The Majority of Americans Have Very Reasonable Abortion Views

"That 13% is gigantic. Enormous. Black people."



"That 17% probably isn't even 17%. It's probably more like, 13% against. And that's like nothing."

Your words betray you, very often.

I've killed many billions of lives in my life just because my pants got tighter. Can't blame a woman for killing 1 if it's gonna ruin her life or lead to the kid having a miserable one.
What are you on about? Again with fake quotes that nobody said. You seem to have a hard time with actual arguments and just insert fake quotes with which you can take issue. My words don't betray me, yours do when you fabricate what you think I must really mean and then put it in quotes as if anybody said that. You seem to seriously have schizophrenia.

I guess I have to educate you on how people are made. When a biological man has sexual intercourse with a biological woman, the woman has eggs that are fertilized by the man's sperm and a person is formed. Your chronic masturbation isn't a baby.
 
What are you on about? Again with fake quotes that nobody said. You seem to have a hard time with actual arguments and just insert fake quotes with which you can take issue. My words don't betray me, yours do when you fabricate what you think I must really mean and then put it in quotes as if anybody said that. You seem to seriously have schizophrenia.

You immediately made sure to point out that 13% was a very large number. That 13% being people you disagree with on abortion, correct?

You then directly followed that by MINIMIZING the 17%, by suggesting that wasn't even the real number. And those 17% are people who hold what position again? And how do you feel about that position?

So tell me, what did I misinterpret? Why did you take the time to point out why that 13% was an enormous part of the population, only to turn around and try to suggest the 17% wasn't a big deal?

Seems like an agenda has a hand on the wheel to me.

Thanks for telling me how babies are made by the way. This whole time people like you had me think pushing the women down a flight of stairs was part of it.
 
You immediately made sure to point out that 13% was a very large number. That 13% being people you disagree with on abortion, correct?

You then directly followed that by MINIMIZING the 17%, by suggesting that wasn't even the real number. And those 17% are people who hold what position again? And how do you feel about that position?

So tell me, what did I misinterpret? Why did you take the time to point out why that 13% was an enormous part of the population, only to turn around and try to suggest the 17% wasn't a big deal?

Seems like an agenda has a hand on the wheel to me.

Thanks for telling me how babies are made by the way. This whole time people like you had me think pushing the women down a flight of stairs was part of it.
13% of 350 million is a large number. That's 45.5 million who answered affirmatively.

I said 17% wasn't necessarily the case, not that 17% was small and you now that, and even said they are wrong whoever they are. You think you're smart for some reason, but only seem to argue with fake quotes.

Out of interest, do you think 13% of the population wanting to legalize murder is the same as 13% who don't want it? One is active, the other is passive and this isn't my thread, and I'm not the one who said 13% is a tiny tiny minority.
 
Men should be able to abort as well......It's our DNA...If a women doesn't want to abort a baby....that's fine, it's in her body...However a man should have the chance to OPT-out of raising the baby...That way, the women will know if she will have proper support or not....A Man deserves the same fucking right to abort or not....True Equality!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
13% of 350 million is a large number. That's 45.5 million who answered affirmatively.

Correct, now do the math on that 17% being off by 4% and tell me about how many people it is. Then tell me why you didn't feel a need to highlight how many that was.

I said 17% wasn't necessarily the case, not that 17% was small and you now that, and even said they are wrong whoever they are.

But why would you need to immediately say "it's probably not 17%"? Even if it's not, it's still a very large number. Why didn't you choose to highlight that?

You think you're smart for some reason, but only seem to argue with fake quotes.

When I'm quoting you, your words will be in a quote box. When I'm comedically interpreting your words to reflect how I view them, you'll see them in " "s. See how that works?

Out of interest, do you think 13% of the population wanting to legalize murder is the same as 13% who don't want it?

And there it is.

How did I know you'd eventually say exactly what I wanted you to? No, I don't think it's different. But you very clearly do, and it's the reason you decided to react to those numbers the way you did.

