Poll: Abortion legality belief spectrum

[knapplc]

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.

The more you understand the pro- & anti-abortion arguments the difficulter the conversation should become. It's when you don't know anything other than one side of the abortion debate that this seems like an easy question.

 

[zoogs]

I'm aware that this is the reason why people feel choice must be restricted. Again -- you are free to argue that it's a good reason. That, because of this, there is no permissible use of one's body other than going through with the pregnancy, once you are in that situation.

It's important to clarify the grounds on which the disagreement exists. It would be strange for the pro-choice side to argue that they are all about considering and protecting a potential child's rights, for example. The position and the advocacy is explicitly that the only person who should be given consideration here is the pregnant woman. Likewise, when choice is completely forbidden, there is zero extent to which the will of the woman is being considered. It is all about defining a set of circumstances where we as a society decide, for whatever reasons the worthiness of which may be debated, the free exercise of that will must not be permitted, and a certain course of action on the part of the pregnant individual must be compelled.

This doesn't sound as nice for either side when you put it in these terms, but these are the accurate terms and they describe the consequences.

 

[BigRedBuster]

The more you understand the pro- & anti-abortion arguments the difficulter the conversation should become. It's when you don't know anything other than one side of the abortion debate that this seems like an easy question.

This is exactly right and why I have decided I don't support this being a political issue.  

There is a much bigger part of all of this that I believe the vast majority of Americans can agree on and it would continue reducing abortions being performed, more women would feel they have control over their lives and support systems that help them get through difficult times.

But....it always gets thrown into crap political debates between two sides that have no desire to listen to each other.

 

[zoogs]

I mean, what are those things and why don't they happen?

 

[Whistlebritches]

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 

The problem with a limit of 10 weeks is that testing for things like downs syndrome and spina bifida occur around weeks 16-18 if I'm remembering correctly.

 

[knapplc]

It's important to clarify the grounds on which the disagreement exists. It would be strange for the pro-choice side to argue that they are all about considering and protecting a potential child's rights, for example. The position and the advocacy is explicitly that the only person who should be given consideration here is the pregnant woman. Likewise, when choice is completely forbidden, there is zero extent to which the will of the woman is being considered. It is all about defining a set of circumstances where we as a society decide, for whatever reasons the worthiness of which may be debated, the free exercise of that will must not be permitted, and a certain course of action on the part of the pregnant individual must be compelled.

On the one hand, you remove choice from the pregnant woman and compel her to bring a pregnancy to term.

On the other hand, you murder a human being. 

Neither are palatable conclusions, but both possibilities have to be considered if you're making a fair judgement.

 

[RedDenver]

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.

The hyperbole is in statements like the bolded. Removing a woman's autonomy in it's entirety would be to fully control (or proscribe) every aspect of her life. Literally no one is advocating that.

 

[Big Red 40]

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.

The point at which it’s murder has been established by state laws to be anything after 28 weeks by that chart . Eek  

Anything before that time though is a legal medical procedure and I don’t see the need for women to have to justify her reasons for getting it .

I guess an abortion in a life threatening situation for the mother,  after 28 weeks is something I hadn’t thought of and definitely should be an option . 

Another thing I noticed after doing some reading is that it seems like the pro life politicians know they have very little chance of totally banning abortion,  so they bomb away with restrictions and small rule changes that make it much more difficult for a woman to get that legal procedure . Effective tactic on their part but wrong to me  . Things like this shouldn’t be happening in. My opinion . 

https://www.aclu.org/other/government-mandated-delays-abortion

 

[Big Red 40]

The problem with a limit of 10 weeks is that testing for things like downs syndrome and spina bifida occur around weeks 16-18 if I'm remembering correctly.

Good point thanks  :thumbs

 

[Mierin]

The point at which it’s murder has been established by state laws to be anything after 28 weeks by that chart . Eek  

Anything before that time though is a legal medical procedure and I don’t see the need for women to have to justify her reasons for getting it .

I guess an abortion in a life threatening situation for the mother,  after 28 weeks is something I hadn’t thought of and definitely should be an option . 

Another thing I noticed after doing some reading is that it seems like the pro life politicians know they have very little chance of totally banning abortion,  so they bomb away with restrictions and small rule changes that make it much more difficult for a woman to get that legal procedure . Effective tactic on their part but wrong to me  . Things like this shouldn’t be happening in. My opinion . 

https://www.aclu.org/other/government-mandated-delays-abortion

I wasn't talking about abortion when I mentioned murder, although they're related depending on who you ask.

