Poll: Abortion legality belief spectrum

[knapplc]

The sticking point with many Christians is the whole idea that life begins at conception,  and eliminating it, from that point on is murder . Thus the government intervention . 

I don’t believe that though I think prevention /education etc needs more attention so less bad situations arise . A set point also needs to be established (there already is?) where the fetus could be removed , and live unassisted . Anything after that is illegal, and anything before is between the woman , the doctor , and God .

Yep. People arguing with Christians need to realize they think it's murder - so saying things like "it's a woman's body" just rolls off them. To them the woman is deciding for 2 people.

Anyhow, the thing that will never make any sense to me is Christians who are vehemently anti-abortion but are also anti sex education/condoms, and are okay with lowering/eliminating funding to things like CHIP

This is why I can't really vote. I used to be staunchly against abortion.  But then I realized I don't know when life begins, I will never have a baby growing inside me, I will never really have any input in this discussion. There are a million million guys like me who married their beloved early, stayed married, never had this question come up seriously in their world, and still have a voting opinion.  I realized none of this applies to me, I don't know the answer, and I'm shutting up about it.

Some women are wholly creeped out by this situation, whether that's because of who they are or how the baby/fetus/zygote/blah came to be or whatever.

Some people think it's murder from the moment the sperm penetrates the egg, period.

I have no idea what's right, who's in the right, what to think about any of this.   So I mostly shut up about it. 

It's OK to acknowledge that you don't have an answer to this question. Life is complicated and you won't have all the answers. Accepting that is tough, but sometimes necessary.

 

[Mierin]

One other thing to add.

Again, for the Republicans who are Republican because they're pro-life (the Christians, mostly), they should be 100% for free healthcare for pregnant women.

 

[Big Red 40]

I agree 100% with Nebfanatic but I can't stand the "my body my choice" argument or approach. Your body had the choice to prevent that pregnancy so substituting murder for responsible behavior is not a good argument IMO.

Morally I am opposed to abortion but I just can't see where it does any good to make it illegal. If a person wants to terminate their pregnancy they will find a way to do it. It might as well be done in a clean and safe medical environment. My preference would be to take all of this outlawing abortion effort and put it into education, contraceptives, help for unwed mother's etc. But I will always feel that abortion is murder because it is killing a life. I see no clarifying difference between that life being in the womb or not. However, I do feel there should be some point in the development of the embryo that it does become illegal. I just don't have a good argument to make as to when that is because I do believe life starts at contraception but there should be some cutoff point. And then of course I would always allow it in cases of rape, incest, mother's health in danger. I don't believe we can legislate morality but we certainly can and should set a time development limit.

The bold is the crux of the whole thing for me, What is considered life? and What value do we as a society place on that life? Ants, Mosquitoes, bacteria, viruses, pigs, human sperm, and even the chicken egg we had for breakfast, are all  living entities we routinely kill because they annoy us, threaten us, or taste really good. Most people think its ok to put a pet down if its suffering, but think its never ok for a human in the same scenario.

Is a blob of sperm and eggs a "life" that we value, or not ? Are we comitting murder on sperm if we use a condom? My brother in law was born premature at 2 lbs, and though he had medical assistance, he survived and had a good life . Technically, legally,  he could have been aborted (some say we should have lol ) at that point though, not considered "life".  The scenarios are mind boggling to me .

Current abortion laws are about right in my mind i guess. Though laws very by state, the majority put the age of fetus viability at 20 to 28 weeks. Originally i read in 1974 they put the age at 7 moths which is much too far in my mind. id shoot more for 20 weeks range.  That gives rape/incest victims etc  time to make their choice without taking it into a time where it really is too late , and shouldn't be allowed.      

 

[JJ Husker]

Easy for you, as a man to say.  You will never become pregnant due to rape or incest.  You will never know what it's like to have your life at risk if you birth a child. You will never know what its like to be alone, and responsible for raising a child.  You will never be in a situation where you have to think through the risk of

bringing a genetically unhealthy child to term. 

I appreciate that you dont agree with my thoughts on terminating a pregnacy -  but your attempt at saying that all situations where an abortion is considered are methods of birth control or are a fix for “irresponsible behavior” is just ignorant.  

