Poll: Abortion legality belief spectrum

[zoogs]

No. It is formed of the patronizing conviction that society can define for women what is a good and what is a “wasteful” use of her life, and results in the dominion over not only her body and will during her pregnancy but also over the course of the entire rest of her life. 

Most people are happy to become parents, and that’s great. Pregnancy and parenthood should always be by consent, not by the systematic deprivation of agency.

 

[Landlord]

'Patronizing conviction' is right.

 

[zoogs]

I'm sorry to offend you while you advocate for a society that gets to tell women what is or is not an appropriate use of their bodies. 

You may find my disgust with this view bothersome -- curiously, while you would like to proudly reclaim the idea that disgust for my view is appropriate and commendable -- but the result, justified or not, is control. At its root is the idea that if left to their own, silly devices, women make wasteful, wrong, monstrous choices, and so the public needs instruments to stop this.

 

[HuskermanMike]

• Who is playing the victim to get their way on this issue?
  
• Comparing a woman's right to choose what to do with her body (or something in her body) is far different than what was done to the native americans who lived here when the government took over.  I see what you're trying to do here, but it's not a comparison at all.
  
• And, how was killing them not like "killing a real person"?
  
• What would be a more fair comparison would be if the government was able to demand or disallow vascectomies.  Or if the government had to weigh in before you were able to have a tumor removed that was cancerous.
  
• Many of us are well aware of what happens in a pregnancy termination.  My educated opinion does not change with the details.
  

I think you misunderstood that back in the 19th century killing a Native American was not murder and the government even did it too. Anyway, the women can do whatever with her body, so long as she does not misuse it with a child inside. Yes, it is the women's body, but what about the child's body inside the mother. There is a separate person inside her and we can't let them decide if they want to live. Instead, the mother chooses what happens to the child inside her and that is that. Basically chooses life or death for the child.

I am going away for a while so when I am available I will respond to anyone else as fast as I can. Not sure how long my response will be delayed but I will have one as soon as I can.

 

[Big Red 40]

Nobody is forcing women to get abortions just giving them a choice. 

I think legally there have to be boundaries set to prevent what we’ve decided is murder, but moral repercussions should be dealt with by the people involved not mandated by society .

 

[Landlord]

I'm sorry to offend you while you advocate for a society that gets to tell women what is or is not an appropriate use of their bodies. 

You may find my disgust with this view bothersome -- curiously, while you would like to proudly reclaim the idea that disgust for my view is appropriate and commendable -- but the result, justified or not, is control. At its root is the idea that if left to their own, silly devices, women make wasteful, wrong, monstrous choices, and so the public needs instruments to stop this.

You paint anyone that doesn't share your conclusion with way too broad and way too sinister of a brush. You're the other side of B.B.'s "liberals are cool with murdering babies" lack of perspective of who you're talking to and about.

I don't proudly think that your view of abortion is disgusting (....what?). I think your righteous indignation towards people who have been fed different ideas yet earnestly believe them is pretty sad and I expect better from you. To those who view fetuses in a certain way, it isn't strictly about telling women what they can do with their bodies - it's literally the opposite. It's saying, "What you're deciding to do for yourself has ramifications on another life that has not consented." That you don't seem to even want to try at all to understand that perspective on the part of others is precisely what makes people dig their boots in more and more.

"I don't want to control women! I want to save babies!"

"Yeah well I don't want to murder babies! I want to respect women and let them make their own choices!"

repeat ∞

 

[zoogs]

It is strictly telling women what they can and cannot do with their bodies, though -- not merely in the nine months or so of pregnancy, but in the entire transformed shape of her life after that. 

I understand the perspective, and I've made the patient, nuanced case many times before. I'm here to advocate against it in the most complete and unambiguous of terms. Because I think anything less than that is not enough. It cedes ground on what I think is at the crux of the divide: again, the idea that women, on their own, if permitted, will make unacceptable choices, and that we know better. The heels are already dug in, and it doesn't need to be danced around. I think it's important to indicate that just as some people find abortion monstrous, those of us on the other side find the impulse to control completely unacceptable. Not commendable.  

There's a lot of "hey, you need to respect the fact that these people think you're monsters, and work with them anyway." Eff that, seriously. We can still work together, on many grounds, but the impasse is there and the feeling is mutual.

If it was legal to kill a 9 month old fetus I think that would definitely make us monsters yeah .

I don't think this exception needs to be carved out of that answer. This goes to the common Republican refrain of "ripping babies out of wombs" ... like, is this is a thing that happens? Not really.  This type of talk tends to dominate the debate because of its shock value, and that's damaging. This really should not be a discussion driven by the exceedingly rare circumstances. It's a care and access to care issue first and foremost, and the blanket shuttering of that access impacts every case.

