Replies

That’s right, but there is a paradoxical element complicating the abortion issue:

To save unborn babies, pro lifers need to win in politics.
But winning in politics requires strategy.
Strategy involves sacrifice, for example sacrificing a pawn to win in chess.

But the debate over abortion involves unborn human babies, not pawns.

Ironically, the refusal of pro-lifers to accept strategic sacrifice means they will not win, and therefore more lives will be lost.

The answer of course, is for pro-life candidates to advocate the lowest number of weeks during which abortion is permitted - and still win their elections. Advocating too strict a ban and letting the Democrat win will not save a single life.

More lives will be saved if pro-life candidates play it smart and win their elections.

EXCELLENT POST.

Why can’t our side understand such common sense? Its the most basic of common sense...........

Thanks!

One thing I forgot:

The sacrifice of conceding x number of weeks is not a permanent sacrifice, it’s like picking low-hanging fruit - you can always come back later with a taller ladder and pick more.

There is absolutely no downside to making a strategic compromise in the number of weeks abortion is permitted, because the debate over abortion will continue regardless of laws passed and regardless of elections won or lost.

Efforts to influence public opinion in a pro-life direction will always continue outside of politics, and if successful, perhaps future pro-life candidates will find the political landscape more favorable - allowing them to advocate further limitations and still win their elections.

One huge example of this was the advent of ultra-sound in the late 1970s. When it became commonplace for pregnant women to get an ultrasound, the abortion rate dropped precipitately, because it became much harder to deny the fetus was a baby.

And that development occurred totally outside of politics or law.
The political and legal battlegrounds over abortion are not the only battlegrounds - and arguably not the most important battlegrounds.

If pro-life thinkers and cultural leaders can influence the public in the right direction, politics and law will follow suit.

Ironically, the refusal of pro-lifers to accept strategic sacrifice means they will not win, and therefore more lives will be lost.

People who think that way are in fact not trying to save any lives at all. They are trying to make a statement about themselves. They are conservative virtue signalers. A virtue signaler is not ultimately interested in actual results. They are concerned with having a certain image of themselves. It's all about themselves. We typically see virtue signalers on the liberal side, especially in Hollywood.