If you would have digested my whole post you would realize that I make allowances for rape, incest, and the health of the mother. And even though I didn't include it prior, yes I would also allow for health or genetic concerns of the fetus. I also stated that I am against making abortion illegal. Nowhere did I say or mean to imply all situations are birth control for irresponsible behavior. But yes I do believe that many are and that is why the "my body my choice" argument rings hollow for me. About the only thing you got right is that I will never have to be alone and worry about having to raise that child alone. That is why, as stated before but apparently ignored, I am for education, contraceptives and support for unwed mother's. I'm sorry but your ignorant comment was way out of line. Try reading the whole response next time and avoid jumping to conclusions.

 

[JJ Husker]

The response to that is, "But it's MURDER! Shouldn't murder be illegal?"

The thing is, though, that nobody really actually believes this deep down. You take the most conservative fundie right-wing pro-rights person you can find and sit them down across from a woman who has had several abortions and they won't gag or scream or convulse or whatever they would do if they were actually sitting across from a serial killer.

Well, you’re wrong and that is a poor example to support what you said. I do believe it’s murder and you’re right I do not view it the same as some serial killer in most cases. I hope no one does. But it is still taking the life of another. Isn’t that murder?  Now if I knew this woman had multiple abortions, all for none of the good reasons I’ve outlined prior and these many abortions were simply because she was lazy and irresponsible and wasn’t even trying to prevent pregnancy, then yes I would view her the same as a serial killer. But if it was one or two that she felt forced into by whatever circumstances then I would have empathy for her. You kind of constructed a straw man there to support your claims. It’s a long way to stretch to try to convince yourself that nobody “really actually” believes it’s murder. I can’t imagine not viewing it as murder. Where is the cutoff then? Third trimester.....moments before exiting the birth canal......the moment they draw their first breath.....any time in the first year because, you know, babies aren’t really very coherent until what about 1 year old...2 years old? Where’s your line for determining murder?

 

[JJ Husker]

The main problem with this whole issue is that we really can’t ascertain the real reason for allowing or disallowing an abortion. I don’t think anybody wants to live in a world where others get to delve into our personal business to determine if it actually is for rape, incest, a health issue of the mother, or momentary lapse of responsible behavior or wanton debauchery. We can have all the polls in the world but nobody is going to be for allowing people that much access into their lives. This maybe is the biggest reason I am against making abortion illegal. Even though I am personally, morally opposed to it except for the exceptions I’ve outlined, I also realize the real reason will never be any of my business. People joke about Hippa and patient privacy but that is really what it comes down to. If I could make abortion illegal as a form of reversing willful irresponsible behavior I would but I don’t want to live in the world where that determination is possible. We can all discuss the nuances of our moral objections but I don’t see how anyone could ever consider actually making it illegal. And of course I’m not talking about late term abortions...

 

[Landlord]

You would not view or treat a woman who had three health or poverty related abortions the same way that you would treat a person who had killed people on three separate occasions due to self defense, protecting their home, and accidentally overdosing their child with medicine.

 

[JJ Husker]

You would not view or treat a woman who had three health or poverty related abortions the same way that you would treat a person who had killed people on three separate occasions due to self defense, protecting their home, and accidentally overdosing their child with medicine.

Uh I'm not so sure of that.  I would be completely understanding of all those situations. And let's be clear, it is not my business to "treat" anyone that has had an abortion  in any manner. I realize in the vast majority of abortion cases people feel forced into making that decision. It's not up to me to judge them for that or to feel anything less than sympathy for them. But that doesn't have anything to do with not really actually viewing abortion as murder or not. But I am understanding your point a little better. I would not view an abortion due to rape as murder, just as I would not view a self defense or accidental killing as murder. I guess the murder view is dependent on the circumstances and I do believe a very large percentage of abortions are done to correct irresponsible behavior. I can't believe many are due solely to rape, incest or the mother's health being in danger. I think most people agree those are understandable but I'm guessing those constitute a rather insignificant number.

 

[BigRedBuster]

You will never know what its like to be alone, and responsible for raising a child.

