How can pro-lifers continue to support democracy when voters keep rejecting pro-life measures?

[Ferguson97]

From the pro-life perspective, abortion is murder.

Ever since Dobbs, the pro-life movement has been getting absolutely destroyed at the ballot box. Voters have repeatedly and clearly rejected attempts to further restrict abortion access.

And yes, there's a lot of Republican positions that are unpopular and get rejected at the ballot box, and they haven't explicitly rejected democracy yet. But this isn't just any other issue. It's not tax cuts or gun control or healthcare - it is, from their perspective, the mass murder of babies. Literal infanticide. There are few, if any, things worse than committing genocide against babies.

How can you continue to support democracy if the voters keep voting for what you believe is genocide? How does that not just completely break your brain? I don't get it.

[TheReckoning]

Because autocracy can be just, as if not, more pro-abortion than democracy. See the PRC, North Korea, and Soviet Union for details.

We live in a fallen world. Democracy is the least awful way of organizing things.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

15 years ago, supporters of gay marriage often argued that the right to get married was so basic that it wasn't appropriate to allow a vote of the people to take it away.  Does that mean they no longer supported democracy?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

least unnecessary and bad-faith talk elections abortion threaf

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

least unnecessary and bad-faith talk elections abortion threaf

[Antonio the Sixth]

Disagreeing with the majority of voters on an issue you're passionate about is really not an experience unique with pro-lifers. If my faith in democracy was based on the idea that most people agreed with me I would have lost it ages ago.

[Alben Barkley]

“If conservatives become convinced that they can not win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. The will reject democracy.”

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

It's not anti-democracy to have opinions that the majority of voters. In fact, the whole point of democracy is that people can hold a multitude of opinions - especially minority opinions, which are invariably persecuted in non-democratic systems.

Voters have the choice of voting for pro-life or pro-choice politicians or ballot measures, and the pro-choice opinion seems to be democratically winning those. But those who stand against that majority opinion are no less democratic than those who hold the majority opinion, because the whole point is diversity of opinion.

[Ferguson97]

Disagreeing with the majority of voters on an issue you're passionate about is really not an experience unique with pro-lifers. If my faith in democracy was based on the idea that most people agreed with me I would have lost it ages ago.

But my point is that this isn't like any other issue. They (claim) to literally think it's the mass killing of infants.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Disagreeing with the majority of voters on an issue you're passionate about is really not an experience unique with pro-lifers. If my faith in democracy was based on the idea that most people agreed with me I would have lost it ages ago.

But my point is that this isn't like any other issue. They (claim) to literally think it's the mass killing of infants.

Lack of access to healthcare in this country is almost certainly causing the deaths of thousands of infants every year (not to mention the elderly, and everyone else really). Our inhumane immigration policy is almost certainly responsible for many deaths as well. Politics is inherently a life-and-death business - abortion is not special in that regard.

[Xing]

I believe that the majority opinion on the gun issue in America is atrocious, and the status quo is undeniably resulting in many preventable deaths, but that doesn’t mean that becoming anti-democracy is a good solution.

[Хahar 🤔]

15 years ago, supporters of gay marriage often argued that the right to get married was so basic that it wasn't appropriate to allow a vote of the people to take it away.  Does that mean they no longer supported democracy?

Yes, of course. The American demand for government by fiat is not limited to one side.

[Thank you for being a friend...]

The votes in Ohio in 2023 may be devastating for pro-life voters, but they are winning in all the other areas: all statewide offices, including Governor, and the state legislature is overwhelmingly pro-life.  So through democracy, they are getting the representation they want, and because of our democracy and its system of checks and balances, and separation of powers, if a ballot measure doesn't go your way, there are certain things you can do about it.  Like Prop 8, which was brought up, you can go through the courts, for example.

I wonder what the makeup of the Ohio Supreme Court is and if they have the power to declare any pro-choice ballot measure victory unconstitutional.  That's actually a question to any here: If a state passes a constitutional amendment, can the state supreme court declare that it goes against the state constitution?  Or do you need a federal court to make a ruling on that?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The votes in Ohio in 2023 may be devastating for pro-life voters, but they are winning in all the other areas: all statewide offices, including Governor, and the state legislature is overwhelmingly pro-life.  So through democracy, they are getting the representation they want, and because of our democracy and its system of checks and balances, and separation of powers, if a ballot measure doesn't go your way, there are certain things you can do about it.  Like Prop 8, which was brought up, you can go through the courts, for example.

I wonder what the makeup of the Ohio Supreme Court is and if they have the power to declare any pro-choice ballot measure victory unconstitutional.  That's actually a question to any here: If a state passes a constitutional amendment, can the state supreme court declare that it goes against the state constitution?  Or do you need a federal court to make a ruling on that?

A federal court would only be able to rule on whether the state constitutional amendment violated federal law (including the federal Constitution). There are constitutional designs out there across the world in which there are certain foundational structures and principles within the constitution that other parts of it can be struck down for violating, but I don't know if any US states use them.

[John Dule]

Disagreeing with the majority of voters on an issue you're passionate about is really not an experience unique with pro-lifers. If my faith in democracy was based on the idea that most people agreed with me I would have lost it ages ago.

But my point is that this isn't like any other issue. They (claim) to literally think it's the mass killing of infants.

You've said many times that you think the US is currently committing a genocide against transgender people. I guess by your logic, you must want to end democracy in order to stop this.

[West_Midlander]

The votes in Ohio in 2023 may be devastating for pro-life voters, but they are winning in all the other areas: all statewide offices, including Governor, and the state legislature is overwhelmingly pro-life.  So through democracy, they are getting the representation they want, and because of our democracy and its system of checks and balances, and separation of powers, if a ballot measure doesn't go your way, there are certain things you can do about it.  Like Prop 8, which was brought up, you can go through the courts, for example.

