# Opposing abortion does not, necessarily, require support for babies or mothers after birth **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 27, 2019, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposing-abortion-does-not-necessarily-require-support-for-babies-or-mothers-after-birth/834602 "2019-05-27T18:05:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2019, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposing-abortion-does-not-necessarily-require-support-for-babies-or-mothers-after-birth/834602/101 "2019-05-28T23:58:08Z")
Yes, of course. The GOP sucks. No dispute about that. But Democrats can put themselves in a stronger electoral position if they are a little more open to restrictions on later abortion, while adamantly standing up for the right to first trimester abortion. Kirsten Gillibrand has flatly declared that people who support any restrictions at all should not be welcome in the party. Bad move. ---
**Author:** ![amarinth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3be4f8/32.png) [@amarinth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amarinth)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2019, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposing-abortion-does-not-necessarily-require-support-for-babies-or-mothers-after-birth/834602/102 "2019-05-29T00:02:33Z")
Think of it like this - if you want to decrease (or increase) use of a service, you can work on the supply side of the equation or you can work on the demand side of the equation. You are more likely to be successful if you address both. Many “pro-life” advocates target all of their energy on the supply side. If no one is around to provide an abortion, then it will become more difficult to have one. However, it seems that if someone’s true goal was to eliminate abortions, they would also work toward a world where no one (or at least substantially fewer women) wanted to have one. To me, that includes reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies through better and cheaper access to birth control (exceedingly few non-pregnant women have abortions). My guess is that a woman who was less worried about economic catastrophe after having a child (due to the very real costs of child rearing) would be more likely to elect to keep her child - so, lessening the economic burdens would likely result in lowering the abortion rate. &tc. &tc. When I do run across someone whose policies don’t do anything to reduce the number of desired abortions (and in some cases actually will increase the number of unwanted pregnancies and more women who might consider the benefits of an abortion), I have to wonder what their underlying motives really are when they fight against reproductive rights. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2019, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposing-abortion-does-not-necessarily-require-support-for-babies-or-mothers-after-birth/834602/103 "2019-05-29T00:18:53Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Yes, of course. The GOP sucks. No dispute about that. But Democrats can put themselves in a stronger electoral position if they are a little more open to restrictions on later abortion, while adamantly standing up for the right to first trimester abortion. Kirsten Gillibrand has flatly declared that people who support any restrictions at all should not be welcome in the party. Bad move. How about going with principle? How about doing what’s right instead of following polls? > [@amarinth](#): > > When I do run across someone whose policies don’t do anything to reduce the number of desired abortions (and in some cases actually will increase the number of unwanted pregnancies and more women who might consider the benefits of an abortion), I have to wonder what their underlying motives really are when they fight against reproductive rights. Yep, exactly. Incidentally, Canada has no abortion laws at all, and due to relatively sane social policies the abortion rate of 13.7 per 1000 circa 2010 is significantly lower than in the US in the same period (19.6 per 1000) and is roughly in line with the UK and Australia (both at 14.2). ETA: Forgot the link: [Facts About Abortion: Worldwide Abortion Statistics](https://abort73.com/abortion_facts/worldwide_abortion_statistics/) ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2019, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposing-abortion-does-not-necessarily-require-support-for-babies-or-mothers-after-birth/834602/104 "2019-05-29T01:20:57Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Sixty percent of Americans believe it is the government’s responsibility to make sure everyone has health care: [60% in US say health care coverage is government’s responsibility | Pew Research Center](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/10/03/most-continue-to-say-ensuring-health-care-coverage-is-governments-responsibility/) > > Sixty percent also believe rich people are undertaxed: > [Budget/Taxes](https://www.pollingreport.com/budget.htm) > > 54 percent believe either “Abortion should not be permitted” or “Abortion should be available, but under stricter limits than it is now.” This was even after the recent abortion “heartbeat laws” were passed: [Abortion](https://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm?fbclid=IwAR2ATfqJ3h_sWG13IoBhlzm7RWdhN0QX8Xad1FtNpepDfPRQ-D33Q6DO94U) > > These kinds of views are nowhere near as mutually exclusive as many people seem to imagine. And the sizable group that holds these views simultaneously is disproportionately likely to be decisive in battleground elections. :dubious: > [@](#): > > Generally > available: 44% > > Available > under > stricter limits : 34% > > Not > permitted : 20% > > Unsure/ > No answer : 2% ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2019, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposing-abortion-does-not-necessarily-require-support-for-babies-or-mothers-after-birth/834602/105 "2019-05-29T01:31:39Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > OK, for