Jump to content
Kiyoat Husker

Poll: Abortion legality belief spectrum

What is your belief about Abortion Law in the USA?  

56 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Why not look at the most polarizing topic first?  There are other ways of looking at Abortion legality, like trimester, contraceptives, planned parenthood, etc.  But I thought I would just get down to brass tacks.  What do you believe should be legal?  These categories align with how the United Nations defined national abortion law categories in this 2013 report:

 

https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/policy/WorldAbortionPolicies2013/WorldAbortionPolicies2013_WallChart.pdf

 

What I find interesting is how other developed and developing countries compare to the United States.  Wikipedia has a nice sort-able spreadsheet and map:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law#cite_note-UN2013info-1

Edited by Kiyoat Husker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe in abortion morally, but its not the laws job to dictate the morals of America to that extent. It should be a personal decision, not something the government should have a say in. 

Edited by Nebfanatic
  • Plus1 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, NM11046 said:

Ditto to Neb.  My body my decision.   

100%. I just can't understand the religious and moral motivation behind the politics in this issue. At the end of the day, we are a country of diverse beliefs and forcing beliefs on one person for the sake of others is entirely unamerican.

 

Its funny because i feel like if this were an issue for men they would be allowed as much freedom as possible with little to no backlash in the public eye. 

  • Plus1 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would rather have our government look for ways to reduce the number of abortions due to unwanted pregnancies by promoted sex education, family planning, adoption counseling, and birth control.  Actually pragmatic solutions.

 

 

Stupidity:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/07/07/colorado-iud-long-term-birth-control-success-teen-pregnancy/29818499/

 

Although, I think the funding was secured again (not 100% sure).  But the fact it was even up for debate and its positive outcomes weren't celebrated by all is absolutely ridiculous. 

 

But hey, it's more fun to argue about what our version of God wants us to do....

 

 

Edited by funhusker
  • Plus1 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nebfanatic said:

100%. I just can't understand the religious and moral motivation behind the politics in this issue. At the end of the day, we are a country of diverse beliefs and forcing beliefs on one person for the sake of others is entirely unamerican.

 

Its funny because i feel like if this were an issue for men they would be allowed as much freedom as possible with little to no backlash in the public eye. 

NO doubt!

 

The irony of the conservatives who want little government regulations on most everything in the US wanting to regulate a persons' medical decisions is too much.

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the government should have a say insofar as they already have. We long ago entrenched the matter into law & abortion is legal. They can chip away at it as much as they want, but Roe v. Wade is politically untouchable at least for now. They'd have to have a strongly conservative Supreme Court before even considering a real challenge to it & if you thought the backlash to the GOP now was on full tilt, they'd be annihilated if they actually followed through on their rhetoric about reversing it.

 

I think they rather prefer it as a wedge issue to mop up single-issue pro-life voters, myself. 

 

Personally I voted for #6 but I'm very sympathetic to the arguments thus far for #7. I agree with NM very much. As I've evolved on the subject as I've gotten older, I eventually adopted the belief that if I had bee part of an unplanned pregnancy, I would support carrying the baby to term & giving it up for adoption if the mother didn't support raising the child, but ultimately it's her decision. 

 

I'd like to see as few abortions as possible, which means supporting effective birth control education & access. But there are people who are not well-equipped to raise a child they weren't planning on, & if they instead choose to terminate the pregnancy, I wouldn't fault them. I'd rather the child never exist than be raised in a home that can't (or won't) raise it in a healthy manner.

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nebfanatic said:

100%. I just can't understand the religious and moral motivation behind the politics in this issue. At the end of the day, we are a country of diverse beliefs and forcing beliefs on one person for the sake of others is entirely unamerican.

 

 

The response to that is, "But it's MURDER! Shouldn't murder be illegal?"

 

The thing is, though, that nobody really actually believes this deep down. You take the most conservative fundie right-wing pro-rights person you can find and sit them down across from a woman who has had several abortions and they won't gag or scream or convulse or whatever they would do if they were actually sitting across from a serial killer.

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm waiting for Moiraine ... she's got a good statement on the validity of the conservatives that "care" so much about human life that they want to take away healthcare and other support mechanisms for the very same people that would potentially choose to terminate a pregnancy because of the cost, responsibility etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Landlord said:

 

 

The response to that is, "But it's MURDER! Shouldn't murder be illegal?"

 

The thing is, though, that nobody really actually believes this deep down. You take the most conservative fundie right-wing pro-rights person you can find and sit them down across from a woman who has had several abortions and they won't gag or scream or convulse or whatever they would do if they were actually sitting across from a serial killer.

This is true.  I saw a meme on Facebook (sorry, don't remember the author.)  That basically proved your point through thought experiment.  If you were to ask anyone to put themselves in the following scenario, their answers would be the same:  "You find yourself in the middle of an infertility clinic that is on fire.  A young nurse is passed out on the floor.  You only have time to carry her out of the flames, or to grab a case full of hundreds of embryos to keep them from being destroyed.  Whom do you save?"

 

A lot of people will claim this is a crazy analogy and doesn't deserve an answer.  I only think they respond like that because they can't honestly answer out loud....

