Poll: Abortion legality belief spectrum

What is your belief about Abortion Law in the USA?

  • 1. Abortion should be illegal with no exceptions

    Votes: 6 8.7%

  • 2. Legal only to save the mother's LIFE

    Votes: 5 7.2%

  • 3. Legal only to save the mother's LIFE, or to preserve her HEALTH

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • 4. Legal only for mother's LIFE, HEALTH, or in cases of RAPE/INCEST

    Votes: 9 13.0%

  • 5. Legal only for mother's LIFE, HEALTH, RAPE/INCEST, or cases of FETAL IMPAIRMENT

    Votes: 11 15.9%

  • 6. Legal for LIFE, HEALTH, RAPE, FETAL IMPAIRMENT, or ECONOMIC/SOCIAL REASONS

    Votes: 6 8.7%

  • 7. Abortion should be legal upon request for any reason

    Votes: 21 30.4%

  • 8. Other

    Votes: 11 15.9%
  • Total voters
    69
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.
Click to expand...
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. 

 
There's an absurd amount of dancing around the basic desire to declare that a certain kind of autonomy must not be allowed to women when they get pregnant.

The intention is to reduce autonomy. You may argue it's just. You may argue it's necessary. You may defend your policy advocacy on these grounds. You may not argue that you're all for women's rights and freedoms and not for restricting them.

Further, it's patently ludicrous to suggest that firmly pro-choice stances are part of the reason why "nothing" gets done. This only makes sense if the requirement for something being done is movement in the restrictive direction. Additionally, all the relatively agreeable middle ground -- expanding access to healthcare, birth control, better and proper sex ed, and so on -- these things are not in the slightest being stopped or impeded by the pro-choice movement. They are in fact being fought to the fullest extent possible by the other side. The one with the supposedly so defensible motivations.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
RedDenver said:
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.
Click to expand...
The most important question in the whole debate to me . Here’s an interesting chart of laws by state . 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/06/18/us/politics/abortion-restrictions.html

my opinion is that most of those are far to long and I would favor cutting them down to 10 weeks or less,  but I think, since it is legal,  lines need to be drawn. 

I don’t like the legislating morality parts of this debate myself. To me If it’s legal , it’s legal no matter the circumstances . Trying to tell one woman she can have a legal procedure due to rape, incest, poverty or whatever,  and another woman can’t because we don’t like her reason  is wrong. 

Providing counseling, education , physical and mental support, through the entire process,  on request,  is a good idea but shouldn’t be forced either 

 
zoogs said:
There's an absurd amount of dancing around the basic desire to declare that a certain kind of autonomy must not be allowed to women when they get pregnant.

The intention is to reduce autonomy.
Click to expand...
These are hyperbolic statements meant to strawman the opposing side's argument. It's entirely possible (and logical) that people can weigh the rights in a given situation and concluded that full autonomy for one side is not always the best outcome.

 
Big Red 40 said:
The most important question in the whole debate to me . Here’s an interesting chart of laws by state . 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/06/18/us/politics/abortion-restrictions.html

my opinion is that most of those are far to long and I would favor cutting them down to 10 weeks or less,  but I think, since it is legal,  lines need to be drawn. 

I don’t like the legislating morality parts of this debate myself. To me If it’s legal , it’s legal no matter the circumstances . Trying to tell one woman she can have a legal procedure due to rape, incest, poverty or whatever,  and another woman can’t because we don’t like her reason  is wrong. 

Providing counseling, education , physical and mental support, through the entire process,  on request,  is a good idea but shouldn’t be forced either 
Click to expand...






Not sure I agree on your argument here.

To give an example, there are different consequences for the why and how you murder someone. If it was in defense there may be no jail time at all. If it wasn't pre-meditated it's not as bad. People are killed accidentally. There are different degrees.

I think any woman should be allowed to have an abortion at any time during the pregnancy if her life is in danger. I don't at all feel that way if the reason for abortion is she can't afford to raise a child.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
There is no hyperbole there. We're even saying the same thing.

One perspective is that there is only the woman's autonomy to consider and that it must be left alone. The other's is precisely that sometimes, this autonomy must be proscribed. Not rendered "partial". Removed in its entirety. It can be argued that this restriction is just, logical, or reasonable, but it is what it is.

 
zoogs said:
There's an absurd amount of dancing around the basic desire to declare that a certain kind of autonomy must not be allowed to women when they get pregnant.

The intention is to reduce autonomy. You may argue it's just. You may argue it's necessary. You may defend your policy advocacy on these grounds. You may not argue that you're all for women's rights and freedoms and not for restricting them.

Further, it's patently ludicrous to suggest that firmly pro-choice stances are part of the reason why "nothing" gets done. This only makes sense if the requirement for something being done is movement in the restrictive direction. Additionally, all the relatively agreeable middle ground -- expanding access to healthcare, birth control, better and proper sex ed, and so on -- these things are not in the slightest being stopped or impeded by the pro-choice movement. They are in fact being fought to the fullest extent possible by the other side. The one with the supposedly so defensible motivations.
Click to expand...






You're being willfully obtuse here.

To someone who thinks there's a human in the womb, abortion is murdering a defenseless person and taking away their right to live. It's not just the woman involved. She's making a decision for another person.

Both sides have incredibly stupid arguments, that the other side is being a bunch of monsters, that they go around in circles with. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top