What is it about those exceptions that make it no longer murder in your eyes? If a fetus is conceived by rape, is that fetus less than human? Is there any point where killing the offspring no longer allowed? Can you kill a 15-year old that was conceived through rape, and have it not be murder?
Similarly, is it any incest that makes abortion OK? Or, just where one of the parties was unable to consent? If adult brother and sister decide to have a baby, is that OK to abort? Required to be aborted? First cousins? Uncle/niece, of about the same age? Half siblings? Step siblings? And, is the offspring always allowed to be killed, or is there a cutoff date? First three months of pregnancy? months? Under the age of 5? Does it matter if there are deformities? Are any deformed fetuses eligible for abortion, even if no incest was involved?
Also, regarding the life of the mother, does it have to be for-sure death, or greater than some probability? What probability? What about no risk of loss of life, but a great risk of severe disability? Some risk of disability? Does it have to be physical or mental disability?
I always saw those exceptions as a political accommodation, which would make abortion bans acceptable to people who haven’t thought through their position (the general electorate). But, you’ve apparently thought it through and still hold that position, so I’m curious about your thought process.
Really? OK, a couple decides to have a baby, and then the father dies, leaving the mother destitute. Must she go through with the pregnancy? Or, they decide to have a baby, she goes off her birth control, he’s away on a trip and she gets raped and becomes pregnant. What now? How about, a teenager, with no plans to have sex and is therefore not on BC, is slipped a drug at a party, or finds herself the object of her skeevy uncle. What now?
I’m not sure how to get to a world where nobody has to get an elective abortion – you’re talking about a situation where all birth control is free and 100% effective, and all women are on it right before they start getting their period, and no men die at the wrong time or leave their pregnant spouses, or are locked up in jail, and so on.
Perhaps I was not clear enough that I was speaking entirely as a thought experiment - not that such a world was actually achievable. Imagine instead that women literally had the ability to control when they became pregnant (even independent of men, if you want) - such a reality would have very little to no need for elective abortion. And therefore would likely have very little public support for the legality of elective abortion.
The point was merely to point out that if we are successful at reducing unwanted pregnancies significantly (which we have been somewhat successful at doing over the last three decades) a likely side effect is reduced support for abortion rights. Do you disagree?
I don’t disagree at all. When you said, “myself included” would have to deal with the situation where abortion becomes less necessary, it seemed to me that you had your doubts about whether it should remain legal in that situation. It looks like you meant you had doubts about whether it would remain legal, not whether it should.
I think we’re seeing that trend already, with younger people having no knowledge about what it was like when abortion was illegal in the US, and getting better birth control, so they can’t imagine being in that situation. Of course, once they are in that situation, they are all pro-choice that week, then back to the picket lines. Even the Santorums seemed to be thinking that choice through.
Anyway, I await jtgain response with bated breath.
Don’t forget that anti-choice may disagree with the use of IUDs, because they are considered to cause abortion- by causing a change in the uterine lining, making it more difficult for fertilized eggs to implant. They also have a problem with the morning after pill for similar reasons.
And if a perfect form of birth control were magically available, and all pregnancies were planned and wanted, I agree that it would be sweet. But I have little faith that anti-choice would just chill out, rather they might move on to some new “sin” or controversial issue where they can push their religious/political agenda onto others.
If the so called pro-life woman is speaking for herself, she never should be forced to have an abortion,but if it is just a way to force her beliefs on another, then that is a different story. Too many are just pro-life of the unborn, then once born they have a different attitude; one canJust look to Haiti or many countries in Africa where so many are going hungry and even boiling leaves to keep alive and wonder why they can’t get birth control to help keep the numbers down so less would die of hunge,r or spend an entire life with no decent place to live, no education,medical aid, etc. I guess some think it better to let a child once born live that way than to provide Birth Control so there would be less born people starving.
Most people feel that partial birth abortions are wrong but still believe that abortions should be available early on in pregnancy.