a more serious answer : you’re barking up the wrong tree, pilgrim. Quoth Clint Eastwood, “Deserve’s got nothing to do with it”. It’s not about who’s entitled to what. It’s about if you don’t provide a safety net, if you don’t provide help to the people who need it, you’re hurting \*\*yourself \*\*and your own kids in the long run (nevermind hurting them in the shortest of runs, I surmise you don’t give a shit). > > Your “no abortion but I won’t pay shit for SHIT !” ideas inevitably result in a) more healthcare costs b) more crime c) more drug use d) more crime as a result of drug use. Dysfunctional homes result in dysfunctional children, and antisocial politics harm the fabric of society. I know, weird, right ? Who woulda thunk. And since anti-abortion policies demonstrably saddle poor families with more, long term, unmitigatable financial burdens (because the historical practice of exposure isn’t OK any more ; and foster care is its own brand of hell… but not free hell) then they must, perforce, also result in higher social expenditures. That is, if you’re at all invested in keeping a functional society long term. I know that’s falling out of fashion compared to “fuck it, I want all the money now and _après moi le déluge_”. But then again that’s why I’m heavily investing in guillotine futures. > > Or, in other words, no man is an island yadda yadda. I understand all that, but it just seems as if this debate is for another thread. I simply do not see how an attitude of “You shouldn’t be permitted to murder you child” (as that is what the pro-life side believes is happening) equals I must now pay more to care for that child that I stopped you from murdering. Whether we should have a social safety net and more accurately, the extent of that safety net is for another thread. Taken to its logical conclusion, a lot of people would be on the hook for paying for a lot of things. ---
**Author:** ![Isamu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/7c8e57/32.png) [@Isamu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Isamu)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2019, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposing-abortion-does-not-necessarily-require-support-for-babies-or-mothers-after-birth/834602/106 "2019-05-29T01:42:57Z")
If you call yourself Pro-life and you are: anti abortion anti death penalty pro gun control pro universal tax-based health care pro tax-based support networks and anti proactive war then, respect. Otherwise, cool it with the patting yourself on the back. It ain’t fooling anyone. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2019, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposing-abortion-does-not-necessarily-require-support-for-babies-or-mothers-after-birth/834602/107 "2019-05-29T02:06:39Z")
> [@Isamu](#): > > If you call yourself Pro-life and you are: > > anti abortion > anti death penalty > pro gun control > pro universal tax-based health care > pro tax-based support networks > and anti proactive war > > then, respect. > > Otherwise, cool it with the patting yourself on the back. It ain’t fooling anyone. This has been stated in this and other threads. “Pro-life” is shorthand for being against legal abortion in most instances. It does not mean life always and forever without exception. It is not a general commentary on a person’s overall moral philosophy anymore than “pro-choice” is. As I said above, is it wrong to call yourself pro-choice unless you support every choice at all times? Or is it just shorthand for your support for legal abortion? ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2019, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposing-abortion-does-not-necessarily-require-support-for-babies-or-mothers-after-birth/834602/108 "2019-05-29T02:09:48Z")
> [@Isamu](#): > > If you call yourself Pro-life and you are: > > anti abortion > anti death penalty > pro gun control > pro universal tax-based health care > pro tax-based support networks > and anti proactive war > > then, respect. > > Otherwise, cool it with the patting yourself on the back. It ain’t fooling anyone. Add anti-police brutality to the list. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2019, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposing-abortion-does-not-necessarily-require-support-for-babies-or-mothers-after-birth/834602/109 "2019-05-29T02:19:19Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Yes, of course. The GOP sucks. No dispute about that. But Democrats can put themselves in a stronger electoral position if they are a little more open to restrictions on later abortion, while adamantly standing up for the right to first trimester abortion. Kirsten Gillibrand has flatly declared that people who support any restrictions at all should not be welcome in the party. Bad move. It would be a terrible strategy. Democrats wouldn’t gain pro-life voters; they’ll never be able to find a more pro-life position than the one the Republicans have already established. And they would lose pro-choice voters. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2019, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposing-abortion-does-not-necessarily-require-support-for-babies-or-mothers-after-birth/834602/110 "2019-05-29T02:25:27Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > This has been stated in this and other threads. “Pro-life” is shorthand for being against legal abortion in most instances. It does not mean life always and forever without exception. It is not a general commentary on a person’s overall moral philosophy anymore than “pro-choice” is. “Pro-life” is absolutely a commentary on a person’s moral stance, as it means that they’re willing to suppress the principles of reason and give primacy to their religious beliefs or other unscientific superstitious claptrap as the basis for the law of the land, despite all the societal damage that it obviously causes. It’s no different than the ideas underlying Sharia law, or the basis of any other theocracy. As I said earlier, Canada abolished all legal restrictions on abortions decades ago, yet has a structurally healthier society with a substantially lower abortion rate than the US yet with better health care and social services for actual children. So which approach to abortions leads to the more moral outcomes? ---
