Do you consider yourself pro-life or pro-choice?

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

When forced to choose between these binary terms, I'm pro-choice

Basically this.  I’m pro-choice but often find myself more horrified by some pro-choicers’ brazenness and rhetoric regarding the issue than anything I see on the pro-life side ... see Corbynite and Blairite.

Forgive me for taking the bait, but why exactly? If you see something as a fundamental human right key to a free society (as I do with abortion), what is so shocking about coming down firmly on one side? How would you suggest I approach the issue instead?

[Gracile]

Reading more into it, it seems like Democrats have moved away from the phrase "safe, legal, and rare" because they don't want abortion to be something that people apologize for or feel bad about. It's purely a messaging thing, not a policy difference. So I don't get the people who are saying, "I'm a moderate, I believe abortion should be safe, legal, and rare."

The phrase "safe, legal, and rare" was just a mushy expression from 90s centrist Democrats intended to placate the diverse wings of the party on abortion at a time before abortion became polarized along party lines. It never had much substantive policy value even then, and it is incredibly problematic to people on both sides of the abortion debate now. The "rare" part specifically implies to pro-choicers that abortion is a practice that should be discouraged and creates a contradiction to pro-lifers ("If there is nothing wrong with abortion that it should be legal then why does it need to be rare?"). It's a way of thinking that doesn't hold up in our current political climate, and the people saying that Democrats need to get back to that are missing much of the phrase's context.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The thing is, a vast swathe of the American populace does think that abortion should be relatively easy to access in terms of legalities but still discouraged through other means. It's not like other moderate-hero "compromise is key " positions that nobody in their right mind would actually be remotely happy with if they were enacted into policy; it actually is an attitude towards abortion that commands immense popular support. It's just not acceptable to either party's activist base.

[afleitch]

The General Social Survey (a big long running social attitudes monitor since the mid 70's using the same questions which I like for consistency) shows support for the proposition 'Abortion if a woman wants for any reason' which is the phrase that covers the most 'open' rights to an abortion that even people who are pro-choice might feel uncomfortable has been rising from 30% in the early 80's to 50% in 2018 and rocketed in millennials from 29% in 2005 to 54% today (they used to the group least likely to answer in favour back then)

Conversely the 'not even if the result of rape' response is at 21% and the 'not even if the mothers health is seriously endangered' (!) is at 10%. That's been remarkably stable since the early 80's.

So you have a core 50% in favour of effectively no limits at all (with some nuance I'm sure) and 20% in favour of limits except for the most commonly held extreme pro-life position.

The last forty years has basically been the pro-life movement shifting US public opinion to more open and permissive support of abortion than European counterparts. On that basis, they should perhaps be wary of what some states will legislate for if it's left up to them by the Supreme Court.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The General Social Survey (a big long running social attitudes monitor since the mid 70's using the same questions which I like for consistency) shows support for the proposition 'Abortion if a woman wants for any reason' which is the phrase that covers the most 'open' rights to an abortion that even people who are pro-choice might feel uncomfortable has been rising from 30% in the early 80's to 50% in 2018 and rocketed in millennials from 29% in 2005 to 54% today (they used to the group least likely to answer in favour back then)

Conversely the 'not even if the result of rape' response is at 21% and the 'not even if the mothers health is seriously endangered' (!) is at 10%. That's been remarkably stable since the early 80's.

So you have a core 50% in favour of effectively no limits at all (with some nuance I'm sure) and 20% in favour of limits except for the most commonly held extreme pro-life position.

The last forty years has basically been the pro-life movement shifting US public opinion to more open and permissive support of abortion than European counterparts. On that basis, they should perhaps be wary of what some states will legislate for if it's left up to them by the Supreme Court.

Does the General Social Survey question ask about legality or moral approbation?

[afleitch]

The General Social Survey (a big long running social attitudes monitor since the mid 70's using the same questions which I like for consistency) shows support for the proposition 'Abortion if a woman wants for any reason' which is the phrase that covers the most 'open' rights to an abortion that even people who are pro-choice might feel uncomfortable has been rising from 30% in the early 80's to 50% in 2018 and rocketed in millennials from 29% in 2005 to 54% today (they used to the group least likely to answer in favour back then)

Conversely the 'not even if the result of rape' response is at 21% and the 'not even if the mothers health is seriously endangered' (!) is at 10%. That's been remarkably stable since the early 80's.

So you have a core 50% in favour of effectively no limits at all (with some nuance I'm sure) and 20% in favour of limits except for the most commonly held extreme pro-life position.

The last forty years has basically been the pro-life movement shifting US public opinion to more open and permissive support of abortion than European counterparts. On that basis, they should perhaps be wary of what some states will legislate for if it's left up to them by the Supreme Court.

Does the General Social Survey question ask about legality or moral approbation?

