Because I have too much spare time, I’m taking a couple of MBA courses this year. One of them is marketing. I went into this with no expectations whatsoever – didn’t really know what the content would be, how it would be taught, or anything other than it’s a core course for the program. And it’s fascinating. One of the ideas that I found particularly resonant was the argument that really good marketing makes selling obsolete. If you have identified a need, developed the right product, priced it and promoted it properly, it will sell itself. (Example: Apple’s new gadgets which are sold out within about twenty minutes of release. If you think Steve Jobs is the devil, choose a different example.)
This goes to the heart of why I don’t think criminalizing abortion is the way for pro-lifers to spend their time, money and influence. Yes, it might well reduce the number of abortions that happen in Canada (or it might increase the number of Canadians who drive to the nearest US state that allows abortion on demand, or the number of doctors doing stealth abortions. Probably a combination of all three.) But why not eliminate the need for legislation, the way good marketing of products obviates heavy-handed sales?
I’m convinced that if we could have an honest discussion about what abortion is, how a fetus develops, the short and long term effects on women who abort their pregnancies, even if they think it’s a positive choice or an exercise of freedom, or how sexual politics have changed to the detriment of almost everyone in an abortion-on-demand culture, we wouldn’t need laws – the vast majority of decent people would no more consider abortion to be a solution to an unplanned pregnancy than they would consider murdering their spouse to be the solution to a marriage hitting a bad patch. Let’s work on the message – the substance but also the packaging and the distribution method. If it helps the pro-life cause to sell itself, it will have been worth it.
____________________
Andrea adds: Don’t forget cutting government funding for abortion and abortion-promoting groups.
____________________
Andrea adds again: Was at an interesting talk last night and conversation turned to how to market the pro-life message. The difference between marketing in the world (Coke versus Pepsi, for example) is that this type of marketing capitalizes on self-interest. So too does the pro-abortion mindset. Where pro-lifers are marketing an “other-focussed” view–also a long term one. And so I wonder whether Rebecca’s course addresses those factors at all. Marketing the pro-life message comes down to a civilizational shift.
____________________
Back to Rebecca: To Andrea’s point: actually this sort of did come up in the discussion, as when the prof was (introductory seminar) outlining what marketing was (and what it’s not – which is simply advertising.) Briefly, there are short term marketing tactics, which involve attempts to boost sales, usually of a specific product, through flash and gimmickry. And then there’s a long term approach where you want to change how people think and live for years down the road.
Governments and lobby groups do this a lot – think recycling ad campaigns, public health campaigns involving cancer prevention and detection – but so did Apple, which foresaw and helped bring about a world in which computer were everywhere and in everything, and Microsoft, which saw a chance to give people far more control over the inner workings of these machines.
The point of much political, cultural and religious discussion is ultimately people’s choices and behaviours. So looking at pro-life (and, as commenters have pointed out, the culture of promiscuity) messages as part of that discussion is interesting. But what I really found intriguing was this idea that if your strategy consists of loudly and obviously exhorting people to do something at the final stage of the decision-making process, whether it’s waving placards in front of a clinic or having giant balloons outside a car dealership trying to get people in the doors, you’re missing the bigger and better window of opportunity – to shape people’s perceptions and beliefs so that they don’t consider going into the clinic, or the Ford dealership, because they believe deep down that abortions are wrong and harmful, or imports are more efficient and safer.
I’m not saying there is no place for other strategies in trying to change how Canadians perceive abortion. But one thing business does extremely well is figure out how to get the most bang for their buck.
If the marketing industry has concluded that the best way to sell something is to understand your market and tailor your message so the product sells itself, maybe we should give it a shot in the abortion discussion.
by 
I agree with you that the best way to stop abortion is honest education about it. I also believe it is criminal and we have had laws regarding it all along. No new laws need be passed. The government has chosen not to enforce what we have. To me and as far as I know science backs this up life starts at conception. When someones life is ended by another person intentionally that is murder. There are some that think that some abortions could also fall under the infanticide laws we have. Anyway the laws making it illegal are there but they are not enforced by the choice of our government.
I agree completely. Making abortion illegal would only result in the same old arguments used by the pro-abortion groups about backstreet abortionists butchering pregnant 16 year olds.
In popular consciousness, abortion must be seen for what it is — in general, a symptom of our wounded and debased society and, in particular, a procedure that degrades and harms women under the guise of giving them control.
Society cannot legislate behaviour that promotes the dignity of the human person; however, it can, and should, articulate notions of fairness and justice and provide models for right-thinking people to emulate.
