The anti-abortion groups are no different than the philosemitic groups in that both are special interest groups who seek to control the politics of a larger group through emotional blackmail and intransigence. Scrape'em off.
Yes, the pro-life movement has an iron grip on the GOP, but in some ways it's admirable. I'm currently writing an article on how the anti-transgenderism movement needs to make support or opposition to trans ideology the 'litmus test issue'. People like Richard Hanania and Eric Kauffmann have talked about an anti-Woke equivalent to pro-life or NRA, a single-issue movement that totally captures one particular party; I think it's time to just do it.
Thank you! I look forward to reading that article. It will be interesting to see how new right figureheads like Hanania will continue to capture RW participants.
The Right needs to focus less on "can women get abortions" and focus on the "why women get abortions" and work on building a country and society where women don't want or need to get them.
Very few people “need” abortions, and I don’t think there is serious opposition to their doing so when it comes up.
Why do women want abortions? Because they want to have sex and sometimes don’t use protection and they don’t want the kid that results. Usually because the man they had sex with is unlikely to stick around.
We already provide a lot of financial assistance to single moms. Free education, Medicaid, various welfare and subsidy. It’s hard to see how we could provide much more, and it’s not clear to me we want the incentives for single moms to have more kids to be that strong.
The right could increase child subsidies to the middle class and maybe people would have more kids, but women with the prospect of becoming single moms are still going to get abortions. Once “sex before marriage” is out of the bag you get a demand for abortion.
This is incorrect. I see a lot of people making this naive reasoning.
Slavery was ended carte Blanche. We can all whinge about it would have been better to have something in place. But few of us actually think it would have been worth keeping it around longer.
The reality is that all of these changes can and will happen organically if it is permanently outlawed and prevented.
The religious right do not have to invent and create a utopia for people to come across to. We just need to win and outlaw it as the evil it is, and let the generations solve the resulting problems.
Also the pro-life and pro-choice rhetoric is mostly focused on negativity. Pro Life: "it's murder", "it's sinful", "it leaves guilt", "it's horrific"... While all true in my opinion, negative advertising is not as effective as positive. Maybe they could try being simply Pro Natal, pro Mom (or Dad!), pro family. Creating lobbies for politicians who advocate for these things is more universal and wholesome.
Meanwhile the pro choice stance may sound positive "women deserve the right to choose" I think everyone knows it's ultimately negative: "... The right to choose death of a baby". Their messaging could focus more on pro DINK lifestyle and pro fun, pro friends and travelling. All universal and somewhat wholesome.
The fundamental difficulty with pro-life is that it’s morally* correct but political suicide. There are issues like that and this isn’t the first.
Pro-choice is a refutation of everything the right believes in. It’s not even really about abortion, it’s a stand in for whether or not you like children. Pro-choice women simply don’t have kids, they are ok with abortion because they lack empathy and motherly instinct, or because they have base urges that outweigh what instincts they have. Many of the other positions that flow out of their narcicism are antithetical to the right as well. This flies over Richard’s head because he himself is a narcissist.
The Trump position on this is correct. He gave pro-life the chance to get what they want, and pro-life blew it. If these preachers can’t get their flock to go to the polls for this then the failure is on them, not Trump. Trying to weasel your way into legislation with only 40% support is cowardly and unchristian. These people should be thinking of ways to change the narrative, not hiding behind the GOP.
Richard goes further and endorses abortion as a moral good rather than a current electoral impossibility. His hides behind electability but really there is a moral rot there.
*there are certainly some moral abortions, but they are edge cases and not the norm. We spend a lot of time talking about them to avoid talking about the norm (dumb slut fucks without protection when she shouldn’t and murders healthy baby because it’s an inconvenience).
If one stops talking about abortion as a moral wrong one is indeed buckling and sick.
But saying that having gop candidates lose elections to pass legislation that is going to be overwhelmingly overturned by referendum is not buckling, it’s stating the facts. Until the pro-life movement can convince enough of its citizens that abortion restrictions can pass a referendum it’s not going anywhere.
Trump took it out of the hands of judges and gave it to the people. Now it’s up to them.
The anti-abortion groups are no different than the philosemitic groups in that both are special interest groups who seek to control the politics of a larger group through emotional blackmail and intransigence. Scrape'em off.
Exactly. I'm glad you get it!
Great article Daniella.
