Poll: Abortion legality belief spectrum

[knapplc]

I don't disagree what you are saying.  Read my earlier post - I'm NOT making this a baby vs the women's debate.   And it shouldn't be.  I too do not like the hard rhetoric that comes from both sides.  Right now the 'prolife' side has the loud voice.  If we could get reasonable people into the mix we could settle this.  But politics doesn't produce reason, just conflict for partisan reasons.  So the debate keeps going on.  Believe me - if the SCOTUS overturns R v W, it will not be the last word.   

You're like the +2 to my -2 on this. I think I generally agree with you that all lives matter. That we should NOT abort fetuses, especially as a convenience.

But I'm a dude, as you are. And no matter what, it'll never truly be my decision to keep or abort a fetus. Where I think we differ (slightly) is that you more side with the fetus (baby) and I more side with the woman.

But just barely. It's a close thing. If that's a baby, it's murder. If it's just a collection of cells, it's the woman's right to choose what happens to/in her body. Neither science nor religion tells us exactly what it is. And that's why it can't be a sole decision-maker.

I will NEVER use abortion as a litmus test for voting ever again. It's a wedge issue, and the major political parties in this country use it as a tool to separate us.

All things considered, abortion is just a tragedy. It's never an easy decision for like 99% of the people who go through it.

 

[Fru]

Cool. I agree. What the hell were you asking me about again, seeing that I wasn't ever talking about the GOP?

My point is this.

You may not have been referring to the GOP, but I was. Pro Life voters are GOP voters. If so many Pro Lifers (who are nearly exclusively GOP voters, let’s be real) apply a wholly pro life mindset to other issues, as you and TG say, then why is this not reflected within any GOP elected officials or agendas as they are the “Pro Life” party?

Are there a handful of outliers who are pro life across the board? Sure. But it’s in no way reflected in elected officials. Clearly those outliers have nil influence on the GOP agenda. 

It seems we’re mostly in agreement, so I’m not sure what the problem is.

 

[Atbone95]

Couple questions I have for the crowd here (haven't reread all 6 pages, so I'm not sure these have been thrown out by now)

Without leaning one way or the other - 

1) Science (mainly biology, taught in classrooms, accepted and declared as fact by national governing bodies) teaches that life begins when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote. Why are there arguments in this recent thread that that isn't the case? Is that not a widely held belief in the scientific community? Ignoring humans, that is accepted definition for all other living organisms as far as I've ever heard taught.

2) Regardless of your beliefs, is it too much to ask for some legal consistency? If I murder a pregnant woman, legal precedent says I can be charged for 2 counts of murder. Hell, if I smash the egg of a bald eagle in this country, I can go to jail. Why the break? 

 

[Fru]

First time poster here. 

Fru, I think you'd benefit from some light reading on this page: https://thebestschools.org/magazine/15-logical-fallacies-know/. lol

It’s been established that Landlord and I are mostly in agreement. Perhaps there was a slight misunderstanding between he and I. Seemed to me I was having a conversation, not a debate

 

[Atbone95]

It’s been established that Landlord and I are mostly in agreement. Perhaps there was a slight misunderstanding between he and I. Seemed to me I was having a conversation, not a debate

Would love it if you contributed to the conversation. If you want to do drive by pot shots, that’s cool too I guess. 

Just contributed with some honest, bi-partisan questions  

 

[Fru]

Just contributed with some honest, bi-partisan questions  

I saw that. Looks like we posted nearly simultaneously, so I deleted that part from my post. 

Welcome to the conversation. Hope you stick around and continue to contribute. 

 

[Landlord]

1) Science (mainly biology, taught in classrooms, accepted and declared as fact by national governing bodies) teaches that life begins when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote. Why are there arguments in this recent thread that that isn't the case? Is that not a widely held belief in the scientific community? Ignoring humans, that is accepted definition for all other living organisms as far as I've ever heard taught.

Nobody is arguing that that is when life begins. The conversation is when personhood begins. Life isn't a good litmus test because we destroy life all the time in ways that are not destructive or bad or worth concern. Any time you scrub your skin you've technically destroyed a little bit of living tissue. Any time you eat....pretty much anything, some amount of life has been destroyed. 

2) Regardless of your beliefs, is it too much to ask for some legal consistency? If I murder a pregnant woman, legal precedent says I can be charged for 2 counts of murder. Hell, if I smash the egg of a bald eagle in this country, I can go to jail. Why the break? 

Not sure exactly what type of consistency you're looking for. Bald Eagles are endangered, thus they need special protection. If you murder a pregnant woman you've ended the potential for life from the pregnancy without her consent; if she gets an abortion, that's a consensual decision. I do see it as a bit tricky and a hairy conversation and I don't necessarily have any answers, but consistency isn't the same thing as equity and I'm not sure how consistency plays out.