Edited by funhusker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

863px-Abortion_Laws.svg.png

 

Black = Option 1 (not legal)

Red = Option 2 (mother's life only)

Orange = Option 3 (mother's life /health)

Brown = Option 4 (mother's life/health or rape/incest)

Yellow = Option 5 (life/health/rape/ or fetal defects)

Green = Option 6 (life/health/rape/defects/ or socio-economic factors)

Blue = Option 7 (legal)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted "Other."  That's a bit of a copout, but the fact is, I'm a guy, no baby will ever grow inside of me, and I won't have to be personally involved in any decision. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dudeguyy said:

I think they rather prefer it as a wedge issue to mop up single-issue pro-life voters, myself. 

 

This, I think is the crux of the issue.  It has become politicized and entrenched with rhetoric as an ideological divide.  A way to demonize the "other" group as either unconscionable baby killers, or proponents of a Right-wing Christian theocracy.  Of course, neither side fits that description very well. 

  • Plus1 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had to vote "other".

 

I personally can not imagine having a woman I'm involved with and is pregnant with my child....have an abortion.  It is just beyond comprehension as to how I could do that.  So, in that sense, I have a pretty conservative view of the issue.

 

As for the legality of it.  I don't support further efforts to make abortion illegal or even limit their access to the vast majority of the abortions that occur.    I believe late term abortions are disgustingly reprehensible and I think (correct me if I'm wrong) there has been bipartisan support in either making them illegal or limiting greatly their use.  I do support that.

 

My views in my last paragraph is because by arguing these points, I believe, totally misses the issues at hand.

 

I am completely against greatly politicizing the issue.  For me, the issue lies in that we need to be doing what is necessary to greatly reduce the NEED for abortions.  This is in:

 

Education

Birth control

Empowering young women

Supporting women who find themselves pregnant

Increasing (not decreasing) access for women to healthcare

Promoting adoption as a major option and stop stigmatizing a woman who gets pregnant and gives the child up for adoption

Supporting young moms who find themselves raising children by themselves because of dead beat dads

Finding more ways that force dead beat dads to support the children they help produce

....etc.

 

If we would all concentrate on those issues, the need to debate legality of abortion is GREATLY reduced.

Edited by BigRedBuster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to add:

  • Teaching young men responsibility
  • Empowering young men
  • Education for young men
  • Supporting young men who find themselves about to be a father
  • Increasing access to families for healthcare & family PLANNING
  • Promoting open discussions on adoption and other options for pregnancy - joint decision making
  • Education on budgeting and needs assessment for parenting, together or solo for both mom and dad

 

I know that you likely feel this way too BRB, but I had to make the point.  Along with the stigma of the actual decision to terminate a pregnancy, put a child up for adoption or raise it is the stigma of all the education and correctional efforts needing to be on behalf of and focused on the woman.  

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

I am completely against greatly politicizing the issue.  For me, the issue lies in that we need to be doing what is necessary to greatly reduce the NEED for abortions.  This is in:

 

Education

Birth control

Empowering young women

Supporting women who find themselves pregnant

Increasing (not decreasing) access for women to healthcare

Promoting adoption as a major option and stop stigmatizing a woman who gets pregnant and gives the child up for adoption

Supporting young moms who find themselves raising children by themselves because of dead beat dads

Finding more ways that force dead beat dads to support the children they help produce

....etc.

 

If we would all concentrate on those issues, the need to debate legality of abortion is GREATLY reduce

 

43 minutes ago, NM11046 said:

I'd like to add:

  • Teaching young men responsibility
  • Empowering young men
  • Education for young men
  • Supporting young men who find themselves about to be a father
  • Increasing access to families for healthcare & family PLANNING
  • Promoting open discussions on adoption and other options for pregnancy - joint decision making
  • Education on budgeting and needs assessment for parenting, together or solo for both mom and dad

I agree with both of these.  Also adding supporting crisis pregnancy centers that do help the mother to carry the baby to term and find adopting parents if needed.   I'm not a woman and would hate to be placed in that decision point.  

Another issue I want to bring up is that the Republican party has 'plantationed' this discussion among the Christian right.   It has been the topic to keep conservative Christians on the plantation.  Of course this is true somewhat  on the other side.  Pro-life Dems are a rare breed as is a Pro-choice Republican.  This topic should not be the political hot potato that it is - which is the reason so much isn't resolved about it.  It is kept alive as a 'red meat' issue and it has kept good meaning people on both sides from working together.

 

I come from the strongly pro-life side. I didn't like some of  the choices above because they come without substantiated meaning - Define 'health of the mother' or social /economic reasons or fetal impairment.  If it is codified into law with those restrictions, it would have to get fairly specific. 

 

Overall I probably lean to a reserved # 5 and BRB probably expressed my views the best.  I'm also concerned wt devaluing life.   A child in the womb is still life - not just 'potential life"  with a beating heart, etc.  It is still the 'other person' in the equation.   I can understand allowing the issues noted in # 5 with clear cut guidelines.  Children with 'Downs Syndrome' can be a great blessing - is that a fetal impairment??  Those are some of the hard issues one has to consider.  Part of life is protecting the weakest and most vulnerable among us.   I find the Economic/Social idea pretty hard to swallow - I think it cheapens life.  Most of us wouldn't be on this forum if our parents had to consider their financial accounts or social status before we were born. 

 

In the end, I wish this was a cut and dry issue, not political.  In reality, it comes down to the woman, the man if he remains involved, & doctor.  Counselors (religious or non-religious counselor) may give guidance but ultimately it comes down to the woman and the man and not the politicians.   

 

 

 

Edited by TGHusker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

 

I agree with both of these.  Also adding supporting crisis pregnancy centers that do help the mother to carry the baby to term and find adopting parents if needed.   I'm not a woman and would hate to be placed in that decision point.  

