Poll: Abortion legality belief spectrum

[TGHusker]

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

What you are not getting is that you and the Democrats have successfully used this argument against pro-life politics.....but, it's misleading.

 

What you are implying is that people sit around and think...."hmmm....how can we reduce women's right to choose what they do with their bodies?  We have got to figure out how to restrict women more".

 

When in reality, that is not the case.  The motivation behind a pro-life stance is NOT to restrict women's rights.  The motivation is to save what people believe on that side believe to be a live baby.

 

There is a huge difference between these two.  Just like how pro-life people scream "murder" about abortion to keep people on their plantation, this "There motive is to restrict women's rights" is how the other side keeps people on the plantation.

 

The problem is, both statements restricts actually solving the problem.....which.....is the true motive of many in politics.

BRB - I agree with you on this.  This is a political hot potato because politicians on both sides want it to be - the more we can point fingers and not solve the issue or at least properly define as Knapp brings up, we will continue to have this topic as the "mother of all fund raisers" for politicians on both sides.

 

To your point - Pro life people are primarily - "Pro Life" - that is how we have always defined ourselves  - however when the other side defines them as 'anti-choice' or anti abortion primarily that distorts our position  - Whoever defines the terms (language) controls the discussion.  We believe that this other life (the baby in the womb) has rights as does the mother.  Pro-lifers want to help the mother also.  We by our nature aren't anti mother or anti woman we are pro-life.  While pro-choice (or should I say pro-abortion - just to counter the anti-abortion label) side wants to throw up the false argument that Pro-lifers aren't pro life outside of the womb -  I got news for them - we can walk and chew gum at the same time.  As I have stated many times before, most rank and file pro-lifers are involved in many 'life' issues outside of this issue.  I could counter that pro-choice people aren't concerned about childhood development as they are ok wt abortion in some cases to full term.  But that too would be a false statement.  On both sides there are rank and file people and congressmen who's primary calling is this issue - that is fine.  But it is false to claim this for all of the people interested in this topic.  Therefore, I reject any suggestion that Pro-lifers are less than pro life on all other life issues or that they are anti-woman.  It is a false, lazy argument that won't stand up to facts and its only purpose is to keep the wall dividing us up right.

 

[RedDenver]

27 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

Therefore, I reject any suggestion that Pro-lifers are less than pro life on all other life issues or that they are anti-woman.  It is a false, lazy argument that won't stand up to facts and its only purpose is to keep the wall dividing us up right.

I mostly agree with you; however, there are a some (a lot? a few?) of pro-life (to use your preferred term) supporters who, for example, simultaneously want to defund CHIP or get rid of other child-protection law/rule (or perhaps they don't hold those beliefs but vote/support politicians who do).

 

I keep thinking that's at least one area where pro-life conservatives and pro-choice liberals could agree - let's work on protecting the already born kids. Maybe if we can find a way to work on that together, we'll find more common ground on the more contentious points.

Edited February 26, 2018 by RedDenver

[TGHusker]

27 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

Except you need to specify which woman you're talking about. Is that woman the pregnant woman, or the baby inside her who will grow to be a woman?

 

It's not so black-and-white. You need to establish when that thing becomes a who, because at that point the who starts having rights. 

 

This is why the abortion discussion is so difficult. Establishing where life begins, and thus when it has rights, is crucial. There's absolutely going to be an overlap between baby's rights & woman's rights.  Whose rights get trampled on is the problem. 

Agree Knapp and well stated. 

 

 

Years ago at the time of Roe v Wade - we didn't have the detailed imaging, and monitoring systems that we have now.  We can look into the womb at a very early age and see and understand what is going on.  The "blob of tissue" argument was discredited a long time ago.

So what measurement do we use?  Life at Conception, Life @ brain activity, Life @ viability???

I believe that Life begins at conception  as many on the Prolife side believe - even if we call it potential life - all life is important and each life has the ability to impact society in a positive way -even the handicapped.