 

[NM11046]

I think you misunderstood that back in the 19th century killing a Native American was not murder and the government even did it too. Anyway, the women can do whatever with her body, so long as she does not misuse it with a child inside. Yes, it is the women's body, but what about the child's body inside the mother. There is a separate person inside her and we can't let them decide if they want to live. Instead, the mother chooses what happens to the child inside her and that is that. Basically chooses life or death for the child.

I am going away for a while so when I am available I will respond to anyone else as fast as I can. Not sure how long my response will be delayed but I will have one as soon as I can.

So let me challenge you a bit on this Mike ... if a woman is allowed to do anything to her body as long as she "doesn't misuse it with a child inside":

• What should I be eating when I'm pregnant?  Can't my decisions harm a child?
  
• How many hours of sleep should I be required to get when I'm pregnant?
  
• Why stop at while a woman is carrying a child - after she has it she should stay healthy to care for it right?  If you're saying that my responsibility is to house a child and do whatever I can to make it healthy does it end at birth?  How will the government monitor how I take care of myself so that I can properly care for a baby?  
  
• I don't want to wear a seatbelt when I'm pregnant - it hurts.  Are the charges/different different because I'm pregnant?
  
• What exercise should I do at the gym?  I didn't exercise before I got pregnant, is it a requirement to do so now?
  
• People say babies can hear through the womb - what tv/radio/music am I not allowed to listen to while pregnant?
  

None of the above are issues that anyone other than the mother and her family and physician should be involved in (many have opinions on what is wrong or right, but no control over what anybody does).  And yet they are all potentially "misuse of my body with a child inside."  You certainly have every right to be involved in a decision involving your significant other and your pregnancies.  I respect your right to apply your opinion to any action you and your partner make.  But you do not have a right to be involved in mine.  That's a discussion for my partner and my physican and me.  NObody else.  

Can you see when reading back through your comments how they come across?  

"The women can do whatever with her body, so long as she does not misuse it with a child inside."  

"I am not taking anything away from women, I am not trying to control them."  (conflicts a bit with the comment above doesn't it?)

"I respect them and care for them and treat them like they are my daughter."

"They have a voice in this country, which is a great thing. But, I think they are wrong that they can control people with the my body my choice argument on abortion or play the victim to get their way on THIS issue." 

You say that you respect women, you're glad they have a voice in the US (? which I have some questions about but that's for another thread) but that on this issue, which effects them to a degree that you will never comprehend they should not have a voice or the respect of the men in this country that make the laws.  And if they speak up to what they think and feel about it, they are "playing the victim" to get their way.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

I've been working on it all day, and I still haven't solved either the abortion or gun control debate. 

 

[zoogs]

So let me challenge you a bit on this Mike ... if a woman is allowed to do anything to her body as long as she "doesn't misuse it with a child inside":

• What should I be eating when I'm pregnant?  Can't my decisions harm a child?
  
• How many hours of sleep should I be required to get when I'm pregnant?
  
• Why stop at while a woman is carrying a child - after she has it she should stay healthy to care for it right?  If you're saying that my responsibility is to house a child and do whatever I can to make it healthy does it end at birth?  How will the government monitor how I take care of myself so that I can properly care for a baby?  
  
• I don't want to wear a seatbelt when I'm pregnant - it hurts.  Are the charges/different different because I'm pregnant?
  
• What exercise should I do at the gym?  I didn't exercise before I got pregnant, is it a requirement to do so now?
  
• People say babies can hear through the womb - what tv/radio/music am I not allowed to listen to while pregnant?
  

None of the above are issues that anyone other than the mother and her family and physician should be involved in.  And yet they are all potentially "misuse of my body with a child inside."  You certainly have every right to be involved in a decision involving your significant other and your pregnancies.  I respect your right to apply your opinion to any action you and your partner make.  But you do not have a right to be involved in mine.  That's a discussion for my partner and my physican and me.  NObody else.  

Can you see when reading back through your comments how they come across?  

"The women can do whatever with her body, so long as she does not misuse it with a child inside."  

"I am not taking anything away from women, I am not trying to control them."  (conflicts a bit with the comment above doesn't it?)

"I respect them and care for them and treat them like they are my daughter."

"They have a voice in this country, which is a great thing. But, I think they are wrong that they can control people with the my body my choice argument on abortion or play the victim to get their way on THIS issue." 

You say that you respect women, you're glad they have a voice in the US (? which I have some questions about but that's for another thread) but that on this issue, which effects them to a degree that you will never comprehend they should not have a voice or the respect of the men in this country that make the laws.  And if they speak up to what they think and feel about it, they are "playing the victim" to get their way.

+1, so much. Thank you for this. I didn't notice this earlier, but the phrase "a woman's misuse of her body while it has a child inside" really cuts to the bone of it. 