Another issue I want to bring up is that the Republican party has 'plantationed' this discussion among the Christian right.   It has been the topic to keep conservative Christians on the plantation.  Of course this is true somewhat  on the other side.  Pro-life Dems are a rare breed as is a Pro-choice Republican.  This topic should not be the political hot potato that it is - which is the reason so much isn't resolved about it.  It is kept alive as a 'red meat' issue and it has kept good meaning people on both sides from working together.

 

I come from the strongly pro-life side. I didn't like some of  the choices above because they come without substantiated meaning - Define 'health of the mother' or social /economic reasons or fetal impairment.  If it is codified into law with those restrictions, it would have to get fairly specific. 

 

Overall I probably lean to a reserved # 5 and BRB probably expressed my views the best.  I'm also concerned wt devaluing life.   A child in the womb is still life - not just 'potential life"  with a beating heart, etc.  It is still the 'other person' in the equation.   I can understand allowing the issues noted in # 5 with clear cut guidelines.  Children with 'Downs Syndrome' can be a great blessing - is that a fetal impairment??  Those are some of the hard issues one has to consider.  Part of life is protecting the weakest and most vulnerable among us.   I find the Economic/Social idea pretty hard to swallow - I think it cheapens life.  Most of us wouldn't be on this forum if our parents had to consider their financial accounts or social status before we were born. 

 

In the end, I wish this was a cut and dry issue, not political.  In reality, it comes down to the woman, the man if he remains involved, & doctor.  Counselors (religious or non-religious counselor) may give guidance but ultimately it comes down to the woman and the man and not the politicians.   

 

 

 

 

To the bolded parts, (this may come off as dickish, but I am genuinely asking) do you have concerns about devaluing or cheapening life in other areas of our political world as well, and do you take that into account when voting? Or are you only concerned about cheapening life when it comes to abortion?

 

The reason I ask is that it seems the "Pro Life" crowd only cares about "life" when it's in the womb. We've had a dozen or so school shootings this year and our illustrious leader is yet to comment on any of them. Doesn't that sound like devaluing life?

 

There's lots of things that cheapen and devalue life. Why does abortion concern you? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Fru said:

To the bolded parts, (this may come off as dickish, but I am genuinely asking) do you have concerns about devaluing or cheapening life in other areas of our political world as well, and do you take that into account when voting? Or are you only concerned about cheapening life when it comes to abortion?

 

The reason I ask is that it seems the "Pro Life" crowd only cares about "life" when it's in the womb. We've had a dozen or so school shootings this year and our illustrious leader is yet to comment on any of them. Doesn't that sound like devaluing life?

 

There's lots of things that cheapen and devalue life. Why does abortion concern you? 

I think I can easily say ( and TG would agree) life should be valued no matter if in the womb or out.  This is a good reason why both of us are conservative....but not Republican.

 

Many of the views Republicans have contradict each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Fru said:

 

To the bolded parts, (this may come off as dickish, but I am genuinely asking) do you have concerns about devaluing or cheapening life in other areas of our political world as well, and do you take that into account when voting? Or are you only concerned about cheapening life when it comes to abortion?

 

The reason I ask is that it seems the "Pro Life" crowd only cares about "life" when it's in the womb. We've had a dozen or so school shootings this year and our illustrious leader is yet to comment on any of them. Doesn't that sound like devaluing life?

 

There's lots of things that cheapen and devalue life. Why does abortion concern you? 

I have no problem answering that.  First it is wrong to assume as too many do that Pro-life in regards to abortion means that is all prolifers are (that we only care about abortion).  We are just as likely to be volunteering in a soup kitchen, giving financial counseling, help in a homeless shelter as we are in standing for the life issues of the unborn.  I've done all of those things and more - because I believe in life period.  To be pro-life should mean and it does mean to me - at all stages of life - womb, childhood development, adult, and end of life issue (elderly people should be treated with respect and not treated as cattle in some retirement home as some are).  The reason I said the Economic/Social issue concerns me in the abortion issue isn't because I don't care of the economic disadvantaged, it is because I think that is a poor reason to make a decision about a viable life - the baby in the womb. The economic issues can be addressed by many means but you cannot 'unring the bell' as Paul Harvey use to say. Once the baby is aborted it is final.  But I understand the basis of your question so therefore I don't think you are coming off dickish.  Too often our prolife ticket has been stamped by the republican party that has been lacking in all of the other 'pro life' issues that Dems are typically strong on.  So the basic view is that Prolife = Republican = Zero Compassion for other life issues.   This is why I wish this wasn't such a political issue.  I really do believe the Dems could capture most of the prolife vote if they had a more open tent and were not so solidly  pro-choice.  Can a person be a pro-life liberal? - I believe they can be and perhaps should be  but the Dem party isn't opening up to them.   Even now more than ever, wt the repugnant Trump in the WH, Pro-lifers with a moral conscious could flock to the Dem party if the party was open to them.   I think it would be very easy to be pro-life and liberal on most other social areas and conservative from an economic policy area. 

Edited by TGHusker
  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

I believe late term abortions are disgustingly reprehensible and I think (correct me if I'm wrong) there has been bipartisan support in either making them illegal or limiting greatly their use.  I do support that.

 

 

I do too. I think a good starting point would be (except in cases of the mother's and/or babies' health or life) that you can't have an abortion past the point of the earliest pre-term baby that has survived. 