**Author:** ![Isamu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/7c8e57/32.png) [@Isamu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Isamu)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2019, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposing-abortion-does-not-necessarily-require-support-for-babies-or-mothers-after-birth/834602/111 "2019-05-29T02:31:57Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > This has been stated in this and other threads. “Pro-life” is shorthand for being against legal abortion in most instances. It does not mean life always and forever without exception. It is not a general commentary on a person’s overall moral philosophy anymore than “pro-choice” is. > > As I said above, is it wrong to call yourself pro-choice unless you support every choice at all times? Or is it just shorthand for your support for legal abortion? Pro choice is also on the nose, as a general label for their group. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2019, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposing-abortion-does-not-necessarily-require-support-for-babies-or-mothers-after-birth/834602/112 "2019-05-29T02:50:32Z")
> [@Isamu](#): > > Pro choice is also on the nose, as a general label for their group. I have no problem with the label. But the “choice” that they are “pro” is the choice for women to have legal abortions and nothing more. The label doesn’t mean that they are in favor of a woman choosing to carry a concealed weapon or to use recreational drugs. It is abortion related only and it would be unfair for someone to say that they are not really pro-choice if they do not support the latter. That is my problem with the “how can you say that you are pro-life if you support the death penalty?” arguments. The label is not universal. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2019, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposing-abortion-does-not-necessarily-require-support-for-babies-or-mothers-after-birth/834602/113 "2019-05-29T03:14:19Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > I understand all that, but it just seems as if this debate is for another thread. I simply do not see how an attitude of “You shouldn’t be permitted to murder you child” (as that is what the pro-life side believes is happening) equals I must now pay more to care for that child that I stopped you from murdering. Whether we should have a social safety net and more accurately, the extent of that safety net is for another thread. > > Taken to its logical conclusion, a lot of people would be on the hook for paying for a lot of things. Well, that is the point in more civilized developed nations. There are a lot of reasons why a woman can end a pregnancy and taking one big reason away, like the one a woman with very little economical or family support has, does help with the issue when most people still think that even if abortion is a right, it should be rare. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2019, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposing-abortion-does-not-necessarily-require-support-for-babies-or-mothers-after-birth/834602/114 "2019-05-29T04:35:19Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > :dubious: GIGO, are you under the impression that what you posted contradicted me somehow? 😕 > [@wolfpup](#): > > How about going with principle? How about doing what’s right instead of following polls? That’s terrible political strategery, that will usually get you further from your goal rather than closer. But in this case, it’s not relevant to me, because I believe protecting the right to first trimester while banning it thereafter IS the right thing on principle. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > It would be a terrible strategy. Democrats wouldn’t gain pro-life voters; they’ll never be able to find a more pro-life position than the one the Republicans have already established. And they would lose pro-choice voters. Did you actually read what I proposed? Gallup consistently finds that \<30% support abortion being legal in the second trimester (not third, second). That means a lot of Democrats are already in that camp. Others may uneasily vote Republican, but would happily vote Democratic if our brand was only to camp out in the first trimester and guard that like a fortress. And we’d lose pro-choice voters to…whom? 😕 ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2019, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposing-abortion-does-not-necessarily-require-support-for-babies-or-mothers-after-birth/834602/115 "2019-05-29T05:04:28Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > That’s terrible political strategery, that will usually get you further from your goal rather than closer. But in this case, it’s not relevant to me, because I believe protecting the right to first trimester while banning it thereafter IS the right thing on principle. You can believe whatever you want, as is your privilege, but the balance that always has to be struck in a representative democracy is between leadership toward doing what is right versus blindly following polls, especially when it comes to matters of fact rather than opinion or religious superstition. The facts in this case relate to the kinds of societies that result and the tangible impacts on real people of various forms of abortion prohibitions. These are things that can actually be empirically studied around the world. In the face of empirical evidence “beliefs” are worthless. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2019, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposing-abortion-does-not-necessarily-require-support-for-babies-or-mothers-after-birth/834602/116 "2019-05-29T05:10:43Z")
