What will be the status of Abortion in the year 2115?

[Blue3]

A hundred years from now (probably after we're dead, if average life expectancy doesn't dramatically change)... what will be the status of Abortion?

It's one issue that hasn't gone away, even after people thought it was settled law, decades ago. People remain divided, with only the occasional, little swing one way only to reverse itself before long. People can't really seem to agree if it will ever have a solution, an "end" to the argument.

But a hundred years is a long time.
*Could have another religious awakening, for traditional beliefs.
*Could have the atheist, pro-science crowd become pro-life, due to deeper understandings of neuroscience and human consciousness that weren't entirely expected.
*Could have liberal and libertarian activists become pro-life due to an expanding legal definition of personhood that by the 22nd century includes several non-human animal species and maybe even some advanced AI, as well as transhuman hybrids.
*Could have a pro-choice religious awakening,  one that has the denominations/religions on the rise in that day change their stance to pro-choice, a new "feminist" mainstream religious movement.
*Could have an increasingly atheist and pro-choice demographic.
*Could have a huge influx of pro-life immigrants, as refugees from global climate change.
*Could have a near-utopian society where nearly every problem is solved, but disagreements on values still divide Americans, and the most divisive one is still abortion. With economic and foreign policy concerns a thing of the past, the social issues that the country is still divided on is now the only thing left to debate and talk about, creating just more bitter resentment and division with the country nearly on the brink of another civil war over it, and abortion is still at the center.
*Could still be a very divisive issue, but compared to the other huge problems the country is facing, hardly anyone even brings it up in even politics anymore, and maybe no longer even corresponds evenly with the parties.

We don't know. But we can speculate.

What do you think will be the legal and political status a hundred years from now? Will it be settled? What will the general atmosphere around it be? Would it still be big in politics, including presidential litmus tests for each candidate?

[Skill and Chance]

A hundred years from now (probably after we're dead, if average life expectancy doesn't dramatically change)... what will be the status of Abortion?

It's one issue that hasn't gone away, even after people thought it was settled law, decades ago. People remain divided, with only the occasional, little swing one way only to reverse itself before long. People can't really seem to agree if it will ever have a solution, an "end" to the argument.

But a hundred years is a long time.
*Could have another religious awakening, for traditional beliefs.
*Could have the atheist, pro-science crowd become pro-life, due to deeper understandings of neuroscience and human consciousness that weren't entirely expected.
*Could have liberal and libertarian activists become pro-life due to an expanding legal definition of personhood that by the 22nd century includes several non-human animal species and maybe even some advanced AI, as well as transhuman hybrids.
*Could have a pro-choice religious awakening,  one that has the denominations/religions on the rise in that day change their stance to pro-choice, a new "feminist" mainstream religious movement.
*Could have an increasingly atheist and pro-choice demographic.
*Could have a huge influx of pro-life immigrants, as refugees from global climate change.
*Could have a near-utopian society where nearly every problem is solved, but disagreements on values still divide Americans, and the most divisive one is still abortion. With economic and foreign policy concerns a thing of the past, the social issues that the country is still divided on is now the only thing left to debate and talk about, creating just more bitter resentment and division with the country nearly on the brink of another civil war over it, and abortion is still at the center.
*Could still be a very divisive issue, but compared to the other huge problems the country is facing, hardly anyone even brings it up in even politics anymore, and maybe no longer even corresponds evenly with the parties.

We don't know. But we can speculate.

What do you think will be the legal and political status a hundred years from now? Will it be settled? What will the general atmosphere around it be? Would it still be big in politics, including presidential litmus tests for each candidate?

I expect it will be a competition between the first 3 bolded ones, leading to a resolution where 1st trimester abortion remains legal but in an overall legal landscape that looks quite pro-life compared to today.  I think most of the transition happens in the near future the next time Republicans have a federal trifecta.  Because they make impressive-looking progress but don't get all the way to overturning Roe, a new equilibrium sets in wherein all but the most activist on both sides turn to other issues. 

[Clark Kent]

I expect technology to advance to a point where abortion will be completely unnecessary, and thus banned.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Illegal.  I think the next president will appoint enough SCOTUS justices to overturn Roe, and that some of the scientific crowd will eventually convert.  I'll say Roe is gone in ~10 years and it is illegal nationwide in ~50.

[Yelnoc]

Illegal.  I think the next president will appoint enough SCOTUS justices to overturn Roe, and that some of the scientific crowd will eventually convert.  I'll say Roe is gone in ~10 years and it is illegal nationwide in ~50.

