How can I improve this question?

Question

Will allowing abortion actually benefit the right?

I do not advocate anything.

I got a theory, that may be wrong, that we are all selfish, and we simply vote for our interests. However, the conservative opposition to abortion seems to defy those theory.

Basically I am trying to find a reason why certain voting blocks (the conservatives) want to promote demographic growth of those opposite of them.

My understanding is abortion reduce populations of democrats and hence republicans are profited by it. I am asking if it's true.

My expectation is one voting bloc would, all else equal, want to kill the other voting bloc. Democracy is just a modern "war".

So I wonder why would the conservative oppose something that I think profit them?

But before that, I need to ask whether abortion truly benefit the conservative or not. Because I may be wrong there too.

My expectation, which could be false, is that abortion reduces democrat voting bloc more than conservative voting bloc. That means abortion will make the word more "capitalistic" which seems to be what conservatives want.

One answer says that religions tell conservatives not to commit abortion. That is a good explanation. However it doesn't tell why conservatives cherry pick abortion out of so many things prohibited in the bible, for example.

But that would falsify "people's vote for their interests" theory.

Usually, there's something "in it for me". It's not just, it's in the bible so I should promote it. I may be wrong again. But that's another question.

In any case, the question is asked in good faith. Does abortion benefit "typical" conservatives?

Yes, I am aware that libertarian and most conservatives do not choose to prohibit or legalize abortion based on "profit", at least not consciously.

However, is it possible that abortion actually profit them, whether they know it or not.

Basically I am asking if there are "true motives" behind the stated motives that correctly predict voting bloc voting behaviors and whether those true motives can correctly predict stuffs.

Answer 1

The most immediate problem with your post is that it violates some basic rules of Composition and Style. These aren't Stack Exchange rules per se, they're good practices for writing in general.

1. Get to the point. You spend too many words explaining this theory of yours before you get to the actual question. We don't need to know your theory in order to answer that question. In the hypothetical case that you do need to explain your theory you should, if possible try to find a recognized name for it, and maybe a link to its Wikipedia page.
2. Organize your sentences. You have a few sentences that seem out of place. Examples are: But before that, I need to ask whether abortion truly benefit the conservative or not. Because I may be wrong there too. and Okay I need sources. But say it's true. If it isn't, then it's an answer too by the way. Those sentences appear in the middle of what appears like a list of random ways in which the conservative position on abortion violates your theory. Keep your list of issues together, and move the other stuff somewhere else in the post. Or delete them if they aren't crucial.
3. Don't repeat yourself more than you have to. You wrote two different sentences suggesting how Republicans might want a policy that reduces the number of Democrats. Three if you count the analogy that was less clear than the original statement in the first place.

---

Another problem I see is that you're basing your question on numerous disputable premises. One is that all people always behave in a selfish way. A more extreme example is that members of one party would consider the decrease in population of another party to be a benefit to them.

The problem with this is that you'll need to reconcile these assumptions before people can begin answering your question.

---

A third problem is that you're having a conversation in your question. When you edit your question to add a source, add it as you would have had if you were writing your question for the first time. Don't acknowledge that people have asked for sources in the comments. Just fix the question, and keep it organized.

This goes for things that are not just adding sources either. Don't add responses to comments to your question. You should address the comments, but don't acknowledge that a comment told you to do it.

---

Misc issues:

• When explaining something to someone, avoid ending your sentences with the word "right?".
• Don't pad your sentences with unnecessary bits. An example is the phrase Okay I need sources. and the like and right? in That's like basic assumption of economy right?
• Addendum: Do include necessary words such as the a in That's a basic assumption of economics.
• Youtube videos make for poor references.

Answer 2

The basic problem with the question is that it is a discussion question. It proposes a particular way of looking at the abortion controversy and asks for comments. That's a great approach on social media or a discussion forum. Throw out a post and let others discuss it. But that doesn't fit at all here.

Stack Exchange is not a discussion site. The goal here is to offer canonical answers to questions. That question is not answerable in a canonical fashion. It's a call for opinion and conjecture.

Let's look at just a few approaches to answering:

1. Your premise is wrong. People don't usually vote in ways that help them.
2. Abortion doesn't reduce crime.
3. Conservatives would not benefit from a reduction in crime.
4. Conservatives don't agree that reducing crime is worth murdering babies (and yes, many pro-lifers view abortion as murdering babies).
5. Yeah, I think you're totally right.

There's five different types of answers. And there would be variants of each of those approaches. Worse, people would then want to argue with each answer. But Stack Exchange doesn't support real responses to answers. Succinct comments and alternative answers are all there is. It is the wrong type of site for this kind of question.

The only real way to fix this question is to ask a different question. Rather than asking this giant complex mess, figure out one thing that is objectively answerable that you want to know. E.g.

1. Is there evidence as to whether people normally vote in ways that benefit them?
2. Did abortion reduce crime? (Although it might fit better on Skeptics.SE.)
3. Why do pro-lifers hold the beliefs that they do? How do they benefit from abortion restrictions?

There will be objective approaches to answering those questions.

Or find a discussion forum where you can ask your style of question.

Answer 3

Does abortion benefit "typical" conservatives?

Yes, I am aware that libertarian and most conservatives do not choose to prohibit or legalize abortion based on "profit", at least not consciously.

However, is it possible that abortion actually profit them, whether they know it or not.

Basically I am asking if there are "true motives" behind the stated motives that correctly predict voting bloc voting behaviors and whether those true motives can correctly predict stuffs.

If you narrowed it down to just this (with a little more detail) I think you'd have a decent question. But the old question is shot to pieces (heavily downvoted and closed). Might be worth starting over with a fresh one and deleting the old one.