We have forgotten. We have forgotten that the children of the privileged are not burdened with these vexations, they could always go somewhere else for a discreet “procedure”. We have forgotten the frightened children who bled to death in taxicabs because they were afraid and couldn’t afford a ticket to Puerto Rico.
We have gotten used to legal and safe abortion, we have forgotten the consequences of illegal, underground and unsanitary. I pray to Whomsoever It May Concern that we don’t have to be reminded.
It would not surprise me to learn that, while they would never shift away from support of basic abortion rights, some Democratic politicians might not be entirely unhappy if the Supreme Court overturned Roe. The groundswell of anger (channeled into political activism and donations) would be very beneficial.
Be afraid, right-wing Republicans. Be very afraid.
As long as I can remember, always thought that all people should have a right to do as they choose with their own body, as long as it doesn’t hurt another person. While I’m male, I have also always felt that women should have the right to do as they please with their own bodies, and that as a member of the opposite sex, I really don’t see that I should have any right I should have to say what a woman can or can’t do with her body.
This has always seemed to me to be an issue of religious dogma being used to determine individual rights, which I find objectionable. And I see this issue as being an archaic constuct of Victorian and upper class attitudes about control of the body, which I also find objectionable.
To me, democratic issues are civil rights issues. As long as the democratic party puts civil rights issues as part of its platform, abortion rights, are integral. Again, while I don’t personally feel I have any right to say what a woman can or can’t do with her own body, I consider the protection of abortion rights one of my responsibilities, particularly when it comes to opposing those who seek to have religious/moral/political control over the human body. No one should have any rights over someone else’s body except their own (unless dealing with one’s children but that’s a different discussion).
Overturning Roe might be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. If those filthy right-wing nutsacks do that, perhaps the public in general will see how hopelesssly awful they are and send them back to their caves. Perhaps that is the reason that Roe should be “let go”…
I personally do not want to see abortion become illegal again. There would be too many desperate poor women who would resort to methods with less than ideal medical risk. That being said, the overturning of Roe is the Democrat’s dream and the Republican’s nightmare. For over a generation, Republicans have cherry-picked the easiest votes in the world, those of the anti-abortion crowd. With Roe overturned, those millions of single issue voters would start to look at other issues. On the opposite side, millions of pro-choice voters would become single-issue voters for the Democrats. Demobilizing one group and mobilizing another would shift the political balance dramatically and the Democrats would in short order control all branches of government.
For Dems, the devil’s choice is this: keeping abortion legal and staying out of power, letting the Republicans turn the nation into an aristocracy, gutting the Treasury, busting unions, destroying Social Security, starting imperialistic wars, and weakening protection of the environment OR throwing this bone to the Republicans’ little pit bull and getting back into power to preserve everything else that used to make the United States a great country. If destroying one thing would enable us to save everything else of importance, I would take that deal.
No, I’m not willing to let go of Roe. Here’s one reason why. The link is to Saturday’s Dear Abby column. In the first letter, a teenager is asking what to do about a friend of hers who’s 15 years old, afraid she may be pregnant, and has considered committing suicide if she is. While I do consider abortion to be morally wrong, given a choice of losing one life or two, I’ll take one and take the consequences of supporting this young woman’s right to an abortion on my own soul. I’ve been 15 years old and suicidal myself and afraid to tell my parents why and I wouldn’t wish that on anyone. I happened to be looking at that link in another window about 2 minutes before I opened this thread.
In a perfect world, abortion would never be an option. No pregnancy would be unwanted; babies would not be born to parents who’ll abuse them; and no family would know the desperate pain of wanting children but being unable to have them. In that perfect world of mine, 15 year old also wouldn’t have sex with their boyfriends or be afraid of their parents. We live in an imperfect world. I’ve never had an abortion. I hope I’m never in a position where I need to consider having one and I’ve taken steps throughout my life to make sure that happens. I also believe that sometimes abortion is the least bad option and for that reason, no matter what those who oppose abortion call me or what they think of my morality or even my Christianity, I’ll continue to fight to keep it legal.
What part of “It depends on how the polling question is phrased” don’t YOU understand?
If the question is phrased in terms of “Do you want to ta take away a womans right to X” (X could be abortion or the right to hum Barry Manilow tunes)…that becomes different than when the question is focused differently. If 55% of Americans REALLY felt that way, then you would have a LOT more than 22% saying 'abortions should be “generally available.” ’
“Generally available” means unfettered access to abortion. It means all women having the opportunity to have abortions whenever they want for whatever reason they want…no restrictions or regulations. When the question is phrased THAT way, poll respondents back away. Only 22% agree with that according to Saletan.
Another example here (the link is to a pro life site, but it referenves a NYT story).
But, as election results show, polling is not always an indicator of what people really want. I suspect this is especially true of abortion.
Personally, someone calls me on the phone, represents themselves as a polling organization and wants to talk abortion, I’m not answering questions. I don’t want to be the target of pro-life extremists (and I know they are extremists). And I wouldn’t put it beyond those nutcases to develop lists of known pro-choice people to send them photos of fetuses in the mail or worse. (Now which side of the tinfoil goes out again?)
