Moral Principle and Political Interest in the Abortion Controversey

In my last post I argued that both sides on abortion, pro-choice and pro-life, hold their positions on principle at the expense of political interests.  I present very strong evidence that the abortion effect (the demographic consequences of the abortion rate since 1973) has hurt Democrats (who are almost monolithically pro-choice) and helped Republicans who tend to be pro-life. 

Intrepid reader Miranda, who keeps me honest on the abortion question, sent me this excellent note:

Your post on abortion is reasonable, but I don't think the fact that human beings can pursue "principle" over interest really is all that important unless their principles mean something. Consider the following scenario:

You are on a search committee for a political science professor. One candidate, Dr. Jones, lists Miss Jenkins as a reference. You call her up.

"What can you tell me about Dr. Jones' character, Miss Jenkins?" You ask her.
"He's very principled," she tells you.
"How so?"
"Well, he believes in the principle that everything on this earth belongs to everyone."
"And how has he demonstrated this?"
"Well, during his time of employment with us, he helped himself to the president's furniture, money and ultimately his wife."

If your response was in line with the reasoning in your abortion post, it would probably be something like this:
"Well, some might find that scandalous Mrs. Jenkins, but I think it's important to know that he's principled!"

The point is that, while it's very nice to say people have principles, it really isn't terribly important that they have them, unless they are good ones.

I think in fact that Miranda and I are largely in agreement. I think it is important that human beings can chose principle over interest, because  it means that our motives cannot be reduced to merely economic or political desires.  I think this makes human history both more promising and more dangerous that it would otherwise be. 

But Miranda is surely correct to point out that just because someone is acting out of principle rather than interest doesn't mean that their principles are the right ones.  It is important to know that Dr. Jones, in Miranda's example, is a man of principle and just important to know what that principle is.  It would tell me not to hire him.  It is important to know that suicide bombers who slaughter scores of innocent men, women, and children in a market are acting out of principle, and just as important to know that their principle happens to be evil. 

The steady erosion of the African American population by abortion has benefited Republicans politically.  That is a simple fact.  I suppose that it is also bad for African Americans and for the American people as a whole.  I don't think that this can decide the abortion question, because I think that that comes down to a question of fundamental personal rights: unborn personhood vs. reproductive choice.  But the fact that abortion has pernicious social consequences is not irrelevant to the issue.  Even if I am wrong, and there is a fundamental right to abortion, that doesn't mean that society should not discourage it.  I think that people have a right to eat as much as they want, but I still think we should discourage obesity.  At present the pro-choice movement is generally opposed to anything that a state might do to discourage abortion.  That too suggests the perversity of their principle.