Which cite do you want? Pretty much every study says the same thing.
http://spectator.org/blog/30346/do-men-and-women-view-abortion-differently
If you want the best of the best data, I can get a friend to pull stuff from the General Social Survey and run a correlation. I think the fact that women are approximately as pro-life as men is pretty common knowledge though. It makes sense- you’d expect women to be more religious as well as more child-centered than men.
There’s plenty of stuff I feel shame about, but why would I feel shame about that?
I’m not a democrat, I don’t believe in government by popular concent, etc., so why would I feel ashamed of thinking that some (most) people are not suited for the right to vote?
I think government derives its authority from adherence to the natural moral law, not on whether it matches up with the popular will.
Yep, very young and very male. This is a (very creepy) script that could’ve written itself. So, no more arguing for me with those who’ll never see their desires codified into law. I’d rather just content myself on how shameful it must be on not getting your way no matter what. Maybe you should petition someone for the right for your voice to be heard?
And a closer look at the numbers show that it holds true less and less as the education rate rises-the more educated men and women become the more likely they are pro-choice, the women even more so than the men. The Gallup summary reads:
Are educated women one the groups you prefer not have the right to vote, Hector_St_Clare?
Sigh.
What evidence do you have that ‘cultural indoctrination’ has anything to do with opposition to abortion? If anything, genetics seems to explain a bigger components of attitudes to abortion than culture does.
Also, why are you so loathe to acknowledge that a lot of women (and men) might oppose abortion rights because they’ve considered the arguments, and made a reasoned decision?
What’s the best way to get in contact with pro-choice groups to volunteer for escort duty? I’m afraid escorts will be needed again.
How about this?
Is abortion in this case ok? Is it ok to intimidate this woman?
Because it means that you have such a fringe position that we don’t need to worry about what you think ever becoming law, and thus there’s no point in discussing the issue.
And because there is no natural moral law to freedom of speech. It exists to allow the function of a democracy. you adhere to a Christian-based morality, yet not even the most evangelical posit some scripture that grants people freedom of speech. Yet your entire argument is based on that concept.
So you should be ashamed of making a pointless argument that contradicts your own stated beliefs.
Ah. I’ve never found Hector around the web and my suspicions have been confirmed. Not. Worth. My. Time.
BTW, I think it’s an inherent feature of morality to try and force it on someone else. Even people who think you shouldn’t force it on someone else are in fact trying to enforce that aspect of their morality on someone else.
But I also believe there are ways of forcing one’s morality that are immoral, and harassing people, especially by making them afraid of you, is one of those. You want to enforce your morality, go through moral channels. Try to convince people you are right. Don’t try to scare them.
Again, I point out that the only person who was ever able to convince me of anything on abortion was Cecil himself, because he actually sat down and discussed the issue in his column. I finally understood the balance of rights involved, as well as the full moral issue. And it made me decide that abortion is wrong–after there is an individual there, which requires, at the very least, a functioning brain.
Of course, I was convinced the other direction, from pro-life to limited pro-choice, but I think it still holds that discussion, not intimidation, is how you convince people. Scaring someone might stop them from having an abortion right then, but it does nothing to actually stop abortion itself, and only empowers people to want to fight back. When you are trying to argue the moral high ground, which the pro-life position is based on, you don’t do well to act like an asshole, something most people consider to be immoral. There’s nothing Christ-like about these types of protests.
(And, no, the money changers don’t count. That was His property.)
No, my argument (well, the central one) is based on the fact that abortion is murder.
We live in a society that highly values freedom of speech, so of course I’ll use freedom-of-speech arguments to further my cause, when they are useful. But the core of why I’m opposed to abortion and would like to restrict it, has nothing to do with freedom of speech. There have been lots of unfree societies which banned abortion too. It’s the banning abortion I’m concerned with, not the freedom of speech in itself (although that can be a useful debating point).
Cultural liberals of course do have a principled belief in freedom of speech, and I enjoy pointing out their contradictions.
Sure, why not?
Again: I’m not a democrat and so I don’t see anything intrinsically wrong with restricting political rights to a minority.
Yes, it doesn’t have anything to do with ‘women’ vs. ‘men’. It’s a fairly straightforward issue of human life: is it even legitimate to kill an innocent human being for your own convenience? This is why in, for example, studies like the Olson paper which I linked to, they group abortion together with other ‘life’ issues. Not surprisingly, women tend to favour or oppose abortion in about the same numbers as men.
I support abortion in cases of serious medical threats to the mother, and not for any other reason (including rape, etc.). That’s not an extreme position, it’s (one of) the positions in the moderate middle.
Evidently we have very different ideas of what the common good is. I’d say the common good is eminently served by laws that say, no, no matter how unhappy you might be, and no matter how much it may hurt your feelings, you don’t have the right to kill your child. Their life is more important than your comfort and your ‘freedom’. Sorry.
So let’s deny the electoral voice to uneducated people!
Wait, wasn’t that a problem in another thread?
Are you saying here that the voice that should prevail – although it’s a minority – is the voice of educated people, and it should have more weight than the greater numbers of uneducated people?
Women are significantly more likely to call themselves pro-choice than men. So Hector’s wrong about that.
A question for Hector (and Bricker too, if he likes) – do you put value on a woman’s right to privacy with regards to her medical decisions? For example, if your side was in charge and made the laws, and a woman and her doctor made the decision that an abortion was medically necessary (but they do not publicize why), should the law get involved? At what point, and in what form, should the government be involved when a woman and her doctor make a decision that might involve abortion?
Did you actually get that drivel from what I posted? Does anyone else here think that I want the polar opposite of what Hector_St_Clare proposes, instead of just equal rights without exclusions? I guess lambasting him repeatedly for thinking that any section of the population should be denied the right to vote wasn’t enough of a clue.
I agree wholeheartedly! Killing children is wrong. I mean, you could just put them up for adoption, and be done with it in a day. There’s absolutely no excuse for murdering your child when you can make it someone else’s problem without any issues from your end.
…But how many people actually do that? I mean, I’ve literally never heard of this. There’s Andrea Yates, but that was a very different issue…
I knew you would pick up on that- it’s the one poll that finds a gender difference, and it’s an outlier not just compared to other polling companies, but even compared to previous polls from Gallup as late as 2010 and I think 2012.
Maybe something has changed in public opinion over the last two years, but I think it’s more likely that if you do enough polls, some of them are going to show unusual results. Most previous work by Gallup doesn’t, though.
iiandyiii If there’s going to be abortions involved I’d want two doctors involved certifying that the decision was medically necessary, and publicly explaining their reasons.
Yes, that was and is your position there, and yes, it is a problem. Your point?
No, that the view that should prevail in the matter of one’s own body is the owner/operator of that body.
It really doesn’t help your standing at all to continue assert as fact, rather than merely your personal opinion / religious belief, that a fertilized egg is human and fully entitled to all the pertaining legal and moral rights, and to go on to assert that such opinion, being naturally and obviously right, makes your judgment superior to that of those who do not share it.
Not when the life of another person is at stake.
Why?