I'm not arguing your main point of your post.  But, I do know men who are in this situation.

 

[TGHusker]

I voted other. I believe that both beginning of life and end of life can be decided based on brain activity. Before the fetus develops brain activity, it's just a bunch of cells like any other cells in the human body, and I have just as much concern of removing it as I do an appendix. The "life" argument holds no weight with me because we can't exist without killing something (plant or animal), so we're really talking about "human life"; that's how I get to brain activity - minimum requirement to be human. The "choice" argument holds very little weight with me. You aren't legally allowed to choice to not care for for kids, so I don't see how that changes anything about being born or not.

However, I'd be more open to anti-abortion arguments and compromise if they also came with the same degree of concern for the already born people in society, especially children. Until all the kids in America are fed, clothed, sheltered, and educated, I really don't care at all about trying to "save" them before their even born since we can't "save" the ones already here.

The bold is kind of a straw man argument  to me and Fru referenced it above as well - to which I answered.  This false narrative / argument assumes that a person who is pro-life cannot also be passionate about all of the issues you bring up and that cannot be involved in both.  Many are.  If we nurtured a culture of life in this country we'd be concerned wt life issues from the womb to the grave.  Let me ask, how many Planned Parenthood agencies promote adoption as their primary goal or are they creating soup kitchens, food and clothing pantries, homeless shelters, etc?  How involved are they in clothing, sheltering, education(outside of birth control and abortion education)?     You may argue - that isn't their calling.  Well to many pro-lifers their primary calling is the life issue.  For others it is those other issues and they remain prolife as a secondary issue.  As I noted in my earlier post, most pro-life individuals are already involved in those other areas.  Most churches that are active in pro-life issues are involved in other life issue. Don't confuse organizations that have a primary focused to address the pro-life issue with the vast # of common individuals who are active across the spectrum. 

 

[NM11046]

I'm not arguing your main point of your post.  But, I do know men who are in this situation.

Excellent point BRB.

 

[knapplc]

The bold is kind of a straw man argument  to me and Fru referenced it above as well - to which I answered.  This false narrative / argument assumes that a person who is pro-life cannot also be passionate about all of the issues you bring up and that cannot be involved in both.  Many are.  If we nurtured a culture of life in this country we'd be concerned wt life issues from the womb to the grave.  Let me ask, how many Planned Parenthood agencies promote adoption as their primary goal or are they creating soup kitchens, food and clothing pantries, homeless shelters, etc?  How involved are they in clothing, sheltering, education(outside of birth control and abortion education)?     You may argue - that isn't their calling.  Well to many pro-lifers their primary calling is the life issue.  For others it is those other issues and they remain prolife as a secondary issue.  As I noted in my earlier post, most pro-life individuals are already involved in those other areas.  Most churches that are active in pro-life issues are involved in other life issue. Don't confuse organizations that have a primary focused to address the pro-life issue with the vast # of common individuals who are active across the spectrum. 

You're missing their point.  They're not talking about the "many" that are pro-life who also support children as they grow.  They're talking about the vast number of people who, demonstrably by their vote, are NOT supportive of children.  These are, most visibly, Republican voters who allow themselves to vote for candidates based almost solely on the one wedge issue of abortion, then blithely ignore the damage those elected officials do to already-born children. The CHIP/DACA fiasco is a prime example of this.

You can't say they're wrong (or creating a straw man) by claiming there are people who support abortion and support already-born children.  Nobody is claiming those people don't exist. 

 

[TGHusker]

You're missing their point.  They're not talking about the "many" that are pro-life who also support children as they grow.  They're talking about the vast number of people who, demonstrably by their vote, are NOT supportive of children.  These are, most visibly, Republican voters who allow themselves to vote for candidates based almost solely on the one wedge issue of abortion, then blithely ignore the damage those elected officials do to already-born children. The CHIP/DACA fiasco is a prime example of this.

You can't say they're wrong (or creating a straw man) by claiming there are people who support abortion and support already-born children.  Nobody is claiming those people don't exist. 

