The Majority of Americans Have Very Reasonable Abortion Views

So do the words, "I'm vegan." Or, "I'm socialist." Truth is, pretty much every stripe of American loves moral judgments and telling others how to live. I'm not excusing Christians, but it is funny how they get singled out so often when others are as bad or worse.

I call it like i see it and they were relevant to the topic at hand and who thinks what in our country usually

If we were talking terror or sjws i would also be fair

Theres no need to what aboot at me
 
This is my problem with the extreme pro-life position.

Say an 11 year old girl gets raped and the resultant pregnancy not only has severe defects but it is a danger to her life.

You are really going to force this child to carry a baby through a terribly difficult pregnancy to a delivery in which she will likely die?

Then what happens? You shrug your shoulders and say, "Eh, God's will"?

On the other hand, I find it repugnant to think that a healthy woman could carry a baby for seven months, then just have second thoughts and blender it up.

But I don't find the two above scenarios equally repugnant. I find the first more repugnant than the second.

Literally nobody has ever defended that in my entire life when discussing this topic.
 
That I agree with. I think most people are fine with the more extreme cases.

We aren't arguing on behalf of extreme cases though. The thing is they use the least applicable situations to justify the average abortion. That's why the discussion is always dishonest.
 
I think when you ignore the agendas of the news media and extremists on both sides, you'll find most people are reasonable.
 
Male privilege is when a woman is raped and men tell her she has to keep the baby.

I don’t think a better example exists.
 
Let the sluts decide what they want to do it is their whore bodies and souls that will wind up in hell either way.
 
@luckyshot - how are you defining reasonable here? Based on your final comment, I can't help but think "reasonable" is being defined by a stance's proximity to your own...
 
Which group is worse though?

I mean, what kind of abortion thread is this when everyone agrees?

Who says everyone agrees? I see a group of (mostly) men patting each other on the back for saying it's OK legislate what a woman can and can't do with her body, apparently thinking they're all quite "reasonable"...
 
Who says everyone agrees? I see a group of (mostly) men patting each other on the back for saying it's OK legislate what a woman can and can't do with her body, apparently thinking they're all quite "reasonable"...

I mean that the majority of people agree with first term abortions.

As for which group is worse, my opinion is that those who insist that a fetus remains a fetus until birth is far worse than any other group, including those who insist women must carry their baby to term. I don't think this is right, but it's not as bad as ripping the limbs off a fully developed person.
 
I mean that the majority of people agree with first term abortions.

As for which group is worse, my opinion is that those who insist that a fetus remains a fetus until birth is far worse than any other group, including those who insist women must carry their baby to term. I don't think this is right, but it's not as bad as ripping the limbs off a fully developed person.

I can appreciate the reasoning, but in my eyes it is pitting one moral imperative ("Just think of the children!") against another in the form of a person's bodily autonomy being limited by the state. If you deny, through legislative means, a woman the right to an abortion that she wants, you have made it illegal for her to exercise fundamental bodily autonomy without the state's consent. It's sneakily framed as a "Just think of the children!" issue when, in reality, it's a "Can your body be made a slave to the state's dictates" issue.

At the point where, under threat of force from the state, a human being is either forced to undergo surgery or continue to maintain an unwanted pregnancy (see: risk to personal health), the state is all but declaring ownership of that body. Where a bunch of biological men talking about it becomes sketchy is that they know they will never have to be subjected to this - and let's not mince words - legislative slavery, so the stakes for them declaring their righteous position are personally low. While I put some effort into respecting others' faith based positions, when that faith based position dictates that a human being be forced, by the state, to engage in types of labour they don't consent to at notable personal risk, that's something I can't get behind.

That's why the OP's assertion of what's "reasonable" is sketchy. When all you're expecting is a pat on the ass from everyone around when you state what's "reasonable," it's easy to paint reasoned dissent as somehow unreasonable - even when the reason is "Yeah, I kind of don't like people being legislatively forced to give up their bodily autonomy, even if there is a steep price to pay for maintaining that autonomy..." Unless you're willing to say a pregnant woman is on par with a criminal who has wiped their arse with the social contract, that's precisely what legislating abortions to be illegal does.
 
