According to the U.S. Census, "There was no overall difference in voter turnout rates between men and women in the 1994 elections. Likewise, there was no difference in the turnout rates between men and women in the 45 to 64 year old age group (57 percent). However, women 18 to 44 years old reported slightly higher turnout rates than did men (36 percent versus 34 percent). But in 1994 as in previous Congressional elections, men 65 years old and over continued to report higher rates of voter turnout than women, 67 and 58 percent, respectively. This difference, however, was less than it was almost 30 years ago when in the 1966 election the gap was 14 percentage points in favor of men. "
In my post on the mindset of anti-choice folk I described very clearly the control issues that present themselves. I don’t see any reason to change a word of it. You are anti-choice, you to some extent share that mindset. How can you possibly take a position that absoutely requires every pregnant woman to bring her baby to term except when she might die of it, without copping to enormous control issues? And how can you think you do not subconsciously get off on that to some extent?
Why do you think pro-choice women constantly couch their objections in the language of control, as in “I want to be the one who controls my body?”
Get real. Deal directly with what I and others are saying or lose the debate. Say, "I don’t have any interest in controlling pregnant women because ___ " and fill in the blank.
As for the getting-offing on control, that’s a minor issue that only accounts for the intensity with which some pursue anti-choice activities. No need to respond on that, unless you want to.
You asserted that I have these feeling in my subconscious. Somehow YOU know my mind better than I do.
That’s an overly simplistic way, I think, of expressing American attitudes about abortion.
Indeed, most polls show conflicting views on the topic… (I’m always reminded that pro choice folks don’t “favor” abortion btw…just the choice to have one)
Less than a third of Americans support legal abortion under “any” circumstances.
Less than half “support” Roe v Wade.
If one excludes the what politicians call the “hard cases” (rape, incest, life of the mother)…support for legal abortion decreases quite a bit. The “hard cases” comprise a relatively small percentage of total abortions (less than 10%)…
(I realize that phrasing is an important component of the questions…that 67% say that they “believe a woman and physician should be able to decide to have an early abortion”…of course more than half describe abortion as “murder”.
I think making predictions about how the electorate would respond to given legislation is dicey at best. We were told by NOW and PP, that the electorate wouldn’t stand for restrictions on abortion access like parental or spousal notification or 24 hour waiting periods. I don’t see a huge revolt (that caused many legislators to lose their jobs) against those restrictions…do you?
Current polls show support for parental notification around 75-80%
Actually I’m going to have to disagree, a bit, with JThunder in an abortion thread.
As I mentioned in my previous post…attitudes about abortion are somewhat conflicted and complicated. I’m a bit distrustful of any claims that firmly suggest that a majority of Americans support or oppose abortion. Phrasing or framing of the question is key.
(Of course I also disagree that a a large majority of women are “pro choice”…especially in terms of voting considerations)
Note my phrasing though, dave (which I’ll admit was ambiguous). I said that the majority oppose abortion – but granted, many ofthem would still allow it in the so-called hard cases, which are infrequent and atypical of abortion in general. I would consider someone who allows abortion in those cases, but who resists it in the vast majority of circumstances, to be opposing abortion as a matter of general principle.
Actually, what you did was make sweepingly stupid assumptions about the mindset of a large group of people about which you know less than nothing, and with whom you have not even a scrap of sympathy.
Additionally, you came close to claiming psychic powers, giving you insight into the thought processes of people you have never met, and which they themselves do not understand. Impressive, if true.
Let’s have a test. How many fingers am I holding up? And which one is it?
Possibly because if they phrased their argument in any way that recognized the right of a fetus to exist, they would lose the argument. Duh.
So, having made a gigantic and utterly unsupported ad hominem argument, based on nothing whatsoever except a general attitude that the entire anti-abortion movement is made up entirely of sadistic, woman-hating control freaks, it is now up to the accused to prove their innocence, or you will consider yourself to have won the debate?
Perhaps I should explain why I am so concerned about this whole control issue.
I personally suffer from a horrible mental disorder, and expect to soon be on drugs that basically will keep me from being suicidal. These drugs, like most drugs, and not safe for fetuses and some of them are 100% likely to cause major birth defects. So, if abortion were not an option, I would be faced with the prospect of either going crazy and possibly killing myself, or taking drugs that I know would lead to a horribly deformed child with no chance of a normal life. I would not take these drugs. I would rather die than purposefully do something that would make somebody have to face a life like that.