 

[NM11046]

Couple questions I have for the crowd here (haven't reread all 6 pages, so I'm not sure these have been thrown out by now)

Without leaning one way or the other - 

1) Science (mainly biology, taught in classrooms, accepted and declared as fact by national governing bodies) teaches that life begins when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote. Why are there arguments in this recent thread that that isn't the case? Is that not a widely held belief in the scientific community? Ignoring humans, that is accepted definition for all other living organisms as far as I've ever heard taught.

2) Regardless of your beliefs, is it too much to ask for some legal consistency? If I murder a pregnant woman, legal precedent says I can be charged for 2 counts of murder. Hell, if I smash the egg of a bald eagle in this country, I can go to jail. Why the break? 

Hope you stick around Atbone.

Without leaning one way or the other - 

1) Science (mainly biology, taught in classrooms, accepted and declared as fact by national governing bodies) teaches that life begins when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote. Why are there arguments in this recent thread that that isn't the case? Is that not a widely held belief in the scientific community? Ignoring humans, that is accepted definition for all other living organisms as far as I've ever heard taught.

[SIZE=small]No, this is not the case.  The debate can be that "life" is when a heart beats, when a fetus can be viable beyond the womb etc.  Part of the challenge is that there is no agreement on when that happens.  Religion, education, lifestyle, upbringing - all these influence how you look at that question.  Most medical doctors, and specifically OBGyns do not agree with your statement above. [/SIZE]

2) Regardless of your beliefs, is it too much to ask for some legal consistency? If I murder a pregnant woman, legal precedent says I can be charged for 2 counts of murder. Hell, if I smash the egg of a bald eagle in this country, I can go to jail. Why the break? 

[SIZE=small]I don't disagree with the right to legal consistency -  not at all.  In fact it's why it should be between a woman and her physician to make any medical decisions.  Just like men are able to do.  Do men have to face a felony charge for or travel to multiple states to get their vasectomies?  Does a man have to face legal issues for getting a mole removed?  And then this circles us back to your thoughts and my comment on #1.  [/SIZE]

[SIZE=small]And your statement about "not leaning" in kinda cheeky.   [/SIZE]

 

[TGHusker]

I just want to thank you all for being engaged and talking about this.  Obviously you know I'm a gal, and this is a topic I feel strongly about.  This last week or two has been disheartening and disgusting.  It's lifted my spirit somewhat to see a mature discussion by (mostly) men - we need you all to be as upset about this as we are.  You can see the level of respect or lack of that women are getting with this topic - with you speaking out with us we are more likely to make change.  You all have mothers, and sisters, and wives and daughters and regardless of what they might decide to do if put into a situation where terminating a pregnancy was on the table, you should not want a bunch of men sitting in a room in AL or DC or wherever to limit the options they have.  They know nothing about a woman's situation, health, health of the baby - anything.

So I thank you - and I ask you to please, please continue to be engaged.  It doesn't have to be a pro life or pro choice debate - this has gotten down to the right for a woman and her healthcare provider to be able to make the right decision for her and potentially an unborn child, with information that only they know.   

I agree wt you NM,  - as I mentioned before, sensible, reasonable people coming together should be able to resolve this equably.   

Another word that hasn't been mentioned is  Adoption.  There are many couples who can't have babies and if adoption could be promoted more along with all of the preventive things that @Moiraine  mentions in the post above.

You're like the +2 to my -2 on this. I think I generally agree with you that all lives matter. That we should NOT abort fetuses, especially as a convenience.

But I'm a dude, as you are. And no matter what, it'll never truly be my decision to keep or abort a fetus. Where I think we differ (slightly) is that you more side with the fetus (baby) and I more side with the woman.

But just barely. It's a close thing. If that's a baby, it's murder. If it's just a collection of cells, it's the woman's right to choose what happens to/in her body. Neither science nor religion tells us exactly what it is. And that's why it can't be a sole decision-maker.

I will NEVER use abortion as a litmus test for voting ever again. It's a wedge issue, and the major political parties in this country use it as a tool to separate us.

All things considered, abortion is just a tragedy. It's never an easy decision for like 99% of the people who go through it.

Knapp had to give you a trophy on that one.  We are in agreement - I think the foggy thing that keeps this as a wedge issue is the failure of our system of govt legally defining 'when that collection of cells' becomes a identifiable separate living entity deserving protection. 