That was a super quick pivot from “let’s do what’s right instead of following polls”. The abortion issue is really almost the prototypical issue where you can’t establish \*any \*position as empirically “right”. It’s a value judgement about which tradeoffs people feel outweigh others. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2019, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposing-abortion-does-not-necessarily-require-support-for-babies-or-mothers-after-birth/834602/117 "2019-05-29T05:12:20Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Did you actually read what I proposed? Gallup consistently finds that \<30% support abortion being legal in the second trimester (not third, second). That means a lot of Democrats are already in that camp. Others may uneasily vote Republican, but would happily vote Democratic if our brand was only to camp out in the first trimester and guard that like a fortress. But people who are somewhere in the middle of the abortion issue aren’t likely to vote based on a candidate’s position on abortion. Some people will only vote for candidates who promise to stop all abortions and some people will only vote for candidates who promise to protect full abortion rights. But nobody is saying “I only vote for candidates who seek out a position in the middle.” People who are one-issue voters don’t have moderate views on the issue in question. > [@SlackerInc](#): > > And we’d lose pro-choice voters to…whom? 😕 To “Fuck both parties. I’m staying home on Election Day.” ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2019, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposing-abortion-does-not-necessarily-require-support-for-babies-or-mothers-after-birth/834602/118 "2019-05-29T05:15:59Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > The abortion issue is really almost the prototypical issue where you can’t establish \*any \*position as empirically “right”. It’s a value judgement about which tradeoffs people feel outweigh others. I agree. I’m pro-choice because I’m not sure what the correct answer is. So I feel it’s an issue where individuals need to decide for themselves. I don’t feel there’s an obvious answer that everyone should have to follow. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2019, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposing-abortion-does-not-necessarily-require-support-for-babies-or-mothers-after-birth/834602/119 "2019-05-29T05:47:34Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > But people who are somewhere in the middle of the abortion issue aren’t likely to vote based on a candidate’s position on abortion. Some people will only vote for candidates who promise to stop all abortions and some people will only vote for candidates who promise to protect full abortion rights. But nobody is saying “I only vote for candidates who seek out a position in the middle.” People who are one-issue voters don’t have moderate views on the issue in question. I’m sorry, but this just doesn’t make sense. There are many other kinds of voters besides one-issue voters. If both parties represent an individual’s views poorly/incompletely, a shift in an issue, or in multiple issues, can sway such individuals without their needing to be super dedicated one-issue voters. Otherwise, how do you explain the people who shifted from Bill Clinton, to George W. Bush, to Barack Obama, to Donald Trump? ETA: I also believe it is hard for people on one end or the other of this issue to understand that there are many of us who really do lament how extreme BOTH sides are. I’m not “in the middle” because I’m just “eh, whatever” about this issue. I think telling a woman she can’t use a morning after pill, or go immediately to the clinic to expel the zygote as soon as she discovers it, is heartless and cruel. I also think later term abortion (once the baby has a recognizably human babyface) is heartless and cruel. The people who push for an uncompromising position at either end arouse my ire. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2019, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposing-abortion-does-not-necessarily-require-support-for-babies-or-mothers-after-birth/834602/120 "2019-05-29T05:57:35Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > That was a super quick pivot from “let’s do what’s right instead of following polls”. Where did you see a “pivot”? That was a restatement of the same principle. > [@SlackerInc](#): > > The abortion issue is really almost the prototypical issue where you can’t establish \*any \*position as empirically “right”. It’s a value judgement about which tradeoffs people feel outweigh others. Ultimately, sure, that’s what it amounts to. But the objective part comes in observing the outcomes of different strategies, and then making value judgments based on factual data. If a particular strategy with the least abortion restrictions (none at all, in fact, as in my recent example) results in (a) fewer abortions, and (b) better health care and social support for actual children, it’s hard to argue that this is not a preferred strategy. The second point is that when dealing with an issue which is extremely personal and entails moral ambiguity, you would think that this is the last place you’d want inflexible government regulations intruding, yet the “minimal government” and “maximum freedom” crowd is precisely the political sector clamoring for the strictest abortion laws. Their stance is neither rationally nor morally supportable. There’s a reason that anti-abortion campaigns rely entirely on appeals to emotion instead of facts. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposing-abortion-does-not-necessarily-require-support-for-babies-or-mothers-after-birth/834602.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/opposing-abortion-does-not-necessarily-require-support-for-babies-or-mothers-after-birth/834602.md?page=7)