 

The good news is, even though that (late-term abortions past the point that babies have survived outside the woom) is a legal option in most states, only 1.5% of abortions occur after 21 weeks. 

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I picked other. As a male it’s not  my Body so not my choice. But if the Mother wants to put the child up for adoption the Father should be given the right to Adopt if he wants to keep it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

 

Pro-life Dems are a rare breed as is a Pro-choice Republican.

 

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/07/07/on-abortion-persistent-divides-between-and-within-the-two-parties-2/

 

Actually there is more diversity than you may think, despite the party's best efforts.  Here is a Pew Research Poll from July of this year that shows 54% of moderate Republicans believe abortions should be legal in all/most cases.  Even 27% of self-identifying "conservative" Republicans believe that.

 

61% of moderate Democrats and 91% of liberal Democrats also believe in legal abortions.  So there is more diversity within the party on this issue than between moderates of both parties.  Sounds pretty diverse to me. 

 

Maybe the rhetoric is failing to polarize the average American, mainly riling up those that are more passionate about it?

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a pro-life Independent who disagrees with the GOP almost all of the time.

 

However I'm a 4.5 on that scale. There is no way in hell someone should be able to tell me I can't have an abortion if I'm raped. I had no choice in the matter, and some pretty s#!tty things can happen to the mothers of these children. For instance being forced to let the rapist have visitation with the child. That doesn't mean I would have an abortion, but it should be 100% up to me.

 

I also don't think men should be making decisions on abortion. Any decisions on abortion should be made by committees that have at least 50% women.

 

(I'm guessing most pro-life Christians would say I'm not pro-life based on the above).

 

Edited by Moiraine
  • Plus1 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sticking point with many Christians is the whole idea that life begins at conception,  and eliminating it, from that point on is murder . Thus the government intervention . 

I don’t believe that though I think prevention /education etc needs more attention so less bad situations arise . A set point also needs to be established (there already is?) where the fetus could be removed , and live unassisted . Anything after that is illegal, and anything before is between the woman , the doctor , and God .

 

Edited by Big Red 40
  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Big Red 40 said:

The sticking point with many Christians is the whole idea that life begins at conception,  and eliminating it, from that point on is murder . Thus the government intervention . 

I don’t believe that though I think prevention /education etc needs more attention so less bad situations arise . A set point also needs to be established (there already is?) where the fetus could be removed , and live unassisted . Anything after that is illegal anything before is between the woman , the doctor , and God .

 

 

 

Yep. People arguing with Christians need to realize they think it's murder - so saying things like "it's a woman's body" just rolls off them. To them the woman is deciding for 2 people.

 

Anyhow, the thing that will never make any sense to me is Christians who are vehemently anti-abortion but are also anti sex education/condoms, and are okay with lowering/eliminating funding to things like CHIP

  • Plus1 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted other. I believe that both beginning of life and end of life can be decided based on brain activity. Before the fetus develops brain activity, it's just a bunch of cells like any other cells in the human body, and I have just as much concern of removing it as I do an appendix. The "life" argument holds no weight with me because we can't exist without killing something (plant or animal), so we're really talking about "human life"; that's how I get to brain activity - minimum requirement to be human. The "choice" argument holds very little weight with me. You aren't legally allowed to choice to not care for for kids, so I don't see how that changes anything about being born or not.

 

However, I'd be more open to anti-abortion arguments and compromise if they also came with the same degree of concern for the already born people in society, especially children. Until all the kids in America are fed, clothed, sheltered, and educated, I really don't care at all about trying to "save" them before their even born since we can't "save" the ones already here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Nebfanatic said:

I don't believe in abortion morally, but its not the laws job to dictate the morals of America to that extent. It should be a personal decision, not something the government should have a say in. 

 

11 hours ago, NM11046 said:

Ditto to Neb.  My body my decision.   

 

I agree 100% with Nebfanatic but I can't stand the "my body my choice" argument or approach. Your body had the choice to prevent that pregnancy so substituting murder for responsible behavior is not a good argument IMO.

 

Morally I am opposed to abortion but I just can't see where it does any good to make it illegal. If a person wants to terminate their pregnancy they will find a way to do it. It might as well be done in a clean and safe medical environment. My preference would be to take all of this outlawing abortion effort and put it into education, contraceptives, help for unwed mother's etc. But I will always feel that abortion is murder because it is killing a life. I see no clarifying difference between that life being in the womb or not. However, I do feel there should be some point in the development of the embryo that it does become illegal. I just don't have a good argument to make as to when that is because I do believe life starts at contraception but there should be some cutoff point. And then of course I would always allow it in cases of rape, incest, mother's health in danger. I don't believe we can legislate morality but we certainly can and should set a time development limit.

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Comfortably Numb said:

 

 

I agree 100% with Nebfanatic but I can't stand the "my body my choice" argument or approach. Your body had the choice to prevent that pregnancy so substituting murder for responsible behavior is not a good argument IMO.

 

Morally I am opposed to abortion but I just can't see where it does any good to make it illegal. If a person wants to terminate their pregnancy they will find a way to do it. It might as well be done in a clean and safe medical environment. My preference would be to take all of this outlawing abortion effort and put it into education, contraceptives, help for unwed mother's etc. But I will always feel that abortion is murder because it is killing a life. I see no clarifying difference between that life being in the womb or not. However, I do feel there should be some point in the development of the embryo that it does become illegal. I just don't have a good argument to make as to when that is because I do believe life starts at contraception but there should be some cutoff point. And then of course I would always allow it in cases of rape, incest, mother's health in danger. I don't believe we can legislate morality but we certainly can and should set a time development limit.