In a thread a while back, I once asked what would happen to me. I was told that the proper thing to do in that scenerio would be to restrain me (so I couldn’t kill myself) until the baby is born.
That is why I am so concerned with control of my body. There are people that would see me tied up for nine months while I slowly go insane. All because an entity without the intellegence or life capacity of a kitten takes precedence over my own body. If abortion is outlawed, this hellish scenerio will become a very real possibilty to me personally. That is my stake in things.
Well, even sven, if pregnancy would be such a calamity for you, perhaps you could refrain from behavior which would put you at risk for it. Or get your tubes tied.
The point is that consensual sex carries with it the inherent risk of surrender of control that you find so objectionable. There is a risk of pregnancy even if you consistently use contraception.
This risk can be reduced nearly to zero with tubal ligation, and/or monogamy with a sterile partner.
For heaven’s sake, even the angel appeared to the Blessed Virgin to get her consent before she experienced parthenogenesis. I doubt your risk is much higher than hers.
Emphasis added. What is “nearly” ? One in a thousand? One in a million? In a nation the size of the U.S., with maybe 100 million women of childbearing age , how many “nearlies” are tolerable?
While not necessarily agreeing (or disagreeing) with you in the particular, I do think (as is obvious from my posts) that it’s important to get to the heart of what motivates very many anti-choice people.
A desperate need to control certainly pervades most of their posts here.
While there is little doubt that you’d be uninterested in your motivations, to some of us, it’s an interesting question; far more than reams of your moral posturing, that’s for sure.
Ad hominem, Shodan, implies a response that says: “Shodan is wrong because he’s a rabid Christian control freak.” That is not what is implied when one says “Shodan is wrong and, by the way, he’s a rabid Christian control freak.” In other words, Shodan’s ‘wrongness’ is not dependent upon his rabid Christian control freakishness; you may argue that “rabid Christian control freak” is an insult or incorrect because, for example, Shodan might be a Muslim but it’s not ad hominem.
Some of us, you see, are not vaguely interested in you droning on with arguments whose premises we don’t accept from the start (and hence not worth engaging) but we’re allowed to try to understand the motivations of the vanguard of the Christian Right and reactionary Catholicism. You could argue that we’re sidetracking but, in a thread so heavily sidetracked into moral posturing, that’s hardly a criminal act.
I’m neither the vanguard of the Christian Right or reactionary Catholicism. In fact, I’m not even religious.
And assuming motivations is not the same as “trying to understand the motivations.” If that is truely your goal, try asking, not assigning what you think are the motivations.
By the way, an ad hominem doesn’t have to include an insult. “An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.”
Please explain how forcing a woman to bear an unwanted fetus is not torture.
Causes great physical pain.
Check.
Causes great emotional anguish.
Check.
Is done deliberately.
Check.
Is done against her will.
Check.
Does not physically or emotionally benefit the woman.
Check.
Can ruin her life.
Check.
Is done for the sake of some moral or religious tenet that the woman likely doesn’t share.
Check.
Can cause permanent damage.
Check.
Will cause irreversible physical effects.
Check.
Say you were against people wearing shoes. If you were to take a random person who has committed no crime and subject them to nine (recognizing that “nine” isn’t the most valid claim of the time involved) months of physical pain, discomfort, and mental anguish because they wanted to wear shoes. Would you view that as torture? The only way you can distinguish between forced pregnancy and torture is by claiming that the ends justify the means. But our society doesn’t, in general, support torture even for serial killers and terrorist bombers.
Throw in a situation like even sven’s and the torture becomes even more apparent.
Dismissing the physical and emotional anguish of a forced pregnancy is easy, but not realistic. Ask any woman, no matter how positive, about the pains and discomforts of pregnancy. Add to that the intense trauma of being an unwilling participant. Bing! You have torture.
I liken it to the difference between consensual sex and rape. Consensual sex isn’t a horrible experience (one hopes). Rape is a form of torture, even though it may not even include any physical pain and/or damage.