Any particular reason why, or is that just want you want to happen?

[Crumpets]

I expect technology to advance to a point where abortion will be completely unnecessary, and thus banned.

Something like this, except for the last line. Fetal defects will be curable in the womb, and IUD-style technology will be advanced to the point that unexpected pregnancies will be much, much more rare in the developed world. That being said, I still don't see it being banned outright.

[Clark Kent]

I expect technology to advance to a point where abortion will be completely unnecessary, and thus banned.

Something like this, except for the last line. Fetal defects will be curable in the womb, and IUD-style technology will be advanced to the point that unexpected pregnancies will be much, much more rare in the developed world. That being said, I still don't see it being banned outright.

I think that abortion would be banned at that point because, if it's completely unnecessary and there isn't really consensus about whether a fetus is a person or not, it would be better to err on the side of caution and not risk killing a person.

[Figueira]

It will still be one of the most controversial and divisive issues. I'm not sure about the legal status, though.

[bobloblaw]

Probably illegal.

Most of the western world and then the third world will be in serious population decline after 2050.

[Higgs]

I expect technology to advance to a point where abortion will be completely unnecessary, and thus banned.

Something like this, except for the last line. Fetal defects will be curable in the womb, and IUD-style technology will be advanced to the point that unexpected pregnancies will be much, much more rare in the developed world. That being said, I still don't see it being banned outright.

I think that abortion would be banned at that point because, if it's completely unnecessary and there isn't really consensus about whether a fetus is a person or not, it would be better to err on the side of caution and not risk killing a person.

Agreed.

[Blue3]

Any more thoughts?

[RightBehind]

I don't see it being illegal, not in the U.S. at least if atheism is on the rise like it is now.

[RINO Tom]

I don't see it being illegal, not in the U.S. at least if atheism is on the rise like it is now.

Not to nitpick, but atheism isn't really on the rise at all.  Leaving organized religion is, but poll after poll shows that a large majority of "Nones" believe in a higher power/creator of sorts.

Anyway, I really have no idea.  Fascinating to think about.  I could easily see a future where "liberals" are very pro-life ... would have made sense from the start.

[Lord_Bubbington]

I expect technology to advance to a point where abortion will be completely unnecessary, and thus banned.

[Illiniwek]

As pro-life as I am, I see no way that we will be abortion-free in 2115.

[Gunnar Larsson]

I don't see it being illegal, not in the U.S. at least if atheism is on the rise like it is now.

Not to nitpick, but atheism isn't really on the rise at all.  Leaving organized religion is, but poll after poll shows that a large majority of "Nones" believe in a higher power/creator of sorts.

Anyway, I really have no idea.  Fascinating to think about.  I could easily see a future where "liberals" are very pro-life ... would have made sense from the start.

Religion polls are notoriously hard to interpret, as people often are quite vague about what they believe in (or not). If you are neither a teenager nor a member of an organised religion then you probably do not spend that much time thinking about it. Anyway, leaving that aside I would assume that the correlation between pro-choice and not being a member of an organised religion is fairly high. Religious countries are much more likely to be anti-abortion.

My guess about 2115 would be something along the line that abortion is no longer such a big issue (as is the case in most countries where religious groups are less influential). However, there would still be plenty to talk about when it comes to reproductive issues.

[Medal506]

The Same way people view slavery today will be similar to how abortion will be viewed as later

[RINO Tom]

The Same way people view slavery today will be similar to how abortion will be viewed as later

While I disagree with this on so many levels, it is definitely interesting to look back at the beginning of the pro-life movement.  It's supporters absolutely branded themselves as the ideological descendants of the abolitionists, arguing that the characterization of fetuses as less than human and undeserving of full rights was eerily similar to how proponents of slavery spoke of Blacks ("Northern Republicans care so much about these slaves but couldn't care less about starving Irish immigrants in NYC" isn't a dramatically different criticism in style than "Republicans are pro-life until the baby leaves the womb, then they don't care").

Again, I do not adhere to the comparison.  At all.  But it's worth noting that that's how they felt.

[Blue3]

The Same way people view slavery today will be similar to how abortion will be viewed as later

While I disagree with this on so many levels, it is definitely interesting to look back at the beginning of the pro-life movement.  It's supporters absolutely branded themselves as the ideological descendants of the abolitionists, arguing that the characterization of fetuses as less than human and undeserving of full rights was eerily similar to how proponents of slavery spoke of Blacks ("Northern Republicans care so much about these slaves but couldn't care less about starving Irish immigrants in NYC" isn't a dramatically different criticism in style than "Republicans are pro-life until the baby leaves the womb, then they don't care").

