“I posted that article from 2012 because it might have been available to Jacobs at the start of his research. As I also said, the GSS happens every two years, and it has been asking these questions continuously since the 1970s. There were a ton of articles written about it this spring, when they released the 2018 data. On top of that, both political parties and lots of advocacy groups on either side of the debate poll regularly. This is an area that has been thoroughly, and very professionally, studied.”
- Could not agree more. There are a good number of polls and opinions on the topic. Would have been a helpful addition for the author to have a section on that explaining why he's using Marist and not NORC or another agency (maybe he did, indeed explain and I missed that).
“Jacobs asking slightly different questions adds little, if anything. His big insight that there’s a substantial middle ground in the debate has been everyone’s big insight for decades.”
- The issue is what is the middle ground actually over. With the diversity of opinion out there, "middle ground" is a pretty broad term. Didn't interpret it as an "insight" as much as he reached that conclusion. What WAS an insight was that the question "when life begins" was such a strong factor in the debate.
“Some of Jacobs’ basic premises are downright insulting, like the idea that pro-choice people don’t acknowledge a fetus’ humanity but might be convinced by polling data to do so.”
- He hits that topic of humanity throughout the paper but didn't that conclusion that you mention fall out of the research? Or was he speculating w/o testing? I thought it was the former but maybe you caught something in the beginning as a "premise" that would lead to bias?
We also have to remember that if the research is sound, then controversial or even “insulting” conclusions can result. This topic isn’t for the feint-of-heart.
“Without knowing much about mediation theory, I know mediation does not work if the parties involved don’t want to resolve the dispute other than by a total victory. In the abortion debate, there are critical parties who are not interested in any outcome but total victory. Mediators don’t mediate under those conditions.”
- This is a good point, IMO. The polls (his, NORC's, Marist, and everyone else) suggest otherwise - as you have mentioned - but interest groups and those who are specifically invested in one potential victory or another have been working to secure that outcome. How to resolve? I thought that's what the author was trying to suggest - a way to resolve. However, something that @JHS pointed out upthread is that our Political System isn't necessarily set up for a "compromise." So the next step might be a discussion and a "connecting of the dots" - to the extent possible - between political majority outcomes and what goes on behind the scenes (which, in many cases and certainly with less "controversial" topics, obviously can involve a whole lot of "compromise"). It was the latter that the author seemed more concerned with.
“It’s questionable why some grand compromise is necessary. For most people this issue is not exactly tearing society apart; we aren’t on the verge of a civil war. Most people have gotten used to the idea that different people can make different choices, and that another person’s choice does not affect your integrity. It has become much easier both not to terminate a pregnancy and to terminate a pregnancy very early on a self-help basis (Plan B ). When – as I and pretty much everyone else expects – the current Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, there is going to be real diversity among the states’ responses, as we are already seeing now. A few states will have very permissive laws, many (but representing a small percentage of population) will enact total or near-total bans, and some will probably wind up in Jacobs’ middle. Which is more or less where everyone is today, based on the last few Supreme Court cases.”
- Agree with pretty much all of this. Jacobs was biased toward a compromise that might be completely irrelevant if Roe is overturned and the question is returned to the states (where the legislative action has been busy already). I suppose then the question shifts to a more local issue, and there are real questions there (for instance, healthcare availability differences locally or even across states). So mediation could have a role to play - and might even be MORE relevant on a local level where the political process is active and to which the political decision has been returned.