Highlight how there's so many "murderers", but remind us those against "murder" aren't that much. Probably not even the number shown.

Like I said, your words betray you.

One is active, the other is passive and this isn't my thread, and I'm not the one who said 13% is a tiny tiny minority.

No, you're the one who made sure to call them "murderers" while making sure to point out that the 17% "against murder", probably aren't as much as it seems.

The reason why is clear as day.
 
Correct, now do the math on that 17% being off by 4% and tell me about how many people it is. Then tell me why you didn't feel a need to highlight how many that was.



But why would you need to immediately say "it's probably not 17%"? Even if it's not, it's still a very large number. Why didn't you choose to highlight that?



When I'm quoting you, your words will be in a quote box. When I'm comedically interpreting your words to reflect how I view them, you'll see them in " "s. See how that works?



And there it is.

How did I know you'd eventually say exactly what I wanted you to? No, I don't think it's different. But you very clearly do, and it's the reason you decided to react to those numbers the way you did.

Highlight how there's so many "murderers", but remind us those against "murder" aren't that much. Probably not even the number shown.

Like I said, your words betray you.



No, you're the one who made sure to call them "murderers" while making sure to point out that the 17% "against murder", probably aren't as much as it seems.

The reason why is clear as day.
I SAID IT'S NOT 17%, STUPID!! How are you not getting that? I don't know what the actual number is. You again inserted the 4% margin because you have no real argument and need to make one up.

While i appreciate your amateur comedy, I think you'd be wise to make actual arguments.
 
I SAID IT'S NOT 17%, STUPID!! How are you not getting that? I don't know what the actual number is. You again inserted the 4% margin because you have no real argument and need to make one up.

No I inserted the 4% margin because I wanted to give you an out. I figured, "why point out he's willing to illustrate the vast reality of one number and not even recognize the validity of the other, let's give him invalidity." So even with the out I gave you, of agreeing that the number was incorrect, I still wondered why you wouldn't still point out how that's so many people?

The funny part was, I was never really wondering, I just wanted to get you to say it.

While i appreciate your amateur comedy, I think you'd be wise to make actual arguments.

Done and done.
 
No I inserted the 4% margin because I wanted to give you an out. I figured, "why point out he's willing to illustrate the vast reality of one number and not even recognize the validity of the other, let's give him invalidity." So even with the out I gave you, of agreeing that the number was incorrect, I still wondered why you wouldn't still point out how that's so many people?

The funny part was, I was never really wondering, I just wanted to get you to say it.



Done and done.
Well I did specifically point out that I disagree with whatever the number is, but your schizophrenia somehow pointed you to making fake arguments. What is your argument?
 
Well I did specifically point out that I disagree with whatever the number is, but your schizophrenia somehow pointed you to making fake arguments. What is your argument?

No argument, just pointing out you'd fit right in at FoxNews. "Don't let what you see shape your opinions, let our opinions shape what you see."

Mission accomplished Rupert, I'd love to piss on your grave one day...
 
If men could get prego, abortions would be available at 7-11.

Don't you want to consult with a doctor to see if some of the medications you are on might affect what is the best method for the surgery.

Wouldn't you want a surgeon to see if a modification to a procedure is required if there is also an injury or other thing going on.

Wouldn't you want to be at a facility that is prepared for a light threatening situation during surgery.

No 7-11 for me.
 
Don't you want to consult with a doctor to see if some of the medications you are on might affect what is the best method for the surgery.

Wouldn't you want a surgeon to see if a modification to a procedure is required if there is also an injury or other thing going on.

Wouldn't you want to be at a facility that is prepared for a light threatening situation during surgery.

No 7-11 for me.

Not counting day-after pills, about 25% of abortions use pills and are non-surgical. That percentage is increasing rapidly.
 
Glad we ended this debate in the 70s here.

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.

Well it goes both ways. The narrative of the right is usually sluts using abortions for birth control..
 
I didint use petection, now I have to kill this thing before it grows into a human.