Again, I do not adhere to the comparison.  At all.  But it's worth noting that that's how they felt.

Many still argue it that way.

[RINO Tom]

The Same way people view slavery today will be similar to how abortion will be viewed as later

While I disagree with this on so many levels, it is definitely interesting to look back at the beginning of the pro-life movement.  It's supporters absolutely branded themselves as the ideological descendants of the abolitionists, arguing that the characterization of fetuses as less than human and undeserving of full rights was eerily similar to how proponents of slavery spoke of Blacks ("Northern Republicans care so much about these slaves but couldn't care less about starving Irish immigrants in NYC" isn't a dramatically different criticism in style than "Republicans are pro-life until the baby leaves the womb, then they don't care").

Again, I do not adhere to the comparison.  At all.  But it's worth noting that that's how they felt.

Many still argue it that way.

It wasn't quite as "in" for Democratic partisans to push the party-switch narrative back then, so I think it was a more respected comparison.

[Blue3]

Any new thoughts?

[Person Man]

The Same way people view slavery today will be similar to how abortion will be viewed as later

While I disagree with this on so many levels, it is definitely interesting to look back at the beginning of the pro-life movement.  It's supporters absolutely branded themselves as the ideological descendants of the abolitionists, arguing that the characterization of fetuses as less than human and undeserving of full rights was eerily similar to how proponents of slavery spoke of Blacks ("Northern Republicans care so much about these slaves but couldn't care less about starving Irish immigrants in NYC" isn't a dramatically different criticism in style than "Republicans are pro-life until the baby leaves the womb, then they don't care").

Again, I do not adhere to the comparison.  At all.  But it's worth noting that that's how they felt.

Many still argue it that way.

It wasn't quite as "in" for Democratic partisans to push the party-switch narrative back then, so I think it was a more respected comparison.

Was it always that the Republicans were the pro-life and the Democrats were the pro-choice party? I know that by 1984, that was the case.

[Kingpoleon]

The Same way people view slavery today will be similar to how abortion will be viewed as later

While I disagree with this on so many levels, it is definitely interesting to look back at the beginning of the pro-life movement.  It's supporters absolutely branded themselves as the ideological descendants of the abolitionists, arguing that the characterization of fetuses as less than human and undeserving of full rights was eerily similar to how proponents of slavery spoke of Blacks ("Northern Republicans care so much about these slaves but couldn't care less about starving Irish immigrants in NYC" isn't a dramatically different criticism in style than "Republicans are pro-life until the baby leaves the womb, then they don't care").

Again, I do not adhere to the comparison.  At all.  But it's worth noting that that's how they felt.

Many still argue it that way.

It wasn't quite as "in" for Democratic partisans to push the party-switch narrative back then, so I think it was a more respected comparison.

Was it always that the Republicans were the pro-life and the Democrats were the pro-choice party? I know that by 1984, that was the case.

Nixon, Ford, and H. W. were all at one time or another pro-choice.

[Skill and Chance]

Any new thoughts?

Pretty clearly more restrictive/less accepted than today, but not a federal ban.  If Trump gets reelected, the red states will very likely be able to outlaw it and have it upheld in court.

[SingingAnalyst]

Great question, and brilliant, well-thought out alternative scenarios.

2115 is a long way away.

I think one major factor will be the role of Islam in the West. Abortion does not seem to me to be a "signature" issue in Islam, as it is in the Roman Catholic Church and among Evangelicals. Still, especially considering the evolving relationship between Western feminism and Islam, it is difficult to predict how Islam will tilt the discussion / legal status of abortion.

Leaving the role of Islam aside, certain predictions can be made.

1. Even people who are personally pro-life will be less and less supportive of laws that prohibit abortion or make its access difficult.

2. Pro-life crisis pregnancy centers will still be a thing, existing alongside groups such as Planned Parenthood. Sadly, and to the detriment of women and children, these two groups will still see each other as enemies, rather than allies in the fight against unwanted pregnancy and for dignity of pregnant women and new mothers, and their children.

3. Legal opposition to abortion will be pretty much confined to conservative, practicing Catholics and (white) Evangelicals.

4. It will be legal, and about as prevalent as today (though the declining number of abortion practitioners will make access difficult for many women, particularly rural and poor women), and will be a less discussed issue. As of June 2017, I believe both sides have pretty much played themselves out.

A comparison was made between the abortion and slavery. I believe abortion will be more like the drinking issue: such a major issue 100 years ago, hardly a blip now.