We do know scientifically that at conception, the new cell is a totally unique 'individual' with its own DNA.  At that point is the cell a person or property?  The cell develops quickly from that point as noted in this article and copied below.

http://www.frc.org/arguments

• Quote

   

  • The cardiovascular system is the first major system to function. At about 22 days after conception the child's heart begins to circulate his own blood, unique to that of his mother's, and his heartbeat can be detected on ultrasound.[14]

  • At just six weeks, the child's eyes and eye lids, nose, mouth, and tongue have formed.

  • Electrical brain activity can be detected at six or seven weeks,[15] and by the end of the eighth week, the child, now known scientifically as a "fetus," has developed all of his organs and bodily structures.[16]

  • By ten weeks after conception the child can make bodily movements.

   

  So at this point is the fetus just property that can be disposed of or a person to be protected. Remember 'it' has its own unique DNA separating it from that of the DNA of the mother. 

 

Quote

 

Medicine, too, confirms the existence of the child before birth as a distinct human person. Fetal surgery has become a medical specialty, and includes the separate provision of anesthesia to the baby.

  "Pro-choice" feminist Naomi Wolf, who in a ground-breaking article in 1996, argued that the abortion-rights community should acknowledge the "fetus, in its full humanity" and that abortion causes "a real death."[21] More recently, Kate Michelman, long-time president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, acknowledged that "technology has clearly helped to define how people think about a fetus as a full, breathing human being."[22]

Summary: Those who justify abortion by claiming that "no one knows when life begins" are not arguing science but rather their own brand of politics, philosophy, or even religion. Their argument is not about when life begins but about when, or whether, that life deserves legal acknowledgment and protection.

 

 

Now to make this argument doesn't make me any less concerned for the woman involved. We should not 'cheapen' either life by the political arguments at play here. 

[RedDenver]

5 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

So what measurement do we use?  Life at Conception, Life @ brain activity, Life @ viability???

I believe that Life begins at conception

Again, no one is arguing whether the fetus is alive. In fact the cells that created the fetus were also alive before conception. The measurement in question is when is that life a person.

 

I know it's sort of a semantic detail, but I think the words we use here are important.

Edited February 26, 2018 by RedDenver

[TGHusker]

1 minute ago, RedDenver said:

I mostly agree with you; however, there are a some (a lot? a few?) of pro-life (to use your preferred term) supporters who, for example, simultaneously want to defund CHIP or get rid of other child-protection law/rule (or perhaps they don't hold those beliefs but vote/support politicians who do).

 

I keep thinking that's at least one area where pro-life conservatives and pro-choice liberals could agree - let's work on protecting the already born kids. Maybe if we can find a way to work on that together, we'll find more common ground on the more contentious points.

RD I understand your point and I agree with the bold 10000%.  One thing you have to keep in mind, is that someone may oppose CHIP funding (slowing the growth or cutting it back) for reasons totally unrelated to prolife issues. It could be that they have a different method in mind to better take care of those issues.  So blanket generalizations should not be applied.  And yes, sometimes the prolife person finds it necessary to vote for the person who is prolife but who is also too deeply set against govt spending in many issues that are also 'life issues'.  Why, because that prolife person sees that as the primary issue .  I blame both parties for this bad choice 1. The repubs for being too entrenched in anti-govt spending, tax cuts at all cost and wrong priorities and 2. The dems for not allowing pro-life a place in their tent.  They have so sold themselves to the other side that it makes it almost impossible for a  prolifer to vote dem - it is a big internal conflict.  IF  the Dem party would just open up their tent, they would see many prolifers willing to vote Dem in the next election I believe.  And yes, prolifers have voted for Dem candidates ( I know many who voted for Obama). 

[Landlord]

1 hour ago, zoogs said:

Motivations are defined by outcomes.

 

And you're completely ignoring the outcome of, "A life now exists that wouldn't have."

 

Nobody bemoans you being for respecting women and giving them choice with their bodies. But you're not even trying a little bit to spend any mental energy on the respect/choice/rights offered to a potential baby. People keep trying to explain this gap of perspective where you and others keep missing each other and you keep responding with, "This is all about controlling women."

