(09-16-2021 05:36 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 03:11 PM)scorpius Wrote:  

(09-16-2021 12:35 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  The pro-life movement was essentially a Catholic movement until Reagan.

So one would think our first openly Catholic President (Biden) coming out against it would officially end the movement.

1. Fat chance. 2. Some people say that Kennedy was a Catholic.

Quote:I'm just saying [abortion] might not have and perhaps probably wouldn't have become politicized if one party didn't find themselves in desperate need for voters.

It was McGovern, not Nixon, who got curb-stomped in ’72, and the Democrats, not the Republicans, in 5/6 elections overall from ’68 to ’88. Desperate for votes, anyone?

Look, there have been plenty of political “conversions” on this issue, going both ways, since 1973. Ted Kennedy and Dick Durbin and Al Gore are 3 that used to be pro-life and later became pro-choice. Bush/41 was pro-choice and later became pro-life. I have no doubt some of these conversions were sincere and some were not. From the standpoint of history, so what?

It has nothing to do with a “deal with the devil”. It just reflects the social reality that the people of this Nation are deeply conflicted about this issue, the Supreme Court does not have the credibility with the people to impose an enduring Nation-wide solution, and the polarizing tendency inherent within a 2-party system incentivizes groups to sort themselves into opposing camps, based on the issues that are most important to them. That is what happened, and it’s nowhere close to being over, regardless of what SCOTUS does or doesn’t do with the Texas law.

Quote:If it wasn't for Nixon, then you tell me. What was it? What part of Republican politics at that time favored pro-life more than that on the Democratic side.

In the immediate aftermath of Roe v Wade, I believe both camps tried their best to influence both of the major parties. Carter did not run as an explicitly pro-choice nominee and Ford did not run as an explicitly pro-life nominee. Over a period of years — certainly by 1980 — it became obvious that Democrats were going to be the pro-choice party and Republicans were going to be the pro-life party. And that has remained true for more than 40 years.

Edit:
So, why did R end up pro-life and why did D end up pro-choice? there’s about a million pieces to that jigsaw puzzle. But if I had to boil it down to an irreducible core, I’d say that the most deeply/intensely pro-choice segment of the population had already gravitated to the Democrats even prior to Roe v Wade. I’m thinking of people like Bella Abzug, Geraldine Ferraro, Pat Schroeder, and cultural influencers like Betty Friedan, Phil Donahue, Gloria Steinem, Hugh Hefner, etc. It was easier for them to box-out pro-life people from positions of leadership among Democrats, than to do so among Republicans. Activists, donors, and office-seekers took the path of least resistance. Perhaps slowly or hesitantly at first, and then the sorting became more obvious and more “locked in” on both sides.