To those who want to equate pro-life with GOP I want to take exception.  The GOP co-oped this issue to get pro-lifers in their tent decades ago. Their wedge baiting rhetoric has kept us in their camp too long because the GOP was the 'only option'.  The GOP has given lip service to the issue for years and it was in their interest not to resolve it - better to use it as a wedge issue to keep pro-lifers on their plantation.  This is another reason we don't see the GOP beating the drum on the other 'life issues' that most of the poster's are concerned about - being 'pro-life' after birth, the needs of women, sex ed, contraception, etc.  Just like pro-life issues, these aren't core beliefs of the GOP party and leadership. So many in the GOP leadership structure  would prefer that pro-life wasn't apart of their tent but recognize the importance of the pro-life vote. This was true in Reagan's time (GOP establishment didn't care for Reagan in part because of his pro-life position. )  The GOP establishment at its core would rather not have anything to do wt social issues.  I'll say this again, if the Dems found a way to modify their

abortion stance - to allow room for pro-lifers to be a part of their tent instead of so adamantly opposed to pro-lifers, I think they would be flooded with new voters who are not only interested in pro-life issues but the other social issues that the Dems take seriously.

  Because pro-lifers believe so strongly about the life of the baby in the womb, we see that as the # 1 reason to vote for someone. However, our care and concern for the baby, sincerely held, has blinded too many (including me) of the fallacy of using abortion as a litmus test. Not speaking of lawmakers, I do believe that most pro-life people also see the female as equally important to protect - thus the many crisis pregnancy centers that help women bring the baby to term, giving assistance during and after birth - and providing options for adoption or support if the female decides to keep the child.   

Finally, Some have argued above that pro-lifers aren't involved in other 'life issues'.  It is a matter of focus, I could counter: why aren't  environmentalists  not  involved in pro-life issues or pro-choice people not  involved wt crisis pregnancy centers, soup kitchens and food pantries, etc etc.    None of us can be all things to all people but we all can be involved and focus on one or two things and do those two things well and then collectively we solve or make a dent in the world's problems. 

 

[Mierin]

There are many couples who can't have babies and if adoption could be promoted more along with all of the preventive things that @Moiraine  mentions in the post above.

This reminds me of something I left out.

Another idiotic policy of the GOP. LET GAY PEOPLE ADOPT.

Also, it should be easier for a single parent to adopt.

 

[TGHusker]

This reminds me of something I left out.

Another idiotic policy of the GOP. LET GAY PEOPLE ADOPT.

Also, it should be easier for a single parent to adopt.

Children need loving people regardless of status/labels - love and affection should be the #1 ingredient in raising a child.  

 

[Nebfanatic]

1 U.S. Code § 8. “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.

I agree wt you NM,  - as I mentioned before, sensible, reasonable people coming together should be able to resolve this equably.   

Another word that hasn't been mentioned is  Adoption.  There are many couples who can't have babies and if adoption could be promoted more along with all of the preventive things that @Moiraine  mentions in the post above.

Knapp had to give you a trophy on that one.  We are in agreement - I think the foggy thing that keeps this as a wedge issue is the failure of our system of govt legally defining 'when that collection of cells' becomes a identifiable separate living entity deserving protection. 

Its pretty well defined I would say. The issue is pro lifers dislike how the law stands currently. 

 

[TGHusker]

Its pretty well defined I would say. The issue is pro lifers dislike how the law stands currently. 

This law defines what being 'born alive' is.  It does not address the rights of the baby in the womb prior to being born alive.

This section is important to note:  

(c)

Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.

 

[BigRedBuster]

As I've stated, I'm pro-life.  However, I'm sick and tired of the political fight over it.  I would prefer to, instead of trying to outlaw it, work to make it so they aren't needed.  Then, on top of it, I find stuff like this baffling.  Alabama is sitting here with some of the worst infant and child healthcare in the country.  And.....instead of trying to figure out how to save those babies, they choose to fight the fight of outlawing abortions.


Here's a novel idea.  Why don't we fix healthcare so that babies don't die?

FYI....Alabama is a state that did not expand medicaid.  

 

[Landlord]

[SIZE=small]No, this is not the case.  The debate can be that "life" is when a heart beats, when a fetus can be viable beyond the womb etc.  Part of the challenge is that there is no agreement on when that happens.  Religion, education, lifestyle, upbringing - all these influence how you look at that question.  Most medical doctors, and specifically OBGyns do not agree with your statement above. [/SIZE]

I guess this is just quibbling over semantics but I would disagree with this assessment on when life begins. There is no standard scientific basis of what specifically does or does not constitute life, but generally a working practical definition is that organisms have cells, metabolism, can grow, etc. If we were looking in the solar system and we saw active replicating cells with DNA we would 100% be championing that as extra terrestrial life found. The debate of personhood is different, and the relevant one, imo.