Yes, the pro-life movement has an iron grip on the GOP, but in some ways it's admirable. I'm currently writing an article on how the anti-transgenderism movement needs to make support or opposition to trans ideology the 'litmus test issue'. People like Richard Hanania and Eric Kauffmann have talked about an anti-Woke equivalent to pro-life or NRA, a single-issue movement that totally captures one particular party; I think it's time to just do it.
Thank you! I look forward to reading that article. It will be interesting to see how new right figureheads like Hanania will continue to capture RW participants.
https://anglofuturistmag.substack.com/p/how-the-british-anti-transgenderism
The Right needs to focus less on "can women get abortions" and focus on the "why women get abortions" and work on building a country and society where women don't want or need to get them.
Very few people “need” abortions, and I don’t think there is serious opposition to their doing so when it comes up.
Why do women want abortions? Because they want to have sex and sometimes don’t use protection and they don’t want the kid that results. Usually because the man they had sex with is unlikely to stick around.
We already provide a lot of financial assistance to single moms. Free education, Medicaid, various welfare and subsidy. It’s hard to see how we could provide much more, and it’s not clear to me we want the incentives for single moms to have more kids to be that strong.
The right could increase child subsidies to the middle class and maybe people would have more kids, but women with the prospect of becoming single moms are still going to get abortions. Once “sex before marriage” is out of the bag you get a demand for abortion.
This is incorrect. I see a lot of people making this naive reasoning.
Slavery was ended carte Blanche. We can all whinge about it would have been better to have something in place. But few of us actually think it would have been worth keeping it around longer.
The reality is that all of these changes can and will happen organically if it is permanently outlawed and prevented.
The religious right do not have to invent and create a utopia for people to come across to. We just need to win and outlaw it as the evil it is, and let the generations solve the resulting problems.
Also the pro-life and pro-choice rhetoric is mostly focused on negativity. Pro Life: "it's murder", "it's sinful", "it leaves guilt", "it's horrific"... While all true in my opinion, negative advertising is not as effective as positive. Maybe they could try being simply Pro Natal, pro Mom (or Dad!), pro family. Creating lobbies for politicians who advocate for these things is more universal and wholesome.
Meanwhile the pro choice stance may sound positive "women deserve the right to choose" I think everyone knows it's ultimately negative: "... The right to choose death of a baby". Their messaging could focus more on pro DINK lifestyle and pro fun, pro friends and travelling. All universal and somewhat wholesome.
Did you come up with that?
That’s the smartest way of phrasing it that I have heard. Also add that “can women get abortions” restrictions has failed in every country.
My guy, if the right wing becomes pro choice. It would be the single biggest mistake it could have made.
If we win on this issue. We can shame the left for another century into oblivion.
The fundamental difficulty with pro-life is that it’s morally* correct but political suicide. There are issues like that and this isn’t the first.
Pro-choice is a refutation of everything the right believes in. It’s not even really about abortion, it’s a stand in for whether or not you like children. Pro-choice women simply don’t have kids, they are ok with abortion because they lack empathy and motherly instinct, or because they have base urges that outweigh what instincts they have. Many of the other positions that flow out of their narcicism are antithetical to the right as well. This flies over Richard’s head because he himself is a narcissist.
The Trump position on this is correct. He gave pro-life the chance to get what they want, and pro-life blew it. If these preachers can’t get their flock to go to the polls for this then the failure is on them, not Trump. Trying to weasel your way into legislation with only 40% support is cowardly and unchristian. These people should be thinking of ways to change the narrative, not hiding behind the GOP.
Richard goes further and endorses abortion as a moral good rather than a current electoral impossibility. His hides behind electability but really there is a moral rot there.
*there are certainly some moral abortions, but they are edge cases and not the norm. We spend a lot of time talking about them to avoid talking about the norm (dumb slut fucks without protection when she shouldn’t and murders healthy baby because it’s an inconvenience).
What's the point in the Right Wing even winning if we're going to buckle on something of basic importance like Abortion?
If one stops talking about abortion as a moral wrong one is indeed buckling and sick.
But saying that having gop candidates lose elections to pass legislation that is going to be overwhelmingly overturned by referendum is not buckling, it’s stating the facts. Until the pro-life movement can convince enough of its citizens that abortion restrictions can pass a referendum it’s not going anywhere.
Trump took it out of the hands of judges and gave it to the people. Now it’s up to them.
Everything's a grift. Never do anything or you're a grifter.
I think some people can have ideological stances and not have it be a grift, although these days those types are few and far between.