Hey Knapp - thanks for the clarification.  Appreciated :thumbs .  That changes the perspective.  And I agree.  As you know, I've had a big change of heart about being everything Republican.  I am very frustrated by the continued Republican plantation holding prolife voters hostage - I blame a big portion of this on one organization starting back in the 1970s - The Moral Majority.  They created the narrative that tied prolife voters to one party. That one party has gladly given lip service to the prolife movement which has secured their votes for far too long. But the back lash is that it entrenched the opposite side into the Dem party in my opinion. It lead to polarization.  The Dem party was full of prolife leaders at one time.  I would bet that this would be a non-issue by now if that polarization had not started in the 70s.  Yes, prolife people at a right to responded to Roe v Wade - but the extremes led the way and polarization was the result.

I agree the CHIP/DACA is just another slap in the face on 'life issues'.  Again a culture of life involves all of these issues.    As a conservative, I would like to see the government being more efficient and make budget decisions  that would address all of those life issues including CHIP/DACA.  It is a matter of making proper choices.  So If I want to be pro-choice it would be to cut the budget on waste, kickbacks to contributors in the form of unrealistic tax cuts, cut programs that reward foreign govts, keep the military right sized, etc - with the primary focus being the welfare of the citizens - those other life issues that the republicans have a poor track record on.  So I can see how a person can be conservative economically and very liberal on social issues if the right decisions were made.  Hard choices on the budget in order to fund the life needs of the citizens.

If we don't care for our own, those under our 'national roof', we should be ashamed.

I think this verse applies  1Timothy 5:8

Now if anyone does not provide for the own, and especially his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
 

 

[RedDenver]

Hey Knapp - thanks for the clarification.  Appreciated :thumbs .  That changes the perspective.  And I agree.  As you know, I've had a big change of heart about being everything Republican.  I am very frustrated by the continued Republican plantation holding prolife voters hostage - I blame a big portion of this on one organization starting back in the 1970s - The Moral Majority.  They created the narrative that tied prolife voters to one party. That one party has gladly given lip service to the prolife movement which has secured their votes for far too long. But the back lash is that it entrenched the opposite side into the Dem party in my opinion. It lead to polarization.  The Dem party was full of prolife leaders at one time.  I would bet that this would be a non-issue by now if that polarization had not started in the 70s.  Yes, prolife people at a right to responded to Roe v Wade - but the extremes led the way and polarization was the result.

I agree the CHIP/DACA is just another slap in the face on 'life issues'.  Again a culture of life involves all of these issues.    As a conservative, I would like to see the government being more efficient and make budget decisions  that would address all of those life issues including CHIP/DACA.  It is a matter of making proper choices.  So If I want to be pro-choice it would be to cut the budget on waste, kickbacks to contributors in the form of unrealistic tax cuts, cut programs that reward foreign govts, keep the military right sized, etc - with the primary focus being the welfare of the citizens - those other life issues that the republicans have a poor track record on.  So I can see how a person can be conservative economically and very liberal on social issues if the right decisions were made.  Hard choices on the budget in order to fund the life needs of the citizens.

If we don't care for our own, those under our 'national roof', we should be ashamed.

I think this verse applies  1Timothy 5:8

Now if anyone does not provide for the own, and especially his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
 

I was going to respond to your earlier reply, but @knapplc summed up my response quite well, and we all appear to be on the same or similar page.

My main point is that if anti-abortion supporters want me to take their political position seriously, then they need to be pro-life - or at least pro-kids - in their other political positions.

 

[TGHusker]

I was going to respond to your earlier reply, but @knapplc summed up my response quite well, and we all appear to be on the same or similar page.

My main point is that if anti-abortion supporters want me to take their political position seriously, then they need to be pro-life - or at least pro-kids - in their other political positions.

Agree.  Yes, I didn't understand you were coming from a political perspective - Knapp I think knew my view point and could see that I was miss reading you.      I think a real middle ground can be found if people stopped shouting over each other.   Middle ground was consider the life of the mother, the viable baby in the womb, birth control, post birth care, support for women regardless of their choice, education, etc. - adoption, crisis pregnancy, social economic issues that contribute all have to be a part of the discussion.  But polarization has stolen the opportunity for solution - for far toooooo many years.