Not a good look

It's hard to justify the killing of anything that has the potential to be a human, because one does not want to parent.

But then again there are too many losers out there

Should be called avoiding parenthood, not planned.
 
Not counting day-after pills, about 25% of abortions use pills and are non-surgical. That percentage is increasing rapidly.

Do you still want to get them at 7-11, how about drug interactions or other possible medical problems due to other factors.

I also don't want 7-11 to become a pharmacy unless they are going to have a pharmacist on staff.
 
Do you still want to get them at 7-11, how about drug interactions or other possible medical problems due to other factors.

I also don't want 7-11 to become a pharmacy unless they are going to have a pharmacist on staff.

Pharmacies aren't pharmacies without a pharmacist.

Your point was about surgeries. Mine was that not all abortions are surgery and the percentage of those that are surgeries is decreasing.
 
A recent Gallup poll confirms:

60% of Americans feel abortion should be legal during the first trimester.

This number plummets to only 28% who feel abortion should be legal during the second trimester.

Just 13% of Americans-- a tiny minority-- feel that abortion should continue to be legal in the third trimester.

83% of Americans support abortion in the first trimester if the mother's life is in danger. 77% support abortion in the first trimester for cases of rape.

Interestingly, there was no statistical difference between men and women in overall support of abortions-- except that men were about 5% more likely to support late stage abortions.

This poll shows that public opinion on abortion has remained stable over time. It has a 4 pt margin of error.

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/13/6192...abortion-rights-wanes-as-pregnancy-progresses

My takeaways:
  • The "pro life" vs. "pro choice" terms that this debate usually gets framed under do not adequately reflect the feelings of 60%+ Americans.
  • I'm comforted in the fact that most Americans are not hardliners on this issue.
  • The 13% who support third trimester abortion for any reason should get together with the 17% who don't support first trimester abortion even when the mother's life is in danger. These two groups should move to an island somewhere and leave the rest of us alone.
That is the most significant thing because I've always seen a +5pt skew for women or better. Here's the Pew results they mentioned:
FT_17.01.03_RoeWadeWidedifferences1.png


There's not a majority down the line except with those who describe themselves as "conservatives". Not with men, the religious, the uneducated, Republicans, or any age group.

Roe v. Wade ain't ever getting overturned. Not a goddamn chance in hell.

So at this point it's how we manage it.
 
A recent Gallup poll confirms:

60% of Americans feel abortion should be legal during the first trimester.

This number plummets to only 28% who feel abortion should be legal during the second trimester.

Just 13% of Americans-- a tiny minority-- feel that abortion should continue to be legal in the third trimester.

83% of Americans support abortion in the first trimester if the mother's life is in danger. 77% support abortion in the first trimester for cases of rape.

Interestingly, there was no statistical difference between men and women in overall support of abortions-- except that men were about 5% more likely to support late stage abortions.

This poll shows that public opinion on abortion has remained stable over time. It has a 4 pt margin of error.

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/13/6192...abortion-rights-wanes-as-pregnancy-progresses

My takeaways:
  • The "pro life" vs. "pro choice" terms that this debate usually gets framed under do not adequately reflect the feelings of 60%+ Americans.
  • I'm comforted in the fact that most Americans are not hardliners on this issue.
  • The 13% who support third trimester abortion for any reason should get together with the 17% who don't support first trimester abortion even when the mother's life is in danger. These two groups should move to an island somewhere and leave the rest of us alone.

This reflects the legal situation in many countries including Germany. First trimester should be enough, cases of disability are a grey area, danger for the mother should never be a question.

The legal situation in the US unnecessarily makes this issue more polarizing than it would need to be.
 
This reflects the legal situation in many countries including Germany. First trimester should be enough, cases of disability are a grey area, danger for the mother should never be a question.

The legal situation in the US unnecessarily makes this issue more polarizing than it would need to be.
It's funny really... if Americans were just allowed to make laws and programs based on public sentiment, we would basically be Germany.