 

It's really not. As Knapp said, per the perspective of someone who believes there is a human life inside a woman's belly at some point during pregnancy, it's about two individuals' rights imposing on one another in a complex scenario where there is no way out with someone sacrificing something. IF that's a baby in there, then that baby needs to be respected and given it's human rights even moreso than the woman because the baby can't consent and make decisions for itself. 

 

A whole mass of people really genuinely believe this is happening with heartfelt conviction. Failing to engage with their belief that human beings are being slaughtered for convenience (not a word I would use for it, admittedly), and continuously turning it back around to how they don't respect women, does nothing other than serve your ego.

[RedDenver]

19 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

RD I understand your point and I agree with the bold 10000%.  One thing you have to keep in mind, is that someone may oppose CHIP funding (slowing the growth or cutting it back) for reasons totally unrelated to prolife issues. It could be that they have a different method in mind to better take care of those issues.  So blanket generalizations should not be applied.  And yes, sometimes the prolife person finds it necessary to vote for the person who is prolife but who is also too deeply set against govt spending in many issues that are also 'life issues'.  Why, because that prolife person sees that as the primary issue .  I blame both parties for this bad choice 1. The repubs for being too entrenched in anti-govt spending, tax cuts at all cost and wrong priorities and 2. The dems for not allowing pro-life a place in their tent.  They have so sold themselves to the other side that it makes it almost impossible for a  prolifer to vote dem - it is a big internal conflict.  IF  the Dem party would just open up their tent, they would see many prolifers willing to vote Dem in the next election I believe.  And yes, prolifers have voted for Dem candidates ( I know many who voted for Obama). 

I understand that a person can want another method other than CHIP, but that's not what I've encountered with the Republican voters I know. They want to cut CHIP without another method for providing health insurance to kids. It's based on not wanting to have to spend that money. If hurting your pocketbook is more important than protecting a kid, then your professed care about the unborn is hollow and empty.

 

My basic message to pro-lifers can be summarized by "If you want me to take your concern of the unborn seriously, then put your money where your mouth is for the already born kids."

 

(That's not addressed at you, TG, or anyone in particular, just my own view of the debate.)

 

As for the Dems being big tent - that's probably not going to happen as long as the Repubs aren't running pro-choice candidates as well. That's part of the problem - neither side really wants compromise by their side, only by the other side.

[B.B. Hemingway]

1 hour ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

I honestly don't know the  liberal you have in your head, the one who succumbs to your impeccable logic, but I don't know anyone unwilling to acknowledge that women get pregnant and men don't.

 

You don't have to look far to find liberals that have trouble acknowledging what makes a man a man, and vice versa.

[RedDenver]

8 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

You don't have to look far to find liberals that have trouble acknowledging what makes a man a man, and vice versa.

Got any evidence for that?

[Moiraine]

2 hours ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

 

I would agree with you, but I thought we weren't concerned with the biological differences between men and women anymore? Or is it a matter of liberal convenience?

 

 

 

 

 

Most people who discuss gender issues differentiate between the words sex and gender, and most aren't saying there aren't biological differences.

 

Sex: Reproductive organs, men have more muscles, women *might* be more nurturing (debatable), women are born with bigger and better brains, obviously.

 

Gender: Men wear blue, women wear pink and dresses, men who wear make up are prissy, men like cars and sports, girls play with dolls.

Edited February 26, 2018 by Moiraine

[BigRedBuster]

24 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

You don't have to look far to find liberals that have trouble acknowledging what makes a man a man, and vice versa.

 

Bringing this issue up in an abortion debate is nothing more than a diversion tactic.

[TGHusker]

25 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

I understand that a person can want another method other than CHIP, but that's not what I've encountered with the Republican voters I know. They want to cut CHIP without another method for providing health insurance to kids. It's based on not wanting to have to spend that money. If hurting your pocketbook is more important than protecting a kid, then your professed care about the unborn is hollow and empty.