It's strength and weakness is that the main questions are frozen. So there's a question on abortion if a woman is 'not married and does not wish to marry.' As a set of questions abortion falls under policy, rather than morality which again may be of it's time, though some new questions have been added.

It did ask for moral opposition to abortion in it's most recent findings. 29% said they did (immoral), 28% said they did not. The rest answered 'it depends'. Only 30% said it should be harder to obtain an abortion.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The General Social Survey (a big long running social attitudes monitor since the mid 70's using the same questions which I like for consistency) shows support for the proposition 'Abortion if a woman wants for any reason' which is the phrase that covers the most 'open' rights to an abortion that even people who are pro-choice might feel uncomfortable has been rising from 30% in the early 80's to 50% in 2018 and rocketed in millennials from 29% in 2005 to 54% today (they used to the group least likely to answer in favour back then)

Conversely the 'not even if the result of rape' response is at 21% and the 'not even if the mothers health is seriously endangered' (!) is at 10%. That's been remarkably stable since the early 80's.

So you have a core 50% in favour of effectively no limits at all (with some nuance I'm sure) and 20% in favour of limits except for the most commonly held extreme pro-life position.

The last forty years has basically been the pro-life movement shifting US public opinion to more open and permissive support of abortion than European counterparts. On that basis, they should perhaps be wary of what some states will legislate for if it's left up to them by the Supreme Court.

Does the General Social Survey question ask about legality or moral approbation?

It's strength and weakness is that the main questions are frozen. So there's a question on abortion if a woman is 'not married and does not wish to marry.' As a set of questions abortion falls under policy, rather than morality which again may be of it's time, though some new questions have been added.

It did ask for moral opposition to abortion in it's most recent findings. 29% said they did (immoral), 28% said they did not. The rest answered 'it depends'. Only 30% said it should be harder to obtain an abortion.

That makes sense. "It depends" is definitely in practice the plurality opinion of people in my life I've had these conversations with, whether they define themselves as pro-life or pro-choice.

People with strong pro-choice political views are definitely getting more reluctant to concede pro-life moral premises. I'm not convinced that that makes a moderate position on abortion a surefire loser with a general electorate, but it does mean that politicians who bother to stake out strong abortion stances to begin with tend to sort more firmly into one camp or another than they did in the past.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

100% pro-life (NO EXCEPTIONS!!), and I'd probably write someone in this year if this issue weren't so important to me.

[John Dule]

100% pro-life (NO EXCEPTIONS!!), and I'd probably write someone in this year if this issue weren't so important to me.

If you could save either a tray of 1,000 fertilized human embryos or a baby from a burning building, which would you choose? Keep in mind that you just said NO EXCEPTIONS.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

100% pro-life (NO EXCEPTIONS!!), and I'd probably write someone in this year if this issue weren't so important to me.

If you could save either a tray of 1,000 fertilized human embryos or a baby from a burning building, which would you choose? Keep in mind that you just said NO EXCEPTIONS.

I would save the 1000 lives (provided they weren't being held for research or something, but were actually being allowed to continue to live and develop), but I hate these sorts of theoretical questions that are unlikely to happen.  Also, this is why I oppose IVF- they make countless lives and just discard most of them.

[Kingpoleon]

100% pro-life (NO EXCEPTIONS!!), and I'd probably write someone in this year if this issue weren't so important to me.

So, with a six seat conservative majority, and the oldest conservative Justice being 71, you still don’t feel comfortable?

Also, I should point out that I have met one person ever who was consistently pro-life. If I thought aborting a four day old fetus was the same as killing a newborn, I don’t think I could oppose attacks on abortion clinics unless I was a pacifist. Since very few people do support such attacks, I found it doubtful that many people really think it’s comparable to mass murder of newborn babies.

[SWE]

100% pro-life (NO EXCEPTIONS!!), and I'd probably write someone in this year if this issue weren't so important to me.

If you could save either a tray of 1,000 fertilized human embryos or a baby from a burning building, which would you choose? Keep in mind that you just said NO EXCEPTIONS.

Even if ExtremeRepublican didn't bite the bullet and gave the answer you treated as the obvious default, this is an awful metaphor that means nothing. Most people would save a human over a dog but that's not a defense of killing dogs.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

Pro-choice, but abortion is an issue I avoid discussing at all costs and don't feel particularly strongly since I can see the reasoning behind both sides, and they are fundamentally irreconcilable views depending on where you are coming from.

If you are pro-life, you sincerely believe that you are preventing the murder of a person, and I can see this perspective because, well, without an abortion, that would have become a person. And we don't have an objective answer to when life begins or if we have souls or not, so if I think about that too much, it can make me pretty uncomfortable. This is why I really hate it when fellow pro-choicers say things like, "You just hate women/want to control other people's bodies!" because it's just such a dumb accusation.

This is unfortunately an issue that will never be resolved, and two people can spend all of eternity arguing about it, but they will never agree or resolve their differences because it is just such an irreconcilable difference of viewpoints.

