Hmmm, I just keep wondering how we would view a past politician or group of people fighting for civil rights (for minorities) when it wasn't popular, creating political inertia with their whining. I doubt it was only in the 60s that people were fighting for equal rights. And even in the 60s, minds and hearts were not converted by any means. The Domcratic party took a HUGE loss at following (being coerced into) Lyndon Johnson's lead. The Democratic Party WAS the party of the South. They were the utterly racist party. In fact, Jimmy Carter led supporters in south to believe that he agreed with their racist views until he was elected governor and literally on the day of his inauguration let the cat out of the bag and past legislation that furthered civil rights. These people are considered heros for these very acts even though they disregarded a significant portion of their constituency... betrayed them. But in reality they didn't betray them because they didn't just do this to pass some law about using a cell phone while driving or a new tax. They furthered the cause of innate human rights. They did what was the right thing to do regardless of if people's hearts were changed or not. They didn't wait around until most everyone could calmly see their point. They bulldozed things through. That doesn't mean they thought with civil rights legislation racism would be gone... or even necessarily lessened. The racist probably got more racist. But the question is not what happened to them... but what happened to their children nd their grandchildren. As racist as some ares of the States may be they are nothing like their grandfathers' time.
So, I suppose we can just calmly wait for everyone to see our point (they never will as long as choice is an option, people never ever ever like to give up choice even if the choice is a literal piece of crap) or we can do what we need to do to lead the cause for human rights. That includes (and is not limited to) passing legislation that says that the government does not support this violation either.
And democrats use welfare, and countless do-good government programs as a wedge issue. Does that mean a person discount them as unimportant? Oh yeah, they also use choice as a wedge issue. I often listen to NPR and I love how I will hear people outrightly say "I couldnt vote for him because of his stance against abortion" and that is respected because the left has done a great job at making any polititian who is against abortion out to be a stupid caveman or heartless slaveowner. But then they will have topics dedicated to the mysterious "one-issue voter" ALWAYS referring to pro-lifers who won't vote for a candidate because he or she supports abortion.
I will agree with you that many (most) don't really care about abortion. They care about it as much as their constituecy does. I don't think McCain really cared about it (I didn't vote for him). However, some do and even when they don't, if their constituents can put enough pressure on them it can effect funding.
Perhaps mroe than that, it's about having someone who is lukewarm on the issue of abortion as opposed to someone who is ardently pro-choice which is much scarier. Because of Bush's nominations, we are still able (BARELY) to hold on to what is widely believed to be a majority (5-4) pro-life supreme court. If it had been Kerry and then Obama, it would be a decidedly pro-choice Supreme Court and during the time (or since) Bush there was a case regarding Dilation and Extraction where it was stuck down. It was not a landmark case for us... but still important because of what it DIDN'T allow to slowly creep in as the new norm (of what is a right).
But we really don't have that kind of situation - there is a vocal, funded pro-life voice and lobby, but we do not see that kind of activity of the 60's at the political level.
The civil rights movement started before the 60's got into swing and it began to be seen making waves in government - its origins were grassroots. The 50's or even 40's IMO are a better comparison to where we are today.
My point about the political leaders is that while I know some are sincere, the political machines - and there are really only two in the US - see this as a cause best used to serve their needs. The Dems. have many flaws, but in this case I think the Republicans are more important - they are essentially Strausians - people who think religion is useful because it controls the population, not because it is true.
I think the fact that abortion has allowed itself to become so political in the US is a major disadvantage to actual change. It has become primarily a political issue in peoples minds, and connected with other political issues. Many people think you cannot left politically if you are pro-life, that it implies you must believe in other things they cannot support.
Whenever an issue is hijacked to serve other ends, the issue itself suffers, and I think that has been allowed to happen in the US. We may be a bit better off in Canada on that account as one can find people on both siudes of the issue in all pareties (though there are of course other obstacles.)
It should. Would it. I don't knwo. Are we not going to try because it might. It CERTAINLY won't if we have a series of pro-choice presidents who pakc the supreme court with those who are blinded on this issue. I don't knwo how Canadian politics works on this.
This isn't about smoking. As much as I am passionately for banning smoking in public areas (it makes my blood boil) this is not the same thing in any important way (as important as that is). This is about human rights.
But no one is saying that education shouldn't be a part of it. It NEEDS to be a huge part of it. The biggest part of all. But by that I don't mean that legality is less important. It's just that education has to be fought on so many fronts. It's very complicated... it needs to be on-going for a long time.
In the past 20 years, anti-smoking campaigners have made radical legal changes to smoking laws, changed social attitudes about at a shocking level, and made tobacco companies among the most hated business entities in the world.
How much progress has the pro-life lobby made?
That is what I am getting at. You cannot wage a battle without having a plan. It means knowing your own strengths and vulnerabilities and capabilities, and those of your adversary. It means understanding the environment - in this case the legal and social environment. It especially means knowing your final objective with absolute clarity and laying out the intermediate and immediate objectives required to get there.
If you do not have these things in order, you cannot make sure your efforts are directed in the way that has the most effect and you will use up your reserves before you need them. You will simply end up in the wrong place, boxed into a corner.
Campaigns that don't keep their eye on the plan and run the right kind of campaign fail, even if they have truth behind them. Ending abortion is the final objective. Making it illegal, in one fell swoop or incrementally, is one intermediate objective - we evidently do not have the tools we need to do that yet.
IMO, right now it is a hearts and minds campaign - one directed to winning support - and using the bulk of effort on a legal campaign is compromising that by diverting resources among other things.
I think people feel like they want to be in a conventional war at the polls, because it seems clear cut - it has the attraction of purity of doctrine. In some cases it is very easy for people to feel like they are doing something by voting for the pro-life side.
But when doctrine won't change to fit the situation you get the British in America, or the Soviets in Afghanistan.
But you advocate a government protecting a woman's right to do that. I'm not screaming at you. I really do get your point and I know (hope) you don't see this as a "right". I hope it is merely taht you see this as a pragmatic way to get to the point one day where in your mind it makes sense to outlaw it.
If that is so, I am very comforted that we are arguing on the same side of the fence. If you believe it is a human right ot be able to abort then we are different sides of the fence. I'm still not screaming at you and I do respect YOU but you are wrong on your stance and I will say that as emphatically as any pioneer of human rights has had to say that in the days when what they believed was not popular. (not that I am a martyr, but I am on the less popular side of things and am looked at like a green martian... especially being a public school teacher).
I have to run... running late.
I don't advocate the government doing that - it is what the government does. It is what the government will do until the law changes. Saying "change the law" is like saying use the giant laser on the moon. There is no giant laser, and laws are changed in the US and Canada at the moment primarily due to significant social pressure - and sometimes not even then if it is not in the interests of those with power. The question is, what needs to happen to achieve the conditions necessary for a change in law? Additionally we know that winning an intermediate objective too early can actually compromise an entire campaign, because it can always be lost again before it is of use if we cannot protect it, or sometimes it can be made redundant if the adversary can see how you plan to use it.
I want abortion to be ended, and how that can be achieved will depend on the place it is happening. Right now in North America the pro-life lobby seems to me to have allowed itself to become a political tool and in a real way that nullifies its effectiveness. And there seems to be no plan but a bunch of people out there sabotaging the chance of actually convincing people to change their perspective or using their energy where it is not useful.