If abortion weren't an issue, what would American politics look like?

If we are to believe the media, this country is utterly polarized between conservatives and liberals. If the “red state/blue state” divide were more profound and geographically coalesced, it would be very easy to think of the United States as splitting into two countries. “Blue liberals” form a kind of archipelago scattered along the various coasts (east, west, and Great Lakes) and wouldn’t make geographic sense as a separate country.

I have been wondering lately how much of this is due to abortion. Has the abortion issue — liberals wanting to keep it legal, conservatives fighting it tooth and toenail — been a driving factor in creating two warring camps, camps that more or less split along Democratic-Republican lines? It is true that there are pro-life Democrats and pro-choice Republicans, but the overall split should be obvious.

Let’s suppose for a moment that abortion were not part of the equation. Either people as a whole just accepted abortion rights as part of the social framework (as is the case in most Western democracies), or people in general became convinced that abortion is immoral and moved to outlaw it.

What then? What would remain to divide us? Some people favor more government social welfare programs (Medicare for all, free higher education, and so on), some people favor doing more in the private sector. But would it be enough to go to the cross for? Americans are fundamentally decent people who want to see our weakest, poorest, and least able citizens taken care of, but they also want to know that if they work hard, perhaps even take risks, they will be rewarded for their efforts. People of good will can disagree, have disagreed, and will continue to disagree, on the role of government in the lives of citizens. There is nothing wrong with that.

Is abortion the root cause of all the division we see around us? I have to wonder sometimes.


(Full disclosure: I am a de facto single-issue voter due to the need to get enough Supreme Court justices to have at least some chance of overturning Roe v Wade and implementing other restrictions, as well as to ensure this throughout the judicial branch. I’d much rather not have to be a single-issue voter, but for the duration, duty calls.)


It would probably look like the political scene pre-1973


Maybe not. Pre-1973 nobody thought that men could marry men or women could marry women, or that men could BE women and women could BE men, or that men could play on women’s sports teams, or that the Little Sisters of the Poor had to pay for birth control. People believed in free speech, now they don’t, at least on the left. People believed in reality and in natural law. Now many people believe that nothing is true and that reality is made by human will. There used to be sanity; now there is insanity.


It would look the same.
It’s not just about abortion. It’s about religious freedom too. But zooming out, it’s about other freedoms too. Speech, thought, and conscience. Zooming out even more, it’s also about the direction of America and what it should be. The role guns in society, the structure of the economy and who should immigrate to America. So no, things wouldn’t be different from how things are right now. Abortion and religious freedom aren’t major concerns for many Americans though the latter might be on the minds of more Americans over the former.


Yes, there are many other issues which divide us besides abortion. And not all the issues are social either, such as birth control, same-sex marriage, euthanasia, the death penalty, police misconduct, gun control, and prayer in public schools. They also involve such things as government regulation or over-regulation, distribution of wealth, climate change, immigration, and so on. We are a divided nation on more than just one level.


Abortion is subset of feminism (viewed as necessary for gender equality) and feminism is subset of Marxist socialism (always oppressed class v oppressor class)

So we’d still be debating Socialism v Capitalism

Or more generally Collectivism v Individualism

Comes down to this:
(1) Do you believe the group identity is primary and individual identity secondary (Collectivist)

(2) Or do you believe the individual identity is primary and group identity is secondary (Individualist)


Great words of wisdom and truth.
The American public had to be disarmed of its reality grounded in natural law.

I’m not saying the American people were perfect, but the elitists in this country used government and philanthropy to convince the people that smaller families, contraception, tax-payer funded abortion, sex-ed in schools, family planning programs, and anti-immigration stances must be adopted throughout the nation to prevent a population explosion that leaves every human being starving to death at the turn of the millenium (Y2K).

The goal was to prevent a supposed “population explosion” so earth could sustain humanity.

After being challenged on my POVs by goout, ed west, vanitas, and a few more posters here at CF, I did some research to find that the anti-population movement was carefully orchestrated using media and higher education to create fear among the everyday US citizen.

The movement started with children by putting fears of overpopulation into their minds. The media was used to capture the attention of adults and motivate them to change their perceptions on family, contraception, abortion, immigration, the family unit, and overpopulation within the context of these issues. College students were convinced using statistics that that the earth was going to burst at the seems if people didn’t change their lifestyles immediately.