Easy for you, as a man to say.  You will never become pregnant due to rape or incest.  You will never know what it's like to have your life at risk if you birth a child. You will never know what its like to be alone, and responsible for raising a child.  You will never be in a situation where you have to think through the risk of

bringing a genetically unhealthy child to term. 

 

I appreciate that you dont agree with my thoughts on terminating a pregnacy -  but your attempt at saying that all situations where an abortion is considered are methods of birth control or are a fix for “irresponsible behavior” is just ignorant.  

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Big Red 40 said:

The sticking point with many Christians is the whole idea that life begins at conception,  and eliminating it, from that point on is murder . Thus the government intervention . 

I don’t believe that though I think prevention /education etc needs more attention so less bad situations arise . A set point also needs to be established (there already is?) where the fetus could be removed , and live unassisted . Anything after that is illegal, and anything before is between the woman , the doctor , and God .

 

 

2 hours ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

Yep. People arguing with Christians need to realize they think it's murder - so saying things like "it's a woman's body" just rolls off them. To them the woman is deciding for 2 people.

 

Anyhow, the thing that will never make any sense to me is Christians who are vehemently anti-abortion but are also anti sex education/condoms, and are okay with lowering/eliminating funding to things like CHIP

 

 

This is why I can't really vote. I used to be staunchly against abortion.  But then I realized I don't know when life begins, I will never have a baby growing inside me, I will never really have any input in this discussion. There are a million million guys like me who married their beloved early, stayed married, never had this question come up seriously in their world, and still have a voting opinion.  I realized none of this applies to me, I don't know the answer, and I'm shutting up about it.

 

Some women are wholly creeped out by this situation, whether that's because of who they are or how the baby/fetus/zygote/blah came to be or whatever.

 

Some people think it's murder from the moment the sperm penetrates the egg, period.

 

I have no idea what's right, who's in the right, what to think about any of this.   So I mostly shut up about it. 

 

It's OK to acknowledge that you don't have an answer to this question. Life is complicated and you won't have all the answers. Accepting that is tough, but sometimes necessary.

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One other thing to add.

 

Again, for the Republicans who are Republican because they're pro-life (the Christians, mostly), they should be 100% for free healthcare for pregnant women.

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Comfortably Numb said:

 

 

I agree 100% with Nebfanatic but I can't stand the "my body my choice" argument or approach. Your body had the choice to prevent that pregnancy so substituting murder for responsible behavior is not a good argument IMO.

 

Morally I am opposed to abortion but I just can't see where it does any good to make it illegal. If a person wants to terminate their pregnancy they will find a way to do it. It might as well be done in a clean and safe medical environment. My preference would be to take all of this outlawing abortion effort and put it into education, contraceptives, help for unwed mother's etc. But I will always feel that abortion is murder because it is killing a life. I see no clarifying difference between that life being in the womb or not. However, I do feel there should be some point in the development of the embryo that it does become illegal. I just don't have a good argument to make as to when that is because I do believe life starts at contraception but there should be some cutoff point. And then of course I would always allow it in cases of rape, incest, mother's health in danger. I don't believe we can legislate morality but we certainly can and should set a time development limit.

The bold is the crux of the whole thing for me, What is considered life? and What value do we as a society place on that life? Ants, Mosquitoes, bacteria, viruses, pigs, human sperm, and even the chicken egg we had for breakfast, are all  living entities we routinely kill because they annoy us, threaten us, or taste really good. Most people think its ok to put a pet down if its suffering, but think its never ok for a human in the same scenario.

Is a blob of sperm and eggs a "life" that we value, or not ? Are we comitting murder on sperm if we use a condom? My brother in law was born premature at 2 lbs, and though he had medical assistance, he survived and had a good life . Technically, legally,  he could have been aborted (some say we should have lol ) at that point though, not considered "life".  The scenarios are mind boggling to me .

Current abortion laws are about right in my mind i guess. Though laws very by state, the majority put the age of fetus viability at 20 to 28 weeks. Originally i read in 1974 they put the age at 7 moths which is much too far in my mind. id shoot more for 20 weeks range.  That gives rape/incest victims etc  time to make their choice without taking it into a time where it really is too late , and shouldn't be allowed.      

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, NM11046 said:

Easy for you, as a man to say.  You will never become pregnant due to rape or incest.  You will never know what it's like to have your life at risk if you birth a child. You will never know what its like to be alone, and responsible for raising a child.  You will never be in a situation where you have to think through the risk of

bringing a genetically unhealthy child to term. 

 

I appreciate that you dont agree with my thoughts on terminating a pregnacy -  but your attempt at saying that all situations where an abortion is considered are methods of birth control or are a fix for “irresponsible behavior” is just ignorant.  

 

If you would have digested my whole post you would realize that I make allowances for rape, incest, and the health of the mother. And even though I didn't include it prior, yes I would also allow for health or genetic concerns of the fetus. I also stated that I am against making abortion illegal. Nowhere did I say or mean to imply all situations are birth control for irresponsible behavior. But yes I do believe that many are and that is why the "my body my choice" argument rings hollow for me. About the only thing you got right is that I will never have to be alone and worry about having to raise that child alone. That is why, as stated before but apparently ignored, I am for education, contraceptives and support for unwed mother's. I'm sorry but your ignorant comment was way out of line. Try reading the whole response next time and avoid jumping to conclusions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Landlord said:

 

 

The response to that is, "But it's MURDER! Shouldn't murder be illegal?"