I was giving a real life example to show that your argument wasn't very good, imo. We have different punishments depending on how a human killed another human, and in my opinion that's a good thing. Stabbing someone in the face should have different consequences than running over a jaywalker at midnight. Abortion is another example where I think there should be different rules based on the circumstances.

28 weeks is one of those rules.

 

[zoogs]

The hyperbole is in statements like the bolded. Removing a woman's autonomy in it's entirety would be to fully control (or proscribe) every aspect of her life. Literally no one is advocating that.

Wait, what? This is not a reasonable reading of our discussion. Every invocation of autonomy in this topic refers, plainly, to the choice regarding her pregnancy. That involves quite a lot! It's permanent, life-changing, and a complete reshaping of one's life.  And when that choice removed, it's fully removed. It's not a little bit removed. It's not the woman and the state meeting in the middle to vote or negotiate about it (that would also be absurd).

I don't think you are intentionally misunderstanding this. But just to be absolutely clear, telling women what movies to watch or what color to wear was never even implied in this discussion. Though, again, choosing to carry a pregnancy to term isn't some one off, one small corner of all the aspects of one's life, either. It comes with a large set of other necessary decisions, in every area of her life, and not merely for the duration of the pregnancy.

Also, proscribe means to prohibit.

 

[Big Red 40]

@Moraine

A woman getting an abortion before the 28 week mark isn’t a criminal who needs to be punished though ? 

Why put any limitations on a legal procedure ? Some seem to want to 

 

[zoogs]

But let's step back from the more highly charged aspects of this debate for a moment. 

Almost all abortions occur before 21 weeks. The ones that occur after are vanishingly rare and typically under extraordinary circumstances. I think it'd be fair to say that, from a medical or practical standpoint, there's often not much choice even involved there. 

And that shouldn't be surprising. Nobody wants to wait this long, ideally. Nobody even wants to be in a position where they are pregnant but didn't want to be! But for many reasons, sometimes that happens, and for many reasons, sometimes it can't happen early enough. Among the more common reasons, by the way, include the inability to access care or the inability to get to it in a timely manner. These are the straightforward consequences of, among other things, reducing the number of clinics available in each state.

There are, fair enough, complex and maybe philosophical questions surrounding this debate. But why do the bad outcomes named above occur? Whose direct advocacy is responsible for these effects? Where do those people want to go? There is a simple answer here. It is no mystery.

 

[RedDenver]

Wait, what? This is not a reasonable reading of our discussion. Every invocation of autonomy in this topic refers, plainly, to the choice regarding her pregnancy. That involves quite a lot! It's permanent, life-changing, and a complete reshaping of one's life.  And when that choice removed, it's fully removed. It's not a little bit removed. It's not the woman and the state meeting in the middle to vote or negotiate about it (that would also be absurd).

I don't think you are intentionally misunderstanding this. But just to be absolutely clear, telling women what movies to watch or what color to wear was never even implied in this discussion. Though, again, choosing to carry a pregnancy to term isn't some one off, one small corner of all the aspects of one's life, either. It comes with a large set of other necessary decisions, in every area of her life, and not merely for the duration of the pregnancy.

Also, proscribe means to prohibit.

All that is fine. But to say, "autonomy must be proscribed. Not rendered "partial". Removed in its entirety," implies removing all autonomy from the woman, which is a gross exaggeration of the debate. If you meant only the woman's autonomy on the pregnancy choice, then it's strange (to me at least) to talk about partial or entire in regards to her autonomy.

 

[RedDenver]

But let's step back from the more highly charged aspects of this debate for a moment. 

Almost all abortions occur before 21 weeks. The ones that occur after are vanishingly rare and typically under extraordinary circumstances. I think it'd be fair to say that, from a medical or practical standpoint, there's often not much choice even involved there. 

And that shouldn't be surprising. Nobody wants to wait this long, ideally. Nobody even wants to be in a position where they are pregnant but didn't want to be! But for many reasons, sometimes that happens, and for many reasons, sometimes it can't happen early enough. Among the more common reasons, by the way, include the inability to access care or the inability to get to it in a timely manner. These are the straightforward consequences of, among other things, reducing the number of clinics available in each state.

There are, fair enough, complex and maybe philosophical questions surrounding this debate. But why do the bad outcomes named above occur? Whose direct advocacy is responsible for these effects? Where do those people want to go? There is a simple answer here. It is no mystery.

Good points. A group that wants to save babies and eliminate abortions should logically be in favor of birth control, better healthcare access for women and children, and improved sex education. I know some are, but the politics definitely are not.