Poll: Abortion legality belief spectrum

[Fru]

14 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

I have no problem with this at all.  We should do all we can to reduce the "need" of abortions.  

 

For years prior to and after Roe v Wade,  we were told it is 'just a mass of tissue'.  Prolifers knew otherwise.  Modern science of course with its ability to peer into the womb made it clear that 'it' wasn't just a mass of tissue.  So who was scientific in this debate?   So now that we can detect the heart beat, we see that the baby has its own, unique DNA and is developing clearly as a separate individual - we have to ask the harder questions - when do we start to protect that life?  

 

1. Look no further than our own Declaration of Independence.   In fact it is to be 'self evident'.  The right to life.   The Declaration has references to the Creator but it is a political document.

2. The intrinsic value of all human life - when we devalue life in any form or time of development we devalue all life. When we devalue the weakest, we devalue all. When we devalue the immigrant, the handicapped, the aged person with memory loss,  the person of a minority race, the poor, or uneducated, we devalue all of life. 

 

 

 

Man, it'd be something if you "pro lifers" applied this mindset to school shootings, universal health care and protecting the environment. 

[Nebfanatic]

1 minute ago, Landlord said:

 

The formation and development of cells and tissue and organs and organ systems. There's tons of good reason to believe it is a person depending on what you think defines a person. The point is, we don't actually know because we don't have any absolute definitions that are intrinsically true so we're all coming from different perspectives. And often arguing against others based off logic from our perspective, which the person being argued with doesn't share.

 

 

 

 

I agree with you on the bold 100%. You attribute a much more nefarious goal to pro lifers than I do. I just think they're misguided. Maybe there are some seedy characters smoking cigars in back rooms that are trying to control women and keep minority populations dependent on welfare with all of this, but the majority to me just seem like they earnestly (right or wrong) believe we might actually be committing genocide.

I don't think your average pro lifer wants to control women through legislation. The people writing the legislation on the other hand...

[Danny Bateman]

3 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

What about when we devalue a womens pursuit to happiness by making it practically illegal to get their tubes tied? And I know that is just a what about ism but this recent legislation has me pretty riled up. In my own life I am pro life and have made choices in my relationships based on this, but personally I also feel many of these laws attack and control women. We need to do a better job of protecting our women and children who are born before we go on a crusade to save all unborn children. Just my opinion. I know you are reasonable about this issue and I am mainly venting general frustration. 

 

@TGHusker

 

Nebfanatic beat me to my own thoughts. The Declaration of Independence also endows us all with the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness as well. Upon which we would be infringing for women if we declare the right to life to supersede the other two.

[Danny Bateman]

9 hours ago, Landlord said:

Science doesn't have an opinion on personhood or when a fetus becomes a human being. We don't even know what those terms mean. We don't even know what consciousness is. We don't know if souls exist, although most of us believe in them, and we don't know when they come and when they go. Believing that a fetus in a womb is a person is not scientific nor is it unscientific. Science does not say that isn't true; science isn't in the business of saying such things. 

 

At any rate, where did the laws that define autonomous adults come from? Who says what an autonomous adult, or an autonomous human, is? Oh, laws do? And we made those laws? Based on beliefs? But it's wrong for other people to try and make laws based on other beliefs? Okay got it. I think.

 

As far as science goes, it tells us a fetus is not likely to be viable outside of a womb before the 22 to 23 weeks I gave before. This merely gives us a framework with which to uphold the current law, which was set forth in Roe. A soul is a problematic concept - the current scientific consensus holds that there is no such thing as a soul.

 

I do not see what rights of noncitizens have to do with this discussion, per se.. Legally speaking, an unborn fetus is not considered a noncitizen. It is a legal nonentity void of rights before birth.

 

You're right. We make laws as a society. If this law or another works its way up to the SC and Roe winds up being overturned this will become a radically different discussion.

 

But as medical professionals, we have to advocate for our patients and their right to make their own decisions. I can't speak for medical doctors and OB GYNs and other providers who have these discussions and provide these healthcare procedures to women. But I presume they are compelled to make decisions in conjunction with the legal persons to whom they are providing care, i.e., the parents and primarily the mother. They cannot currently ignore the wishes of the legal person in favor of what they think is best for the unborn because they have no legal rights.

[TGHusker]

28 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

What about when we devalue a womens pursuit to happiness by making it practically illegal to get their tubes tied? And I know that is just a what about ism but this recent legislation has me pretty riled up. In my own life I am pro life and have made choices in my relationships based on this, but personally I also feel many of these laws attack and control women. We need to do a better job of protecting our women and children who are born before we go on a crusade to save all unborn children. Just my opinion. I know you are reasonable about this issue and I am mainly venting general frustration.

I don't disagree what you are saying.  Read my earlier post - I'm NOT making this a baby vs the women's debate.   And it shouldn't be.  I too do not like the hard rhetoric that comes from both sides.  Right now the 'prolife' side has the loud voice.  If we could get reasonable people into the mix we could settle this.  But politics doesn't produce reason, just conflict for partisan reasons.  So the debate keeps going on.  Believe me - if the SCOTUS overturns R v W, it will not be the last word.  

[Danny Bateman]

30 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

I don't think your average pro lifer wants to control women through legislation. The people writing the legislation on the other hand...