I don’t answer market research surveys on what peanut butter I use.
If that is directed towards me…you’ll not find disagreement. (except to point out the pro choice folks ALSO conduct push polls).
As I said in the OP
FWIW, I’ve told pro LIFE folks the same thing (on the boards or in other conversations) if they make some kind of blanket statement that most Americans are pro life.
There seems to be an assumption that “overturning Roe” = “making abortion illegal”. That simply isn’t true. There are a number of legislative options available to keep abortion legal. I don’t see Roe being overturned, though, as I think very few politicians really want to put the country through the nasty political war that would ensue.
Beagledave, I think that you mistake the standard on which people are taking this view: the idea that the woman has a right to make decisions about her own body, is not something suitable for debate in their view.
To do a parallel, would you as a devout, practicing Catholic be willing to accept a “compromise” where American Catholics could attend Mass, reconciliation, etc. and follow the teachings of U.S. bishops, but neither they nor their bishops could be affected by the teachings promulgated by the Pope? Would that not vitiate a core element of Catholic belief?
The idea that, whatever your moral beliefs on the act of aborting an embryo/fetus/unborn child may be, it is the woman’s right to make the decision about whether that entity shall have the right to occupy her womb and affect her life for the duration of pregnancy, is a core belief about personal autonomy.
As someone who believes that a lodged conceptus has a right to live, in the absence of an in vitro means of nourishing said fetus I feel that abortion is generally an immoral act. (We’ve done dozens of threads that addressed the unusual hypotheticals – anencephalic fetus, 11-year-old rape victim incapable of carrying to term, etc.) However, I feel as firmly that it is the moral decision of the woman whose body is being used by the fetus, to decide what she will or will not do.
My parallel is an elderly quadriplegic man without any right to paid medical care, whose loving daughter is faced with devoting her life to his care in order to keep him alive. She has the moral obligation to do so, but no legislature has the right to command her to do so.
Polycarp: I think that you have mistaken what this thread is about. (Did you actually read the OP?)
I did not start this thread to try to debate the merits of abortion. I started this thread to see if ANY liberals (or Democrats) agreed with the premise outlined by some liberals/Democrats that a strong affiliation with support of Roe has harmed the liberal (Or Democratic party) cause.
Indeed, it seems that ALL of the posters so far agree with me…that liberals (or Democrats) have NO interest in “letting go of Roe”.
The only other point I was making…mostly in response to some other posts, is that abortion related polling is not a straight forward endeavor…that peoples attitudes are in part dependent on how the issue is framed. (I would also argue, that a significant number of people, for better or worse, really don’t have strong feelings on the topic one way or another…that’s a polling bias that extends to most political/cultural issues).
I wish you would have read and responded to the OP…instead of trying to lecture me about personal autonomy. This ain’t the thread for it. (There have been plenty of others about that very notion…or start a new one).
Speaking as a Republican, I am all for maintaining the status quo. I dislike the use of abortions as last-ditch birth control, but I don’t want someone who needs one not to be able to get it. I think many Republicans feel the same, but they aren’t shouting it from the rooftops. The Supreme Court might go so far as to say federal dollars will not subsidize abortions, but I don’t think they will ever be banned outright.
The winning formula for the GOP is to pay just enough attention to the social conservatives without actually doing something stupid that they, a decided minority of the voting population, really want. Then you turn them out at election time. (This effort is easier with a liberal boogeyman to point at, by the way). Accomplishing a ban on abortion would result in boat-rocking that I really don’t want to see.
Ah. My apologies; I didn’t intend to hijack, and misinterpreted the point of the OP. (And, in passing, I did not intend to “lecture” you on personal autonomy, but to explicate the underlying moral theory of liberals in the context of what I misapprehended your point to be. It often seems that conservatives generally, strongly motivated by their own moral imperatives, nonetheless have a hard time grasping the moral imperatives of liberals; to attempt to make that clearer was the focus of what I intended.)
However, the underlying point in my post is applicable. Just as many doctrinaire conservatives feel that, e.g., “abortion is murder” and no compromise is possible, regardless of political expediencies or realities, so too do many doctrinaire liberals feel that autonomy with respect to one’s own body is a non-negotiable basis.
I cannot speak for all liberals, of course, but my impression is that it’s that serious (and divisive) an issue, without strong hope of consensus on some compromise.
I would strongly oppose eliminating Roe for two reasons. While I’m aware that overturning that single Supreme Court decision wouldn’t automatically lead to outlawing abortion, it would put the decision back in the hands of the state legislatures, many of which would move to make abortions unavailable. Having Roe in place officially upholds the principles of the Democratic Party.
First, individual freedom. If a woman is forced to carry a pregnancy to term that she doesn’t want, it basically controls here life for nine months (or more), as well as potentially threatening her health, harming her career, etc… For the government to force such a thing to happen clashes with the principles of our country.
Second, equality before the law. Only women get pregnant, so a law banning a procedure that’s only useful to women puts women at an automatic disadvantage to men.
I wouldn’t want to, but if the choice is to overturn Roe and regain power or to let Roe go and return to power, I would choose the latter. We can’t do good for anybody if we don’t get back in power.