The anti-abortion movement has tried to define anyone who is against any form of abortion as pro-life and the pro-choice movement seems to agree. So a lot of pro-choice people end up identifying themselves as pro-life.
What!?!?! Sure there is an economic element to the tea party but (blame the shitty economy on the black guy) but it is a very socially conservative movement.
And they certainly haven’t been paying attention to what they are DOING.
I have NEVER heard of any pro-choicer going batshit crazy because a pregnant woman decided to stay pregnant and either keep her baby or give it up for adoption. I have, however, heard of anti-abortion people going crazy because a pregnant woman chose to have an abortion, raise a child with her lesbian partner or let a gay couple adopt that child.
The question should be “Do you think the government should have the right to tell any pregnant woman she cannot have an abortion?”
Not true, and again you are misconstruing the meaning of pro-choice to mean pro-abortion. And based on your stated belief that the use of the term “anti-choice is hysterics”, you are just not getting it.
Pro-choice would not define (along with anti-choice) “anyone who is against any form of abortion as pro-life”. If the choice of the woman is to be against abortion for herself, that would be pro-choice.
I was once on a Christian message board discussing the abortion issue and someone claimed to be a young girl who got pregnant and who was forced by her parents to have an abortion (this person also said that she a young adult, not someone from an MTV series).
I explained to her that this was reprehensible to me. She had her choice taken away. I am pro-choice. If a woman chooses to bring her pregnancy to full term and desires that it result in a baby, her being forced to abort it removes that choice.
I also happen to feel it is just as reprehensible if a pregnant woman is forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term because she is forced to.
I agree, to a point. IMO, the unborn child also has rights after a certain period. I do not believe that when the sperm meets the egg it’s already a person. But after a certain amount of time I feel that the child is a person who should be given a chance at life.
The weird thing is, most of the pro-choice people I’ve met have agreed with me on this basic principle. I’ve met only two people in my whole life who felt that a child wasn’t a person with legal rights until they emerged out of a woman’s womb. To me, that position is ridiculous. Most of the debate I’ve been a part of has revolved around when exactly the point is reached where the unborn child becomes a person, deserving of rights and protection. Can’t say I know better than the next guy where that point lies.
This is why I always have trouble when people make these pro-life vs. pro-choice debates. I always wonder how they are defining their terms. Do they mean pro-life as anyone who wants abortion completely illegal in every case, or do they mean anybody who feels that at some point, the fetus becomes a person who the state has a duty to protect? And by pro-choice do they mean anyone who feels that the baby isn’t a person until they are born, or do they mean anyone who feels that a woman has reproductive rights?
You’re changing the statement. If I want to ban abortions of healthy pregnnancies after the third trimester, then pro-choicers would call me pro-life (or anti-choice) even if I would put no restrictions on abortions in the first trimester.
Pro-lifers hook into my anti-abortion attidues for late term pregnancies and try to bring me into their camp where they try to convince me (incrementally) that life begins at conception and that we should lower taxes on the rich. Its like their biggest recruiting tool.
Does this just indicate the limitations of labels “pro-life” and “pro-choice”, and thus make suspect any poll that asks people if they’re one or the other?
Yeah BUT to the extent that ideas come in bundles. If pro-life advocates try to convince anyone that wants to limit abortion rights (perhaps at late term) as being pro-life and pro-choice advocates want to label those same people as being pro-life (anti-choice), it affects how people view themselves and before long they are reading Ayn Rand and talking about how God hates gays.
I can appreciate the gray zone you are coming from on this issue, but this is a battle where the anti-choice camp will not go halfway in their efforts to take away our reproductive choices. And gray zone people will not necessarily have our backs in the struggle against their attempts to ban all abortions.
It’s a vaguely worded question that tells us very little about anyone’s beliefs. “Certain circumstances” could be up to the second trimester or only in cases or rape and incest.
I am pretty sure I would become a single issue voter if they tried to ban all abortion, any significant restaint on first trimester abortions would probably drive my vote. You just won’t see me standing up to defend third trimester abortion rights for healthy pregnancies.