they will oppose, argue against, and veto.  And you know what their stated position on abortion is.  But you feel have good reason to believe that despite these respective stances, the kinds of programs Candidate B supports and will seek to get through Congress and sign will expand the social safety net with the result being that the abortion rate goes down noticeably and significantly compared to what it would do under Candidate A.

How do you vote in a situation like that?

 

20 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

This isn't a debate over whether you, in real life, personally believe that the proposed social safety net of Candidate B will result in fewer abortions.  It's a hypothetical for the purposes of a thought experiment.  For the purposes of the experiment, in this hypothetical, you believe they will.  If you don't wish to participate, that's ok. 

 

For the sake of not being a pedant, the most honest and general answer I can give is "I still cannot outright choose one over the other." Assuming I believe Candidate B's policies will result in fewer abortion (per the parameters of your question), the persistent friction I would continue to encounter is my view that the ends do not necessarily justify the means. In other words, if I am forced - for purposes of the hypothetical - to think fewer abortions is a good thing, I could still reject Candidate B on the basis of means.

In reality, I take more of a "federalism approach" to abortion. 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

3 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

the persistent friction I would continue to encounter is my view that the ends do not necessarily justify the means. In other words, if I am forced - for purposes of the hypothetical - to think fewer abortions is a good thing, I could still reject Candidate B on the basis of means.

What about the means would make it unjustifiable?

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

4 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

What about the means would make it unjustifiable?

I am using the term "justify" loosely. You can read it as "make acceptable."  

[johnnyAU 3,630]

Not all folks who don't vote liberal are necessarily anti-abortion.