In yesterday’s article, we determined that focusing on programs that seek to restrict supply of the abortion pill would fail, for the same reasons that such efforts have failed to significantly limit both the production and supply of all illicit drugs.
The so-called War on Drugs, on which over $1 trillion has been spent, has focused primarily on restricting supply of drugs, and has largely been ineffective.
But attempting to restrict supply is not the only way to try to reduce the consumption of a given product or service.
We also have the option of trying to influence the demand for a given product or service, by attempting to either increase demand or decrease demand.
Restricting supply of something primarily involves external factors, especially laws, rules and regulations.
Influencing demand, on the other hand, primarily involves human factors internal to each individual, especially emotions, psychology and reasoning.
It is much easier to formulate what it takes to restrict the supply of something than it is to figure out what will influence a person’s demand for something because human beings are very complex with a multitude of interacting psychological factors at play that will determine what they want at any given moment.
Since there is a strong case that we cannot stop the supply of the abortion pill, I believe that influencing demand is really the only candidate we have left if we want to significantly reduce women’s decisions to end their pregnancies.
Do you think it’s possible to reduce the demand for abortion, and/or increase the demand for choosing life?
Of course it is.
As you likely know from your own lived experience, human beings are open to being persuaded, and if they believe that availing themselves of a certain product or service is in their interests, they are more likely to purchase that product or service.
Human beings have a natural drive to want to improve their lives, and also a drive to avoid things that can set them back.
As an example of the power of effective persuasion, the abortion industry has been very successful at increasing demand for abortion by powerfully influencing emotional passions through the positioning of abortion as something on the side of rights and freedom.
For Americans, we feel the value of rights and freedom to the core or our beings, as both rights and freedom are historically deeply infused into our culture.
It was a very savvy move by the abortion industry to position abortion in womens’ minds as aligned with rights and freedom.
Now if you are a Right to Life advocate you may counter, “Wait a minute, it is an objective scientific fact that abortion ends the life of a human being in its mother’s womb, so how can that be a right that someone has the freedom to do?”
This is where experienced marketers would step in and respond, “You are overvaluing the influence of objectivity on human beings. For human beings perception is reality.”
In a very real sense, a person’s perception becomes objectively true, to them, even though it’s not really objectively true.
This can be very hard for the more analytical scientific types to accept, but it’s true.
Of course, the bad news for Right to Life advocates is that the abortion industry has successfully shaped the perceptions of a large segment of our culture to believe that abortion is a woman’s right, and abortion can offer her freedom.
However, there is a silver lining about someone’s perception being felt as their own objective reality.
The good news is that a human being’s perception about most anything is malleable.
Human beings change their minds about things all the time.
You can probably think of examples in your own life where you have changed your mind about something.
So remember that it is plausible that the same strategies and tactics the abortion industry used to make abortion an attractive option, can also be used by the life-affirming industry to both make abortion an unattractive option, and/or make choosing life an attractive option.
More on that tomorrow.
Regards,
Brett Attebery