There was also a biased focused on ecology to prove overpopulation was a problem to be solved asap or humans would go extinct. Gotta hand it to the elitist, they did a good job terrifying folks. Today, US pop. growth isn’t sustainable without immigration and most western nations are going gray.

That said, to get back to your question. Since it took basic brainwashing about overpopulation to convince Americans to accept abortion, I’d venture to say that if abortion was not an issue in the US, there probably would not have been an overpopulation scare.

And in my personal perspective, the overpopulation scare brought about the public desire to limit family size. But I see a great correlation between the population explosion movement and today’s climate change movement. Climate change was born out of the zero-pop movement. If abortion hadn’t been shoved down the public’s throat by media and education (it wasn’t the healthcare industry pushing the abortion agenda), then I don’t believe that climate change would be a movement today.

I was a child in the 1960s, and for various reasons, aware of a lot of what was happening.

I think that several forces started coalescing and really getting going in the 60s, and they are running a lot of the Dem party.

Altho we have always thought of ourselves as individualists, our society was very family-oriented. Gradually, this began to change with the influx of various forces and changes in society: acceptance of ABC, the cultural Marxism emanating from the Franklin School, replacement of God with good economic times, technology, and welfare.

Everything kind of goes together, imo, for example, ABC led to the sexual revolution; technology and ABC led to feminism, but both sprang from other philosophical changes in society–there were cracks iij n our culture which allowed these forces to take root and grow.

" So is there a way for us to blend together red and blue hues without creating any new nonsensical hues in the process?
Of course! We add green, and we get a Neutralizing election map:"



1 Like

A lot of good thoughts here, and in this thread in general.

Some random thoughts at this late hour (I was awakened by a sudden bout of indigestion, took some medicine, and am waiting for things to settle down, sleep may be a hard-won commodity this night):

  • It is impossible to over-estimate the role of ABC in shaping modern society. Pope Paul VI tried to warn us of this in Humanae vitae, but few had ears to hear. Everything he warned us about has come to pass in spades. As it stands now, the larger society is utterly dependent upon ABC to sustain its lifestyle.

  • Even though the US relies upon mass immigration to sustain and grow its population, the crowding, for lack of a better word, is becoming noticeable. The most desirable cities are becoming unaffordable. In selecting a place to live (assuming someone wants to move from where they are now), people are having to consider smaller and lesser-known locales that wouldn’t be their first choice. This could revitalize some areas that have fallen by the wayside. Think of what could happen if tens of thousands of hard-working, ambitious immigrants could be persuaded to move to Detroit, for instance. They’d be in the United States and glad to be here. When you get enough people together in an area, service industries and the like emerge by necessity. People need goods and services.

  • Second Amendment rights were never even questioned until recent years. Guns were simply not used to wreak mass terror. Learning how to shoot was a rite of passage, one I have passed on to my son (though only with airguns for the moment, he’s 12 and our neighborhood is too densely populated and encumbered by HOA rules to allow firearm practice on the property, can’t do a dirtpile). High school ROTC programs had rifle ranges.

  • American society struggles between collectivism and individualism. Perhaps this is as it should be. Both have their place.

  • With as hot as this past summer was, I’m beginning to think the climate change people may be on to something, though whether human activity is causing it, is entirely debatable. Human activity didn’t cause the Ice Age to begin or to end. It may be something we can’t do anything about.

1 Like

I was born in the 60’s and it seems to me that things in this country began to unravel after WW2, as in when the baby boomers became of age there was a whole new mindset, freedom was redefined. Freedom became personal freedom, sex and drugs became the norm to express freedom. This new freedom frenzy was actually a rebellion against authority, yes, actually against the highest of authorities… God.

The fruits of that rebellion.

Birth control.
Drug use.
The LGBTQ movement.

Now many of those who began the rebellion are in positions of power, government and private sector. The “Blues” want God out of their party, while the “Reds” want to keep God in their party. It isn’t abortion that divides this country, abortion is just a result of the rebellion. What divides this country is exactly what St. Paul describes so well in Ephesians 6:12.

“For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.”

Just my two cents on it all, an ex rebel who finally saw the light. Our country will remain divided for as long as the general population rebels against God. I’m saddened when I look up and down my street every Sunday morning, no one is going to church, and where are all the children???