I can appreciate the reasoning, but in my eyes it is pitting one moral imperative ("Just think of the children!") against another in the form of a person's bodily autonomy being limited by the state. If you deny, through legislative means, a woman the right to an abortion that she wants, you have made it illegal for her to exercise fundamental bodily autonomy without the state's consent. It's sneakily framed as a "Just think of the children!" issue when, in reality, it's a "Can your body be made a slave to the state's dictates" issue.

At the point where, under threat of force from the state, a human being is either forced to undergo surgery or continue to maintain an unwanted pregnancy (see: risk to personal health), the state is all but declaring ownership of that body. Where a bunch of biological men talking about it becomes sketchy is that they know they will never have to be subjected to this - and let's not mince words - legislative slavery, so the stakes for them declaring their righteous position are personally low. While I put some effort into respecting others' faith based positions, when that faith based position dictates that a human being be forced, by the state, to engage in types of labour they don't consent to at notable personal risk, that's something I can't get behind.

To be clear, when arguing which is worse, one does not need to take a position that either is acceptable.

Though to be fair, if we want to compare apples to apples we need to take both extremes, not frame one as "thinking of the children" and the other as denying autonomy. To me, one extreme is not allowing abortions, that is, once you are pregnant you have the responsibility to allow nature to take it's course. The other extreme is allowing abortions as long as the pregnancy continues up until birth. I don't think there is anything you could say to convince me that murdering a child, which is what is happening when you perform an abortion at 9 months, is worse than denying someone the ability be autonomous.

My personal view is that abortion is immoral, though I don't think this view should be legislated. I would prefer a reasonable limit, I think the presence of a heart beat is a good cut-off.
 
Which group is worse though?

I mean, what kind of abortion thread is this when everyone agrees?
If you look at post 7 in this thread, I think it is easier to construct an “argument from extremes” to suggest the first group (must carry to term even in cases of rape or incest) is worse.

I mean, it’s some real Sophie’s Choice kind of shit, but...

Literally nobody has ever defended that in my entire life when discussing this topic.
I think people don’t usually express opinions in these terms because they are massively unpopular, but according to the Gallup poll, that is the position of about 17% of the population.
 
The huge drop for second trimester makes a lot less sense to me than the huge drop for the third trimester.
 
If you look at post 7 in this thread, I think it is easier to construct an “argument from extremes” to suggest the first group (must carry to term even in cases of rape or incest) is worse.

I mean, it’s some real Sophie’s Choice kind of shit, but...

Agree to disagree on that point, I fail to see how violating someone's rights, albeit grossly, is worse than ending someone's life.
 
How can any ´´moral´´´person OPPOSE abortion in case of medical reasons, save life? Rape should also is moral issue. I cannot imagine forcing someone to go through 9 months body change and effect their health because of rapist. The option should be on table i not evne sure most rape victims go ahead abort sure some do not but still.

WTF? are people crazy Only 83% to save life?
That number should be 100%

it should be 100% all around the world. It is supported in Iran of all places!!! iran allows for medical, downsyndrome, save life etc.

It almost is

only nicaragua, el salvador, dominican republic, malta, and the vatican dont allow it. Such scum rules.

Chile just last year legalized it for rape in first 12 weeks, medical, health defects, save life.

Lol @ 23% of people who want to force women to carry rape babies. Way too many nutjobs for my liking.

werid country.
 
There is a very strong mathematical argument-- summarized and popularized in the book Freakanomics-- that the falling violent crime trend in the US from the late 1990's onward correlates more strongly to the legalization of abortion a generation earlier than it does to any other single factor.

Can you give me a run down of how that works? That is the first time I have ever seen that point made anywhere, that legal abortion had a large hand in lowering crime rates. Interesting if true.
 
Can you give me a run down of how that works? That is the first time I have ever seen that point made anywhere, that legal abortion had a large hand in lowering crime rates. Interesting if true.

This is the wiki page of the study. Note that there are significant criticisms.

I truly don't have a dog in this fight, I used to cite the study religiously, but the criticisms shouldn't be overlooked.
 
Back
Top