 

The thing is, though, that nobody really actually believes this deep down. You take the most conservative fundie right-wing pro-rights person you can find and sit them down across from a woman who has had several abortions and they won't gag or scream or convulse or whatever they would do if they were actually sitting across from a serial killer.

 

Well, you’re wrong and that is a poor example to support what you said. I do believe it’s murder and you’re right I do not view it the same as some serial killer in most cases. I hope no one does. But it is still taking the life of another. Isn’t that murder?  Now if I knew this woman had multiple abortions, all for none of the good reasons I’ve outlined prior and these many abortions were simply because she was lazy and irresponsible and wasn’t even trying to prevent pregnancy, then yes I would view her the same as a serial killer. But if it was one or two that she felt forced into by whatever circumstances then I would have empathy for her. You kind of constructed a straw man there to support your claims. It’s a long way to stretch to try to convince yourself that nobody “really actually” believes it’s murder. I can’t imagine not viewing it as murder. Where is the cutoff then? Third trimester.....moments before exiting the birth canal......the moment they draw their first breath.....any time in the first year because, you know, babies aren’t really very coherent until what about 1 year old...2 years old? Where’s your line for determining murder?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main problem with this whole issue is that we really can’t ascertain the real reason for allowing or disallowing an abortion. I don’t think anybody wants to live in a world where others get to delve into our personal business to determine if it actually is for rape, incest, a health issue of the mother, or momentary lapse of responsible behavior or wanton debauchery. We can have all the polls in the world but nobody is going to be for allowing people that much access into their lives. This maybe is the biggest reason I am against making abortion illegal. Even though I am personally, morally opposed to it except for the exceptions I’ve outlined, I also realize the real reason will never be any of my business. People joke about Hippa and patient privacy but that is really what it comes down to. If I could make abortion illegal as a form of reversing willful irresponsible behavior I would but I don’t want to live in the world where that determination is possible. We can all discuss the nuances of our moral objections but I don’t see how anyone could ever consider actually making it illegal. And of course I’m not talking about late term abortions...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You would not view or treat a woman who had three health or poverty related abortions the same way that you would treat a person who had killed people on three separate occasions due to self defense, protecting their home, and accidentally overdosing their child with medicine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Landlord said:

You would not view or treat a woman who had three health or poverty related abortions the same way that you would treat a person who had killed people on three separate occasions due to self defense, protecting their home, and accidentally overdosing their child with medicine.

 

Uh I'm not so sure of that.  I would be completely understanding of all those situations. And let's be clear, it is not my business to "treat" anyone that has had an abortion  in any manner. I realize in the vast majority of abortion cases people feel forced into making that decision. It's not up to me to judge them for that or to feel anything less than sympathy for them. But that doesn't have anything to do with not really actually viewing abortion as murder or not. But I am understanding your point a little better. I would not view an abortion due to rape as murder, just as I would not view a self defense or accidental killing as murder. I guess the murder view is dependent on the circumstances and I do believe a very large percentage of abortions are done to correct irresponsible behavior. I can't believe many are due solely to rape, incest or the mother's health being in danger. I think most people agree those are understandable but I'm guessing those constitute a rather insignificant number.

 

 

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, NM11046 said:

You will never know what its like to be alone, and responsible for raising a child.

I'm not arguing your main point of your post.  But, I do know men who are in this situation.

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, RedDenver said:

I voted other. I believe that both beginning of life and end of life can be decided based on brain activity. Before the fetus develops brain activity, it's just a bunch of cells like any other cells in the human body, and I have just as much concern of removing it as I do an appendix. The "life" argument holds no weight with me because we can't exist without killing something (plant or animal), so we're really talking about "human life"; that's how I get to brain activity - minimum requirement to be human. The "choice" argument holds very little weight with me. You aren't legally allowed to choice to not care for for kids, so I don't see how that changes anything about being born or not.

 

However, I'd be more open to anti-abortion arguments and compromise if they also came with the same degree of concern for the already born people in society, especially children. Until all the kids in America are fed, clothed, sheltered, and educated, I really don't care at all about trying to "save" them before their even born since we can't "save" the ones already here.

The bold is kind of a straw man argument  to me and Fru referenced it above as well - to which I answered.  This false narrative / argument assumes that a person who is pro-life cannot also be passionate about all of the issues you bring up and that cannot be involved in both.  Many are.  If we nurtured a culture of life in this country we'd be concerned wt life issues from the womb to the grave.  Let me ask, how many Planned Parenthood agencies promote adoption as their primary goal or are they creating soup kitchens, food and clothing pantries, homeless shelters, etc?  How involved are they in clothing, sheltering, education(outside of birth control and abortion education)?     You may argue - that isn't their calling.  Well to many pro-lifers their primary calling is the life issue.  For others it is those other issues and they remain prolife as a secondary issue.  As I noted in my earlier post, most pro-life individuals are already involved in those other areas.  Most churches that are active in pro-life issues are involved in other life issue. Don't confuse organizations that have a primary focused to address the pro-life issue with the vast # of common individuals who are active across the spectrum. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

I'm not arguing your main point of your post.  But, I do know men who are in this situation.