 

This is important. This discussion happens on a spectrum. A lot of what we think of as the pro-life camp does not support these extremely restrictive laws that are being passed. The problem is the ones calling the legal shots for the pro-life movement think this is the way to go.

[Guy Chamberlin]

42 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

I don't think your average pro lifer wants to control women through legislation. The people writing the legislation on the other hand...

 

Polling is problematic, but the 2018 Gallup Poll sounds believable: 

 

48% of Americans identify as Pro-Life.  48% identify as Pro-Choice.

 

But only 28% want Roe vs. Wade overturned. 

[TGHusker]

21 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

This is important. This discussion happens on a spectrum. A lot of what we think of as the pro-life camp does not support these extremely restrictive laws that are being passed. The problem is the ones calling the legal shots for the pro-life movement think this is the way to go.

To you point - The GOP is in a race against itself to the alt right position and to its destruction as a national party.  It may not happen in 2 years, 4 years or even 6 years but you can't keep taking these extreme positions and think you are going to be viable.   I blame this squarely on Trump and his brand of politics that he brings to the table - So we have

alt-righers on the immigration side, on the war front, on the environmental front, and in this case on the abortion front.  They are all making noise.  Bama wrote the current law for it to be challenged which will make it the test case to overturn R v W.  Even wt the current make up of the court, I don't think this SC will overturn R v W.  Roberts for one may very well side with the more liberal justices on the court. 

[TGHusker]

someone likes to eye roll.  I guess they could just joint the discussion if they have something to add.

[Landlord]

1 hour ago, Fru said:

Man, it'd be something if you "pro lifers" applied this mindset to school shootings, universal health care and protecting the environment. 

 

Are you speaking specifically to TGHusker like it seems you are? Because if so that's you projecting an unfair stereotype onto him. 

 

 

1 hour ago, Danny Bateman said:

The Declaration of Independence also endows us all with the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness as well. Upon which we would be infringing for women if we declare the right to life to supersede the other two.

 

The right to life does supersede those other two when it comes to people. Legally we don't currently consider unborn babies/fetuses people. If they are people, or if we decide they are people, then yeah, the right to life is the biggest trump card right that exists. Once again, it comes down to whether that's a human person. A lot of people believe it is for good reason. A lot of people believe it isn't for good reason. 99% of people want to see as few abortions as possible. Some people are ignorant about ideas on how to prevent them, but overwhelming majority want the same thing.

 

 

1 hour ago, Nebfanatic said:

I don't think your average pro lifer wants to control women through legislation. The people writing the legislation on the other hand...

 

I don't know if the average legislator wants to either. I think all they want is to get elected and be supported. They do what will get them votes and job security. I'd reckon to guess that the majority of them are relatively normal people that respect and appreciate women at a normal amount; they're just compromised to pander to the most active and gullible parts of their bases.

[Fru]

1 minute ago, Landlord said:

 

Are you speaking specifically to TGHusker like it seems you are? Because if so that's you projecting an unfair stereotype onto him. 

 

 

Pro lifers en masse. 

[Landlord]

11 minutes ago, Fru said:

 

Pro lifers en masse. 

 

 

There are lots and lots of pro lifers who do in fact apply that mindset to the other areas you mentioned.

[Fru]

8 minutes ago, Landlord said:

 

 

There are lots and lots of pro lifers who do in fact apply that mindset to the other areas you mentioned.

 

So the GOP is leading the charge on ending mass shootings, addressing climate change and providing universal health care in the same manner as ending abortion? 

[Nebfanatic]

28 minutes ago, Landlord said:

 

I don't know if the average legislator wants to either. I think all they want is to get elected and be supported. They do what will get them votes and job security. I'd reckon to guess that the majority of them are relatively normal people that respect and appreciate women at a normal amount; they're just compromised to pander to the most active and gullible parts of their bases.

Living in the south I'll tell you right now its dangerous to assume the lawmakers respect women. Pandering or not their legislative actions say quite a bit. I'm sorry but pandering for votes isn't a good excuse to say 'hey I know I voted on this legislation but I still respect women.' That is terribly disingenuous and the worst kind of phony imaginable. 

[RedDenver]

2 hours ago, TGHusker said:

I have no problem with this at all.  We should do all we can to reduce the "need" of abortions.  

 

For years prior to and after Roe v Wade,  we were told it is 'just a mass of tissue'.  Prolifers knew otherwise.  Modern science of course with its ability to peer into the womb made it clear that 'it' wasn't just a mass of tissue.  So who was scientific in this debate?   So now that we can detect the heart beat, we see that the baby has its own, unique DNA and is developing clearly as a separate individual - we have to ask the harder questions - when do we start to protect that life?  

 

1. Look no further than our own Declaration of Independence.   In fact it is to be 'self evident'.  The right to life.   The Declaration has references to the Creator but it is a political document.

2. The intrinsic value of all human life - when we devalue life in any form or time of development we devalue all life. When we devalue the weakest, we devalue all. When we devalue the immigrant, the handicapped, the aged person with memory loss,  the person of a minority race, the poor, or uneducated, we devalue all of life. 

I'm not sure what you're trying to say with the bolded. The fetus is indeed just a mass of tissue - science does not deny this but rather confirms this. But I don't think the "just a mass of tissue" argument by the pro-choice side holds much water since every single human is a mass of tissue.