 

My basic message to pro-lifers can be summarized by "If you want me to take your concern of the unborn seriously, then put your money where your mouth is for the already born kids."

 

(That's not addressed at you, TG, or anyone in particular, just my own view of the debate.)

 

As for the Dems being big tent - that's probably not going to happen as long as the Repubs aren't running pro-choice candidates as well. That's part of the problem - neither side really wants compromise by their side, only by the other side.

Again - that is the problem wt the current Rep party - too much emphasis on cutting without regard to priorities.  So the better question to ask to meet both desires (smaller more efficient govt and a properly sized safety net on all life issues) is what are our priorities?  This has been answered by the current group in  way that leaves too many out in the cold.  A legislator can be conservative and can cut govt  and they can do it in a socially responsible way(by cut we are normally talking about cutting the growth of the program - rarely is it cutting the base investment in that program - so we have to be cautious on how we use the "cut" word. ).

 

This may be the answer and I'll be all for it:

 

http://theweek.com/speedreads/757469/john-kasich-says-multiparty-system-may-coming-soon

Quote

 

Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R) on Sunday posited the United States may soon develop a multi-party system because the Democratic and Republican parties are not satisfying voters.

"We may be beginning to see the end of the two-party system," he mused in an interview on ABC's This Week. "I'm starting to really wonder if we're going to see a multi-party system at some point in the future in this country. Because I don't think either party is answering people's deepest concerns and needs."

Kasich appeared with Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper (D), with whom, as host George Stephanopoulos noted, some speculate he may try to form a unity ticket to challenge President Trump in 2020. Neither governor would say whether he intends to mount a presidential campaign, and Kasich offered mixed messaging on where his partisan loyalties would be should he choose to run. He said the GOP is "is [his] vehicle, not [his] master," but demurred at the ideas of endorsing Hickenlooper as a Democratic nominee or running as an independent himself.

 

 

[RedDenver]

1 minute ago, TGHusker said:

Again - that is the problem wt the current Rep party - too much emphasis on cutting without regard to priorities.  So the better question to ask to meet both desires (smaller more efficient govt and a properly sized safety net on all life issues) is what are our priorities?  This has been answered by the current group in  way that leaves too many out in the cold.  A legislator can be conservative and can cut govt  and they can do it in a socially responsible way(by cut we are normally talking about cutting the growth of the program - rarely is it cutting the base investment in that program - so we have to be cautious on how we use the "cut" word. ).

 

This may be the answer and I'll be all for it:

 

http://theweek.com/speedreads/757469/john-kasich-says-multiparty-system-may-coming-soon

 

Unfortunately, the 270 elector requirement for the presidency all but eliminates more than 2 parties for the presidential election in it's current state regardless of who may run. At other levels of government, it might be possible, but not at the most visible position, which tends to have a big effect on how people turn out to vote. The only ways to change this are either with something like ranked-choice voting at the state level or an amendment to the Constitution. Kasich could stump for either or both of these solutions, but him running as a 3rd party won't do it.

[B.B. Hemingway]

12 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

Bringing this issue up in an abortion debate is nothing more than a diversion tactic.

 

Bah! You got me.

[TGHusker]

Just now, RedDenver said:

Unfortunately, the 270 elector requirement for the presidency all but eliminates more than 2 parties for the presidential election in it's current state regardless of who may run. At other levels of government, it might be possible, but not at the most visible position, which tends to have a big effect on how people turn out to vote. The only ways to change this are either with something like ranked-choice voting at the state level or an amendment to the Constitution. Kasich could stump for either or both of these solutions, but him running as a 3rd party won't do it.

Unfortunately you are right. But you know other parties have come and gone over the years but it has been some time.  Perhaps if more of us vote that way and consider it a vote of faith in the future versus a 'wasted vote' we might see more movement.  In the short term, I see both parties so entrenched in their own plantations that it would take a real statesman/woman to get us beyond this current status. 

I do like the ranked choice idea.