Excellent point BRB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

The bold is kind of a straw man argument  to me and Fru referenced it above as well - to which I answered.  This false narrative / argument assumes that a person who is pro-life cannot also be passionate about all of the issues you bring up and that cannot be involved in both.  Many are.  If we nurtured a culture of life in this country we'd be concerned wt life issues from the womb to the grave.  Let me ask, how many Planned Parenthood agencies promote adoption as their primary goal or are they creating soup kitchens, food and clothing pantries, homeless shelters, etc?  How involved are they in clothing, sheltering, education(outside of birth control and abortion education)?     You may argue - that isn't their calling.  Well to many pro-lifers their primary calling is the life issue.  For others it is those other issues and they remain prolife as a secondary issue.  As I noted in my earlier post, most pro-life individuals are already involved in those other areas.  Most churches that are active in pro-life issues are involved in other life issue. Don't confuse organizations that have a primary focused to address the pro-life issue with the vast # of common individuals who are active across the spectrum. 

 

You're missing their point.  They're not talking about the "many" that are pro-life who also support children as they grow.  They're talking about the vast number of people who, demonstrably by their vote, are NOT supportive of children.  These are, most visibly, Republican voters who allow themselves to vote for candidates based almost solely on the one wedge issue of abortion, then blithely ignore the damage those elected officials do to already-born children. The CHIP/DACA fiasco is a prime example of this.

 

You can't say they're wrong (or creating a straw man) by claiming there are people who support abortion and support already-born children.  Nobody is claiming those people don't exist. 

  • Plus1 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

You're missing their point.  They're not talking about the "many" that are pro-life who also support children as they grow.  They're talking about the vast number of people who, demonstrably by their vote, are NOT supportive of children.  These are, most visibly, Republican voters who allow themselves to vote for candidates based almost solely on the one wedge issue of abortion, then blithely ignore the damage those elected officials do to already-born children. The CHIP/DACA fiasco is a prime example of this.

 

You can't say they're wrong (or creating a straw man) by claiming there are people who support abortion and support already-born children.  Nobody is claiming those people don't exist. 

Hey Knapp - thanks for the clarification.  Appreciated:thumbs That changes the perspective.  And I agree.  As you know, I've had a big change of heart about being everything Republican.  I am very frustrated by the continued Republican plantation holding prolife voters hostage - I blame a big portion of this on one organization starting back in the 1970s - The Moral Majority.  They created the narrative that tied prolife voters to one party. That one party has gladly given lip service to the prolife movement which has secured their votes for far too long. But the back lash is that it entrenched the opposite side into the Dem party in my opinion. It lead to polarization.  The Dem party was full of prolife leaders at one time.  I would bet that this would be a non-issue by now if that polarization had not started in the 70s.  Yes, prolife people at a right to responded to Roe v Wade - but the extremes led the way and polarization was the result.

I agree the CHIP/DACA is just another slap in the face on 'life issues'.  Again a culture of life involves all of these issues.    As a conservative, I would like to see the government being more efficient and make budget decisions  that would address all of those life issues including CHIP/DACA.  It is a matter of making proper choices.  So If I want to be pro-choice it would be to cut the budget on waste, kickbacks to contributors in the form of unrealistic tax cuts, cut programs that reward foreign govts, keep the military right sized, etc - with the primary focus being the welfare of the citizens - those other life issues that the republicans have a poor track record on.  So I can see how a person can be conservative economically and very liberal on social issues if the right decisions were made.  Hard choices on the budget in order to fund the life needs of the citizens.

If we don't care for our own, those under our 'national roof', we should be ashamed.

I think this verse applies  1Timothy 5:8

Now if anyone does not provide for the own, and especially his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
 

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TGHusker said:

Hey Knapp - thanks for the clarification.  Appreciated:thumbs That changes the perspective.  And I agree.  As you know, I've had a big change of heart about being everything Republican.  I am very frustrated by the continued Republican plantation holding prolife voters hostage - I blame a big portion of this on one organization starting back in the 1970s - The Moral Majority.  They created the narrative that tied prolife voters to one party. That one party has gladly given lip service to the prolife movement which has secured their votes for far too long. But the back lash is that it entrenched the opposite side into the Dem party in my opinion. It lead to polarization.  The Dem party was full of prolife leaders at one time.  I would bet that this would be a non-issue by now if that polarization had not started in the 70s.  Yes, prolife people at a right to responded to Roe v Wade - but the extremes led the way and polarization was the result.

I agree the CHIP/DACA is just another slap in the face on 'life issues'.  Again a culture of life involves all of these issues.    As a conservative, I would like to see the government being more efficient and make budget decisions  that would address all of those life issues including CHIP/DACA.  It is a matter of making proper choices.  So If I want to be pro-choice it would be to cut the budget on waste, kickbacks to contributors in the form of unrealistic tax cuts, cut programs that reward foreign govts, keep the military right sized, etc - with the primary focus being the welfare of the citizens - those other life issues that the republicans have a poor track record on.  So I can see how a person can be conservative economically and very liberal on social issues if the right decisions were made.  Hard choices on the budget in order to fund the life needs of the citizens.

If we don't care for our own, those under our 'national roof', we should be ashamed.

I think this verse applies  1Timothy 5:8

Now if anyone does not provide for the own, and especially his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
 

I was going to respond to your earlier reply, but @knapplc summed up my response quite well, and we all appear to be on the same or similar page.

 

My main point is that if anti-abortion supporters want me to take their political position seriously, then they need to be pro-life - or at least pro-kids - in their other political positions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

I was going to respond to your earlier reply, but @knapplc summed up my response quite well, and we all appear to be on the same or similar page.