The fetus is a human being who is entitled to legal protection. Full stop.
Abortion laws do lower the number of abortions.
That being said, it’s difficult to pass fetal rights laws if it goes against the culture’s zeitgeist.
The thing about fighting for fetal rights, is that there’s no magic bullet. ALL of it has to be done. Focusing on one aspect is a recipe for failure. ALL must be pursued.
There are pro-lifers who consider having abortions. They KNOW all the facts and still get them.
Laws are for their children, too.
You will never convince people not to have abortions unless the underlying problem of unfettered sexual behaviour is tackled. The real reason for abortions is because, for the most part, people are engaging in sexual behaviour without accepting the repercussions of it.
There is a belief accepted throughout society now that everyone has the right to have sexual relations with anyone they choose at any time they choose. The unwanted pregnancy results and the innocent conceived are the victims of their parents’ refusal to accept the consequences.
So you can try to reduce abortions any way you wish, but unless the problem of sexual relations and their proper place is not met head on, you will effect no change in the existing abortion situation.
Julie – there is wisdom in your words; I’m with you. I have long said that we won’t get rid of abortion until we get rid of contraception, but you are right; it goes even deeper than that.
“To me and as far as I know science backs this up life starts at conception. ”
But that isn’t really the issue. Life isn’t sacred – if it were then killing a fly would be murder. The question isn’t when life begins, but under what conditions life is deserving of some form of legal or moral protection. What makes a human worth so much more than a fly, and when does this something come into play?
–
Even the most devoted of pro-choicers considers an unwanted pregnency to be an avoidable thing – abortion a backup plan for when the contraception fails. If you really want to get the abortions gone, work with the liberal side on that: Promote contraception and education in it’s use. Make sure that everyone being sexually active and not deliberatly trying for a baby uses it, and uses it properly.
The main cause of contraception failure is user error, so the education is important.
“The real reason for abortions is because, for the most part, people are engaging in sexual behaviour without accepting the repercussions of it.”
And nothing you do can ever stop them. But you can minimise those repercussions. They’ll still have to deal with the drama, but with an IUD in the women at least they won’t get pregnant.
Criminal laws are rarely unanimously agreed to by all citizens. Most of them are necessary for the protection of the vulnerable, whether they also punish the offenders or not. The fetus is vulnerable, in fact, is the weakest member of our society. Our criminal law should reflect our shared belief (this is where the marketing comes in) that the fetus does not belong to the pregnant woman but is an individual deserving of the same rights (to security of the person, in Canada) as all of us.
“What makes a human worth so much more than a fly, and when does this something come into play?”
Humans are valuable as the subject of natural rights because of the kind of entity that we are, namely beings with a rational nature. This is the kind of entity that we are from the moment that we begin to exist, ie. starting at fertilization.
“…abortion a backup plan for when the contraception fails.”
Which pretty much proves Julie’s point. Promoting contraception will only make the problem worse, because people can’t seem to handle the notion that they are only reducing the probability of conception. They still need to be responsible for the full range of outcomes, which includes conception and pregnancy.
Besides, you don’t need contraception to control of your fertility…
“an IUD in the women”?????
You do realise, that this is precisely what they do in China where the govt has taken over control of people’s reproductive lives. And you are proposing that here?
The mistake made in your reasoning is that you assume that people are just like other animals and cannot control themselves. Well, I say that is deplorable and I sure hope that you never have any position where you can implement what you think would work.
And nothing you do can ever stop them. But you can minimise those repercussions. They’ll still have to deal with the drama, but with an IUD in the women at least they won’t get pregnant.
You know Suricou, for once I agree with you. It always makes me wonder if the man and woman really did everything in their power to prevent pregnancy.
“It always makes me wonder if the man and woman really did everything in their power to prevent pregnancy.”
Doing everything in your power to prevent pregnancy means not having sex. Seriously. Think about it. Every contraceptive technology has a failure rate, even when it is used correctly under optimal conditions. So, for example, if 10 million couples use contraception for a year, and the failure rate is 1% per annum (that would be overly optimistic for many technologies, but let’s just use this figure as an example) then this population will produce 100,000 unwanted preganancies in that year. If these people are not prepared to accept a child, then we end up with 100,000 abortions per year. Therefore, if you are pro-life, you *must* accept that no one should be having sex (at least not the heterosexual intercourse variety) unless they are prepared to accept a child as the natural outcome of their union.