The majority of people have common sense views on abortion, healthcare (want universal), education (want affordable college), labor unions (pro), and even guns.

FT_17.06.23_healthcare_640px.png


kbmwvyksteemwmza6vup1q.png


1-14-13-12.png


If the American voting public actually got to decide on issues we'd be German with slightly more guns.

But somehow our politicians always seem to get in between us and the goals we actually have for society.

Luckily we have them to protect our rights.
 
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.


There's that word again - "reasonable" in "reasonable limit." I don't want to put words in your mouth, but when the OP opens up talking about "reasonable" views on this which just happen to fit within his (correct me if I am misgendering Lucky) views, there is a pretty strong implication that opposing views aren't reasonable. I don't know if you're playing into this rhetorical strategy or not, but I'll say where I stand here. First, I see your view as reasonable. Second, I see it as morally abhorrent. Third, I see it was wrong in virtue of the second. These things are not mutually exclusive, but I will not undermine the reason of your decision because your scales of value are different - that's the tool of the lazy rhetorician more interested in being told they're right than determining the truth of the matter.

To elaborate though, which I think you deserve, a personal value of mine which I think our culture reflects is that slavery is wrong in virtually every form. Stripping an individual of their free choice to deny risk or labour is a central tenet of the cultures of the West. You will rightly point out that there are exceptions - things like prisons, or the draft, and you might wrongly point out things like being searched at airport security. Each one of these things has a particular footnote attached to it. The draft is in the case of necessity, presumably for the preservation of the culture - so the culture's core values are undermined to preserve the culture. A troublesome paradox but, again, one of necessity. The airport security thing - and all similar cases - is falsely posed, since one has the choice to not subject oneself to that search. It may be a costly choice, but it still is a choice, so it does not undermine one's right to choose - it just adds a cost to it. And prison? The value of the culture is assumed to be attached to a series of duties in the form of a social contact. When one violates that contract one declares one’s opposition to the system that supports the culture, and by extension the culture itself. Thus when one is deprived of their bodily autonomy through violation of the social contract, it is a direct response to one’s displayed hostility towards the social contract. These are all debatable points, but one can see the reason behind them – reason which I believe is sound when exhaustively explored, given our current cultural climate. The end result? Bodily autonomy is only stripped away in a few very specific circumstances in our current cultural climate.

What you’re presenting is essentially the stance of “Yeah, the state violating bodily autonomy is wrong, but it’s OK because it avoids the greater evil of murder.” Feel free to correct me if I’m not presenting you fairly there. The problem with this arises in that our culture finds murder quite acceptable both on the personal level and a state sanctioned level, whether it’s justice (“the nasty criminal got shot – good!”) or necessity (“that drone strike killed some innocents, but it was to get the bad guy”) or… Well, think about it – our culture has proven to normalize murder for a wide variety of reasons. Our takeway from this? Our culture at large is OK with murder both at a personal and systemic level for a variety of justifications.

Returning to the notion of “We can’t do a late term abortion because murder is wrong” – well, the ship of supporting murder has already sailed. That includes the murder of innocents, if we actually scrutinize the workings of our culture and the state supporting it. We all do it either tacitly and overtly. So, murder is something our culture justifies in pursuit of cultural values, even when it is not necessary (see: any number of military conflicts). That being the case, our culture is more permissible of murder than it is of bodily slavery.

Unless we want to take the stance that a pregnant woman is in violation of the social contract and as such is an enemy of the state, or it is necessary for the state that she give birth to the baby, we are making her a bodily slave to our values through the mechanism of the state. I believe that the right to bodily autonomy is more important than murder is wrong, in the eyes of our culture, since our culture already normalizes murder in many, many ways. As such, I reject – and let’s not mince words – slavery of non-criminal persons to the state even at the cost of murder. This is all beside the point that I disagree that a fetus is a person, but that’s another debate.

Call the people who support late term abortion what you will, but don’t dub them unreasonable. This is more directed at the OP with his shameless, self-serving, and empty rhetorical tactic.
 
Back
Top