 

My main point is that if anti-abortion supporters want me to take their political position seriously, then they need to be pro-life - or at least pro-kids - in their other political positions.

Agree.  Yes, I didn't understand you were coming from a political perspective - Knapp I think knew my view point and could see that I was miss reading you.      I think a real middle ground can be found if people stopped shouting over each other.   Middle ground was consider the life of the mother, the viable baby in the womb, birth control, post birth care, support for women regardless of their choice, education, etc. - adoption, crisis pregnancy, social economic issues that contribute all have to be a part of the discussion.  But polarization has stolen the opportunity for solution - for far toooooo many years.

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is symptomatic of our 2 party system and its limits.  The 2 parties ying and yang the death out of us with the purpose of keeping us apart so they can continue to share power.  It is no big deal if one of them is out of power for 4 years (regardless of their protest) but they know they will take turns making bogeymen out of us voters with our 'issues'. That keeps them both in power and they continue to scratch each other's back. 

  • Plus1 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote
Ric Flair said: 

Planned Parenthood is based on eugenics and abortion for profit. Anything that drives more pregnancies that they can then work to terminate is in their financial interest.

 

... Read about Margaret Sanger and her involvement in eugenics. Why do you think Planned Parenthood clinics are overwhelmingly in minority communities? Why do you think they do almost no adoption referrals?

 

Because 1) They make millions of dollars from abortions and 2) At their core, they want to call what they see as undesirables. The rest of us call them minorities.

 

 

So there are a lot of things to unpack here in order to be fact based in any opinion.  As an educator @Ric Flair surely you value the need for understanding bias and seeking facts from multiple sources in order to understand what points to debate and teach.

 

This Washington Post article does a nice job of explaining why the rights data points are all wrong, but how they get them, and also explain where the PP numbers come from and how they are skewed.  I highly recommend everyone who has a passion for this topic to read it.   https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/08/12/for-planned-parenthood-abortion-stats-3-percent-and-94-percent-are-both-misleading/?utm_term=.7ec3338bf458

 

PP is a non-profit.  Which explains the lack of consistent data produced for review annually.  It also debunks your "financial interest" comment.

 

The majority of services provided are not pregnancy ending appointments.  This graphic breaks it down well.  Keep in mind however that a patient can come in for multiple services, for instance one patient can come in for screening, birth control, counseling on adoption and/or terminating a pregnancy.  Also keep in mind PP does not report total patients annually consistently.  So the conservative advocacy groups that point to overwhelming evidence on numbers are using referrals to adoption or other numbers as their dataset.  It's not valid. Also, keep in mind that government funds make up the majority of funding for PP because they only pay for health care services other than termination of pregnancy.

 

So Im going to stop here, as I could type facts all day but really one has to want to know them for it to matter.  I know nobody here will change your mind on a womans' right to choose, but if you only increase your awareness of facts and untruths that you are referencing in your conversations it will be worth the discussion.  I respect your opinion and beliefs, but you lose credibility when you reference the bs you're referring to.

 

 

PP2013.jpg&w=480

 

 

Edited by NM11046

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Other sources, unbiased - worth reading in full.

 

https://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/planned-parenthood/

 

 

Oh and forgot to acknowledge the reference you made to the PP organization trying to capitalize on putting clinics in low income, minority heavy areas.  Perhaps that is true, but when choosing a location they aren't looking at census data and income levels in order to make money of what you hint at as a population that is churning out babies and aborting them when given the chance.  It's been chosen because there's been a need determined, or an outage with affordable healthcare in the area.  Are you a believer in the fact that contraception is better than abortion?  That preventing an unwanted pregnancy is better than giving a child up for adoption?  That a pregnant mother should have consistent medical care during her pregnancy?  That men who no longer want to take pregnancy risks on have an option for sterilization?  That cancer screenings and basic healthcare appointments are deserved regardless of employment status, income, sex, insurance status etc?  That teenagers should be counseled on education of pregnancy prevention and other options for birth control?

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/10/03/are-most-planned-parenthood-clinics-in-urban-areas-where-women-have-adequate-access-to-care/?utm_term=.91c2474baaf3

 

More specific info on determining location placement:  

Quote

Federally qualified health centers are required to serve medically underserved populations and areas with health professional shortages.

 

“Medically underserved” is defined as “too few primary care providers, high infant mortality, high poverty or a high elderly population.” The “health professional shortage” designation is made based on the ratio of primary care, dental or mental-health medical providers per population.

 

These designations can be made in both rural and urban areas. In fact, a hospital can be designated its own health professional shortage area, even if it is in an urban area. The federal government uses these designations to recruit health-care professionals and allocate money, targeting areas with documented shortages.

Planned Parenthood is not required to serve these populations — but it does in many urban and rural areas of the country. A breakdown of health center locations provided by Planned Parenthood shows 56 percent of its health centers are in rural, “medically underserved” or “health professional shortage” areas. 

 

And re: adoption referrals - they aren't tracked, just as referrals to sites that do mammograms or vascectomy's if the clinic doesn't aren't tallied.  

Edited by NM11046
  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the GOP has had control of the wh, the senate, congress, and has a majority on the supreme court for over a year now....yet they have not introduced anything to stop abortions.   i wonder why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's what I think: if men could get pregnant, not only would abortions be legal, they'd also be covered by health insurance, there would be an abortion clinic on almost every street corner, and there would be zero stigma to have one.

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×