You can argue that there are reasons why it's necessary for society to dictate what ways a woman is allowed to use her body while pregnant, but "respect for women" is not compatible with it. It's, again, rooted in the idea that women who are afforded free reign will do unacceptable things with themselves and must be stopped from this by mandate. The role of a pregnant woman in our society becomes that of a child-producing automaton. And you may not like your advocacy being framed in this way, but those are the consequences of it. Consider yourself lucky to have the luxury of these things being just words that you can choose to think of in a genial light.

 

[Big Red 40]

It is strictly telling women what they can and cannot do with their bodies, though -- not merely in the nine months or so of pregnancy, but in the entire transformed shape of her life after that. 

I understand the perspective, and I've made the patient, nuanced case many times before. I'm here to advocate against it in the most complete and unambiguous of terms. Because I think anything less than that is not enough. It cedes ground on what I think is at the crux of the divide: again, the idea that women, on their own, if permitted, will make unacceptable choices, and that we know better. The heels are already dug in, and it doesn't need to be danced around. I think it's important to indicate that just as some people find abortion monstrous, those of us on the other side find the impulse to control completely unacceptable. Not commendable.  

There's a lot of "hey, you need to respect the fact that these people think you're monsters, and work with them anyway." Eff that, seriously. We can still work together, on many grounds, but the impasse is there and the feeling is mutual.

I don't think this exception needs to be carved out of that answer. This goes to the common Republican refrain of "ripping babies out of wombs" ... like, is this is a thing that happens? Not really.  This type of talk tends to dominate the debate because of its shock value, and that's damaging. This really should not be a discussion driven by the exceedingly rare circumstances. It's a care and access to care issue first and foremost, and the blanket shuttering of that access impacts every case.

To me it goes with the fetus viability debate . I did use  an extreme example yes . Say legally we’ve decided that anything before 20 weeks is not a viable life form and therefore not murder then allowing anything after I would consider monstrous and wrong. That’s why I wouldn’t support totally legal unregulated abortion but I would support a woman’s choice within limits . 

 

[Landlord]

To me it goes with the fetus viability debate . I did use  an extreme example yes . Say legally we’ve decided that anything before 20 weeks is not a viable life form and therefore not murder then allowing anything after I would consider monstrous and wrong. That’s why I wouldn’t support totally legal unregulated abortion but I would support a woman’s choice within limits . 

yeah but quit disrespecting women and trying to control them.

 

[zoogs]

It's interesting how important a positive feel-good perception of their advocacy is to people. Match your position to your priorities. If individual agency must be made subservient to other, overriding considerations then it is *entirely* about creating a framework of control.

Frankly, I think we have fairly similar policy positions on abortion itself. But I wholeheartedly disagree with this idea that we must regard anti-choice positions as good-hearted and decent; challenging that is the reason I jumped in this particular debate. To me and I think to a lot of pro-choice people, the anti-choice position is inherently brutal -- though I understand why people simply feel their intentions are nothing but good. I just disagree that we should all accept that characterization.

Let's talk 20-week bans: https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/issues/abortion/20-week-bans

Nearly 99 percent of abortions occur before 21 weeks, but when they are needed later in pregnancy, it’s often in very complex circumstances.

Another example of why we shouldn't let what are already exceptional circumstances drive the debate. And this is a case, too, where we tend to let anti-choice advocates, misleadingly, color our perception of what is actually at stake.

 

[B.B. Hemingway]

I'm sorry to offend you while you advocate for a society that gets to tell women what is or is not an appropriate use of their bodies. 

You may find my disgust with this view bothersome -- curiously, while you would like to proudly reclaim the idea that disgust for my view is appropriate and commendable -- but the result, justified or not, is control. At its root is the idea that if left to their own, silly devices, women make wasteful, wrong, monstrous choices, and so the public needs instruments to stop this.

You keep trying to turn the pro-life movement into an indictment on women and their ability to make a decision. It's a savvy political move, but it's also bulls#!t. It has much less ( not at all) to do with women and their decision making, and everything to do with saving an innocent life that, as of right now, has no say in whether they live or die. More times than not (by some margin) you get pregnant because of a decision that YOU (man and woman) made. With decisions come responsibility.

It's interesting that you speak to the possible inconvenience a child may bring to a woman for the rest of her life, and how she should be able to avoid that inconvenience at all cost, even if she's already conceived. So, I'd assume that you're in support of a father who chooses not to be a father, even if the woman chooses to have the child? Didn't think so. The father is inconvenienced, at the mother's will.... And in no way am I advocating for dead beat father's,just pointing out the obvious hypocrisy here, that you'll no doubt explain away, or completely ignore.

 

[zoogs]

It’s galling to see the woman’s situation routinely trivialized to “inconvenience.” 

We disagree — very strongly.