I’ll throw my cards on the table: I’m pro-life. In fact, I believe conventional women does add nine months to their birthdate whenever anyone inquires about their age. ( Men should do it, too, but the idea’s funnier with women. ) Full disclosure: To me, transforming America into a region that’s not just pro-life officially, but where the pro-life discussion has captured the hearts and imaginations of the people, is a good point.
Advertisement
And I think we may reach that goal. Really! But we’ll have to alter our methods.
Some pro-life users may be offended by what I’m about to consider because the sanctity of life is a social issue. And there’s something to be said for always, always compromising on social issues.
After all, whenever you’re forced to decide between two ills, it actually means your choice was terrible.
It’s an cognitively regular vantage point, it’s natural and straightforward. Besides, there’s something heroic and awe-inspiring in staking socially insurmountable positions and damning all effects. It’s noble. There’s a purpose why it’s been the go-to story in a million-gazillion World shows.
In the cartoons, Captain America himself said that:
Does n’t matter what the press says. It’s irrelevant what officials or the media say. Whether the entire nation decides something bad or anything straight, it matters. Above all else, this country was founded on the premise that, regardless of the circumstances or the outcomes, we must defend what we believe. Your job is to grow yourself like a tree beside the River of Truth and say to the world,” No, YOU move,” when the crowd and the rest of the world tell you to move.
Of course, this tends to function best as a story system, sowing the seeds of the soldier’s dreadful fate. ( However, in the case above, Captain America afterwards regretted his place and was shot in the head, but there were secret replicas and he lived … okay. Let’s not get into it. )
Advertisement
In politics, there’s sometimes a fresh choice between beauty and terrible. On the ballot, everyone’s favorite easy, socially popular ideas have already been chosen! Each fresh piece of legislation has its advantages and disadvantages, and the review focuses more on balancing the two.
If you only voted for “perfect” costs, you’ll not vote yes on something. ( Which, come to think of it, might not be a bad idea at all! )  ,
Bottom collection? If you ca n’t stomach horse trading, then politics is n’t the right racket for you.
As an ending effect, pretty little truly changes, and our brave, brave politicians are incentivized to kick the football on moral questions, deferring to the Supreme Court and/or professional orders. Moral concerns are great wedge issues that drive your bottom out of your ( almost always safe ) district, so this works out very well for dishonest, cowardly officials.
The problem with this strategy is threefold: First, the other side gets elections, too. If you wait long enough, gradually all your plans may be reversed. Now, the pro-life activity is ascending, four years from today, this might not be so.
And next, the status quo incentivizes serious voices, extremism, and political scare tactics. It fosters a world in which disagreement and quality are unattainable. Thus, contraception continues to be one of our country’s most divisive issues.  ,
Advertisement
That’s not good for Republicans.
What if a second option were available, one that would Suddenly alter the debate and make ALL Americans view abortion different?
Roe v. Wade was overturned. Pregnancy is once more a state’s human rights matter. Democrats are utterly terrified and do n’t believe Trump, despite repeatedly telling them he did n’t support a national abortion ban. In poker parlance, they’re on bend.
Which means we’d been negotiating from a position of strength.
I’d like to make the following offer to Democrats: Support a bipartisan bill that aims to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancy and abortions per year by 10 %.
And each year, you renew the act.
Offer the Democrats the Republican portion of the resources, whatever it is. If GOPers wanna spent it on abstinence-only plans, good. If the Democrats wanna spend it on free contraception, good. As long as we keep our eyes on lowering the rate of unwanted pregnancy and miscarriages by 10 % annually, that is a small price to pay.
It’s a pleasant place for Democrats, because ( by definition ) an “unwanted” something is bad. It would, more importantly, change people’s perspective from slavishly defending abortion ( including through the ninth month ) to seeing it as a net negative that needs to be reduced. However, with the Democrats in the majority and terrified about MAGA Nation, they may argue that this offer is better than possible alternatives.
Advertisement
I think they’d take it.
In the grand scheme of things, funding their silly social programs is a small price to pay: It’s just horse trading, folks.
And look, if you still find horse trading unappealing, let me point out an uncomfortable truth: 25 years ago, if our country was focused on eliminating the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions by 10 % annually, there would’ve been MILLIONS fewer babies killed in abortions by now.
And MILLIONS is a really, really big number.
My plan is n’t perfect: Abortion would still exist. If you’re a moral purist, this plan is a non-starter.
But if you’re a horse trader, this would be the trade of a lifetime.