I would vote Democrats in an instant if they weren’t anti-Marian.

There’s a reason Catholics were the backbone of the Democratic Party in the late 20th century.

1 Like

HomeschoolDad, your post is an excellent summary of the situation in the U.S. at this time in history.

I agree that abortion is The Issue for many Christians, both Catholic and Protestant.

I’ve always said that if we don’t get the life issues, especially abortion, correct, we really can’t claim to have the discernment to be able to get any other issue correct.

To answer your question, off the top of my head (in a hurry this morning!), I think that if abortion were illegal in the U.S. and vilified by the majority of Americans, the main issues would be (1) the continued involvement of the U.S. in the wars of other countries (2) heath care (3) the economy and (4) crime and continued reign of mobs and gangs throughout the U.S.

I also think that education would be in the mix, but to me, this is an issue for each State and each city/county, and definitely not an issue that the federal government should be involved with.

1 Like

Giving some a soapbox and preventing them from speaking are two very different things. You have moderators on this forum. Does that mean the right sensors?

No it means this forum has no incentive to give a magaphone to points it doesn’t want too.

There is nothing wrong with that.

You are too nostalgic. There’s always been Insanity.
Poverty being proof of that.

The fact you have to specify means socialism is on a gradient same as everything else.

Salt is great, too much is lethal too little is useless.
Apples have arsenic but they arnt poison.

Hmm now I’m hungry :persevere:

Point is stop demonizing the left. It’s just ideas, how you implement is what makes the difference.

It’s interesting that you use the word “demonize” when I did no such thing. If merely uttering the words “socialism” is itself demonizing the left, that may say a lot.

All of the things in that list, with the exception of LGBTQ movement (as an organized public movement) have existed throughout history. None of it is new. The difference is that it is no longer even attempted to be hidden.

1 Like

I look at smoking cigarettes. Used to be that we smoked in airplanes and hospitals and restaurants and even (gasp) in bars!

While people do still smoke today, it has become absolutely unacceptable as far as societal rules. Smoking in public is verboten.

What if for one full election cycle we put every ounce of our energy making sure every community in America had a good, welcoming, system of real support for women in crisis pregnancy and women with young children. Housing, job protection, sterling quality daycare at no cost, income stability, education, medical and emotional support. What if we made placing a child for adoption a noble, lauded thing, what if we called the people who make this choice “heroes”? What if we made a society where aborting a child was seen as smoking in a restaurant is today, something that is simply not done?

But, we cannot go there. We have to demonize the others, we have to screech and fight and spit. We have to make this all about campaign promises.

It ,to me, is the beginning argument for both sides. If you can’t respect innocent life in the womb then why should you be expected to respect any other life or situation. It tells me a lot about a person’s character where they stand on abortion and all life issues. I pray for those who lean liberal because they will have to answer for what they say and do and how it all affects many other lives.

I disagree. There’s no such thing as the Good Old Days. In the 60s and 70s, people had other issues strongly dividing them. Just for starters, the sexual revolution, the civil rights movement, panic over the “population bomb,” and Vietnam war were all in full swing. And frankly, people were getting abortions - not the rusty coat-hanger kind that pro-choicers use to scare you, but those performed covertly by doctors.

Rewind back another century to the Civil War. In Ken Burns’ Civil War docu-series, you’ll learn that in the immediate antebellum period, members of Congress were coming to work armed for knife fights. Battles over who would become a “slave state” brought bloody violence to a whole new level that we’ve never seen with issues like abortion and same sex marriage.

Divisiveness and evil are nothing new in this country.

I don’t like labels. Our Church isn’t liberal or conservative because our Church is not a political party or institution. It’s complex. And for those of us who espouse a consistent-life ethic, there’s frankly no way to pigeonhole us. I laugh when people call me “conservative” because I’m so fiercely pro-life. It’s like they really don’t know me . . .

I do agree with you that abortion is a bit of a “root issue.” It’s great to see people fighting poverty and advocating for fair housing and health care and all. But if your fundamental view of humanity is rooted in the ethical acceptability of killing the weakest among us when they get in the way, all other human rights arguments begin to ring shallow.


I didn’t say the Church was liberal or conservative. I said :
" I pray for those who lean liberal because they will have to answer for what they say and do and how it all affects many other lives."

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.