I wonder what the makeup of the Ohio Supreme Court is and if they have the power to declare any pro-choice ballot measure victory unconstitutional.  That's actually a question to any here: If a state passes a constitutional amendment, can the state supreme court declare that it goes against the state constitution?  Or do you need a federal court to make a ruling on that?

There is precedent for what you describe since the elected Democratic NC Supreme Court majority blocked the Voter ID amendment that the people voted for in the same year they elected that Court in 2018.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

15 years ago, supporters of gay marriage often argued that the right to get married was so basic that it wasn't appropriate to allow a vote of the people to take it away.  Does that mean they no longer supported democracy?

Yes, of course. The American demand for government by fiat is not limited to one side.

I mean there is a basic ambiguity in the term "democracy."  Most people who claim to support it don't want literally everything to be up for a popular vote.  I know some get annoyed at "We live in a representative republic, not a democracy" but if we don't make some kind of distinction along those lines it's very easy to fall into a motte-and-bailey argument.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Disagreeing with the majority of voters on an issue you're passionate about is really not an experience unique with pro-lifers. If my faith in democracy was based on the idea that most people agreed with me I would have lost it ages ago.

But my point is that this isn't like any other issue. They (claim) to literally think it's the mass killing of infants.

You've said many times that you think the US is currently committing a genocide against transgender people. I guess by your logic, you must want to end democracy in order to stop this.

Also would apply to people on places like Twitter who basically believe that the US not requiring bakers to bake cakes for same-sex weddings is pretty much the same thing as Saudi Arabia and Iran executing gays.

[VBM]

Disagreeing with the majority of voters on an issue you're passionate about is really not an experience unique with pro-lifers. If my faith in democracy was based on the idea that most people agreed with me I would have lost it ages ago.

But my point is that this isn't like any other issue. They (claim) to literally think it's the mass killing of infants.

You've said many times that you think the US is currently committing a genocide against transgender people. I guess by your logic, you must want to end democracy in order to stop this.

The difference is that Fergie doesn't really believe that, but many pro-lifers do genuinely believe abortion is no different than murder

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Disagreeing with the majority of voters on an issue you're passionate about is really not an experience unique with pro-lifers. If my faith in democracy was based on the idea that most people agreed with me I would have lost it ages ago.

But my point is that this isn't like any other issue. They (claim) to literally think it's the mass killing of infants.

You've said many times that you think the US is currently committing a genocide against transgender people. I guess by your logic, you must want to end democracy in order to stop this.

The difference is that Fergie doesn't really believe that, but many pro-lifers do genuinely believe abortion is no different than murder

Fergie has said before that he doesn't trust that they do, because of perceived inconsistencies like this, and there are people who really believe that a trans genocide is occurring but get accused of the same dishonesty for the same reason,* so I think the analogy is actually a pretty sound one.

*Personally, I absolutely think that trans people are being systematically persecuted in many Republican-ruled states, but I am extremely conservative about applying the term "genocide."

[Antonio the Sixth]

It genuinely boggles my mind that so many people here, on both sides of this sad little squabble, seem to be grappling for the first time with the idea that politics has high stakes and that democracies can do seriously messed up things. Like, hey, it was an at least somewhat democratic government in this very country that condoned slavery, massacred Native Americans, and put Japanese people in concentration camps. And if we want to talk about anti-LGBT genocides, the Reagan administration's AIDS policy sure bears some of the markings of one.

Politics is, and will always be, a cataclysmic fight against the forces of evil that forever threaten to take hold of a society. There's no code we can crack to neutralize those forces, because they come from the furthest depths of the human soul. Only constant vigilance and tireless work in the defense of one's fellow person can prevent them from triumphing.

[MarkD]

At least now, pro-lifers have "the satisfaction of a fair hearing and an honest fight," as Justice Antonin Scalia once wrote. I'm certainly not a big fan of Scalia, but the opinion he wrote in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 1992, was probably the best thing I've ever read from him. After explaining -- almost exactly correctly -- why abortion was truly not a "constitutional right," and expressing his disagreement with the Court's plurality decision to continue to adhere to the precedent of Roe v. Wade, Scalia ended his opinion with:

It is no more realistic for us in this litigation, than it was for [Chief Justice Roger B. Taney] in [Dred Scott v. Sandford], to think that an issue of the sort they both involved -- an issue involving life and death, freedom and subjugation -- can be "speedily and finally settled" by the Supreme Court. ..... Quite to the contrary, by foreclosing all democratic outlet for the deep passions this issue arouses, by banishing the issue from the political forum that gives all participants, even the losers, the satisfaction of a fair hearing and an honest fight, by continuing the imposition of a rigid national rule instead of allowing for regional differences, the Court merely prolongs and intensifies the anguish.
We should get out of this area, where we have no right to be, and where we do neither ourselves nor the country any good by remaining.

I'm not a fan of the Court's opinion in Dobbs either. Although it was correct to overturn Roe and Casey, an opinion making that correction should have the virtue of accurately explaining what the Constitution does mean. The Dobbs opinion does not have that virtue. But at least now, pro-lifers do have the satisfaction of knowing that the issue is going to be settled democratically, instead of by judicial fiat and a dishonest invocation of the US Constitution.

[tschandler]

I'm not sure a special election with 39 percent turnout says anything about an electorate.  In some rural Ohio counties turnout was closer to 20 percent.  The ballot amendment only moved one side of the issue, doesn't have anything to do with democracy.  Democracy increasingly for Progressives means getting what they desire.