| > But in both countries it’s still technically illegal. It would be nonsensical for activists in Japan to spend time advocating that abortion become technically legal without regard to practical situations where it could be performed. This is essentialist reasoning ascribing some kind of soul to the law, which feels out of character for you. I suppose you could argue that sodomy is
'technically illegal' in many states, but that Lawrence & Baker carved out situations where it is tolerated. Does the technicality of being prosecuted for non-consensual act of sodomy vs. an explicit sexual assault crime actually mean anything to the perpetrator if the penalty is the same? > And which side “represents less than a plurality of voters?”
Party affiliation and political ideology are far from an exact match. That's why there are a handful of Republican governors posturing to uphold abortion rights. Abortion is often a singular issue for pro-life advocates, who have had a particular motivation to mobilize built up over the past half-century. I personally have met a handful of people who hated everything about the Republican platform except for its stance on abortion, and that was the sole issue that decided their vote. Polarization has progressed to the point that there's only one The pro-choice movement doesn't have the same fervor at this point, and I think a backlash is not going to be rapid due to a combination of:
- those who are pro-choice but happy to rationalize that it's now a state level issue and that the reversal of Roe v Wade was simply the correction of improper judicial activism.
- defeatist stances by those who feel disenfranchised and that voting is ineffective, particularly when done strategically to 'win' instead of based on a hard ideal
- those who would vote for abortion rights if a ballot was set in front of them but who personally find abortion repugnant or deserving of severe restriction |
I'm simply pointing out the difference between the government tolerating certain conduct, and the government lacking the power to prohibit that conduct. Abortion in Japan and Germany are examples of the former--legalization happened without denying the power of the government to have made it illegal in the first place.
Roe (and Lawrence), by contrast, not only legalized certain conduct, but declared that the government never had the power to make it illegal in the first place. That's actually quite radical compared to how most advanced countries view the issue.
> The pro-choice movement doesn't have the same fervor at this point
I don't think that's accurate. For a significant chunk of the pro-choice movement, it's a moral issue as much as it is for dedicated pro-lifers. They believe that the purpose of life is fulfilling one's individual hopes and dreams in the same way pro-lifers believe that the purpose of life is to be fruitful and multiply. For dedicated pro-choicers, the possibility of derailing individual aspirations is so unthinkable that it justifies ending a nascent human life. For dedicated pro-lifers, reproduction is such a clear mandate that it justifies derailing individual ambitions and aspirations. That's the fundamental conflict in world view that I'm talking about.