This is a fairly accurate summation of my views on abortion as well.

I am pro-choice politically but thinking about the abortion procedure itself does make me uncomfortable a bit, so yeah I don't talk about it much. I feel as though there are other ways to limit abortion without outright banning it. I think that there should increased sex education in middle school and/or high school, free contraceptives, stipend for women thinking about getting abortions, increasing the minimum wage in this country because poorer women get abortions at a higher rate, etc.

[Kingpoleon]

Even if ExtremeRepublican didn't bite the bullet and gave the answer you treated as the obvious default, this is an awful metaphor that means nothing. Most people would save a human over a dog but that's not a defense of killing dogs.

The pro life movement has taken on in recent years the idea that killing a fetus, even as a zygote, is not just manslaughter, or some lesser form of murder, but perfectly and totally equal to killing a newborn baby.

It’s without legal (or Scriptural) precedent, but it’s certainly not an unusual stance.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I am pro-life with the caveat of the big three exceptions.

[I’m not Stu]

Pro-choice, but I support restrictions on late-term abortion (with the 3 major exceptions).

[Turbo Flame]

Pro-choice.

But I think to prevent abortions from ever happening in the first place, Medical Services must provide provide birth control, sex education, and social services

[MarkD]

I am pro-choice, but I am not pro-Roe v. Wade, nor am I pro-Planned Parenthood v. Casey. So of all the conversations had so far on this thread, this is the most interesting one.

Comparing the ratio on this poll to the Roe v Wade poll is a really strong indicator of how judicially bad that ruling was.

But this is atlas , so maybe Roe is(judicially) good?. But yeah it either shows pollsters are very wrong about the actual popularity of Roe, or the American people don't really know what Roe is.

Or they don't care about the "judicial soundness" of the decision and only care about the consequences.

More people need to read Judge Learned Hand's essay, "How Far Is a Judge Free to Render a Decision?" Judge Robert Bork's book "The Tempting of America," and Chapter 3 of Prof. John Hart Ely's "Democracy and Distrust."

[YE]

Pro-life but a full on abortion ban has unintended consequences and I do think a lot of the rhetoric from the right and for the matter the online left on this issue is really extreme.

[John Dule]

100% pro-life (NO EXCEPTIONS!!), and I'd probably write someone in this year if this issue weren't so important to me.

If you could save either a tray of 1,000 fertilized human embryos or a baby from a burning building, which would you choose? Keep in mind that you just said NO EXCEPTIONS.

Even if ExtremeRepublican didn't bite the bullet and gave the answer you treated as the obvious default, this is an awful metaphor that means nothing. Most people would save a human over a dog but that's not a defense of killing dogs.

The difference, of course, is that pro-lifers argue that fetuses are people and should have all of the exact same rights as a person. If someone were making that case about dogs, then choosing between a human and a dog should logically be a choice between equals. It's a completely valid thought experiment, though in this case all it proved was that ExtremeRepublican is ideologically consistent in his wacko beliefs.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

Even if ExtremeRepublican didn't bite the bullet and gave the answer you treated as the obvious default, this is an awful metaphor that means nothing. Most people would save a human over a dog but that's not a defense of killing dogs.

The difference, of course, is that pro-lifers argue that fetuses are people and should have all of the exact same rights as a person. If someone were making that case about dogs, then choosing between a human and a dog should logically be a choice between equals. It's a completely valid thought experiment, though in this case all it proved was that ExtremeRepublican is ideologically consistent in his wacko beliefs.

And being ideologically consistent in one's wacko beliefs is all you care about, isn't it?

[John Dule]

Even if ExtremeRepublican didn't bite the bullet and gave the answer you treated as the obvious default, this is an awful metaphor that means nothing. Most people would save a human over a dog but that's not a defense of killing dogs.

The difference, of course, is that pro-lifers argue that fetuses are people and should have all of the exact same rights as a person. If someone were making that case about dogs, then choosing between a human and a dog should logically be a choice between equals. It's a completely valid thought experiment, though in this case all it proved was that ExtremeRepublican is ideologically consistent in his wacko beliefs.

And being ideologically consistent in one's wacko beliefs is all you care about, isn't it?

Yes. I was not saying that as a criticism.

[Kingpoleon]

The difference, of course, is that pro-lifers argue that fetuses are people and should have all of the exact same rights as a person. If someone were making that case about dogs, then choosing between a human and a dog should logically be a choice between equals. It's a completely valid thought experiment, though in this case all it proved was that ExtremeRepublican is ideologically consistent in his wacko beliefs.

I should note: it is perfectly okay to be against abortion in all cases without having to say you believe a zygote is entirely morally equal to a fetus at thirty five weeks, just like it’s okay to say that it is less evil to punch someone once in the face than to beat them unconscious.

[courts]

pro-choice

[CEO Mindset]

Pro-choice(normal)