Opinion of abortion and cannabis

[buritobr]

There is already the question related to abortion.
But since I perceive that usually, people who support legalization of abortion support the legalization of weed too, and people who support that abortion should be illegal think that weed should be illegal too, I want to verify if there is anyone here who thinks that one should be legal and the other should be illegal.

[John Dule]

Both should be legal. In fact, I have more moral objections to marijuana than I do to abortion.

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

Pro-choice on both counts.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

This is the most reductionist poll I've ever seen on here.

[John Dule]

This is the most reductionist poll I've ever seen on here.

How so?

[darklordoftech]

Pro-choice on both counts.

[dead0man]

(I read it as "cannibals", and I was like "whoa, that's dark! Eating fetuses?")

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

This is the most reductionist poll I've ever seen on here.

How so?

Because there is a wide array of possible policy preferences on abortion, and I guess on cannabis too.

[John Dule]

This is the most reductionist poll I've ever seen on here.

How so?

Because there is a wide array of possible policy preferences on abortion, and I guess on cannabis too.

Eh, I'm ok with forcing people to choose a side on this one. The most obnoxious people in the abortion debate, to me, are the ones who waffle over how many weeks the limit should be placed at. Or worse, the people who say "I'm against abortion except in cases of rape or incest." I don't have a ton of interest in this whole debate, but for God's sake, be consistent.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Fourth option, but it depends on what the meaning of "should" is.

Or worse, the people who say "I'm against abortion except in cases of rape or incest."

Entirely agreed. I'm willing to accept far more liberal overall policy on abortion than I'd ideally prefer if that's the price of avoiding this disgusting double standard.

[SWE]

Option 1. Both are good things

[AncestralDemocrat.]

Option 4.

[1978 New Wave skinny trousers]

Both should be legal.

[Santander]

Pro-choice (not pro-abortion), and anti-marijuana.

[Santander]

This is the most reductionist poll I've ever seen on here.

How so?

Because there is a wide array of possible policy preferences on abortion, and I guess on cannabis too.

Eh, I'm ok with forcing people to choose a side on this one. The most obnoxious people in the abortion debate, to me, are the ones who waffle over how many weeks the limit should be placed at. Or worse, the people who say "I'm against abortion except in cases of rape or incest." I don't have a ton of interest in this whole debate, but for God's sake, be consistent.

The rape/incest exception is justified by the right to self-defense.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Pro choice on both counts although I care much more about abortion.

[John Dule]

This is the most reductionist poll I've ever seen on here.

How so?

Because there is a wide array of possible policy preferences on abortion, and I guess on cannabis too.

Eh, I'm ok with forcing people to choose a side on this one. The most obnoxious people in the abortion debate, to me, are the ones who waffle over how many weeks the limit should be placed at. Or worse, the people who say "I'm against abortion except in cases of rape or incest." I don't have a ton of interest in this whole debate, but for God's sake, be consistent.

The rape/incest exception is justified by the right to self-defense.

Lol, how so? Does the castle doctrine extend to the uterus?

[buritobr]

This is the most reductionist poll I've ever seen on here.

How so?

Because there is a wide array of possible policy preferences on abortion, and I guess on cannabis too.

Yes, there is a list of policy preferences.
Concerning abortion, there are two extremes: at one extreme, there are the ones who think that even contraceptives are against life, at the other extreme, there are the ones who think that even a 8 month fetus could be aborted. In the middle, there are the ones who think the pill after sex is acceptable but the abortion not, and the ones who think that abortion is acceptable until 3 months. There are also divergences concerning the situations: there are the ones who think that abortion should always be illegal, there are the ones who think that abortion should be legal in cases of rape, pregnancy risky to the woman's life and acephalia, there are the ones who think that abortion is a issue of choice. But to keep things simple, it is possible to say that people who think abortion is a choice issue and that should be legal until 3 months can be considered someone who supports legal abortion.

Concerning cannabis, there are also different policy preferences. Some countries forbid cannabis even for medicinal uses. Some countries alllow cannabis for medicinal uses. In Portugal, it is legal to hold small quantities of cannabis, but not to sell. In Netherlands, it is possible to buy and consum cannabis in the coffee shops. In Uruguay, each person can buy a limited quantity of cannabis in the drugstores. Although even in Netherlands and Uruguay the cannabis is 100% legal, it is possible to say that people who support these models are pro-legalization.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

This is the most reductionist poll I've ever seen on here.

How so?

Because there is a wide array of possible policy preferences on abortion, and I guess on cannabis too.

Eh, I'm ok with forcing people to choose a side on this one. The most obnoxious people in the abortion debate, to me, are the ones who waffle over how many weeks the limit should be placed at. Or worse, the people who say "I'm against abortion except in cases of rape or incest." I don't have a ton of interest in this whole debate, but for God's sake, be consistent.

The rape/incest exception is justified by the right to self-defense.

I'm familiar with this line of thinking, but it only makes sense if you accept the "tacit consent" premise, which I find to be misogynistic. If you don't accept that premise, there's not any other reason why pregnancy from rape constitutes being attacked but pregnancy from consensual sex that wasn't intended to result in pregnancy doesn't.

To my mind, the correct application of the self-defense doctrine to abortion exemptions is in the case of abortion for maternal health.

[Kingpoleon]

(I read it as "cannibals", and I was like "whoa, that's dark! Eating fetuses?")

It is hardly an unnatural conclusion. If fetuses are fundamentally closer to animals than humans, which is a tenement of pro-choice arguments, then eating them can hardly be considered cannibalism.

Of course, such a conclusion would likely only be reached by the likes of Peter Singer.

[DC Al Fine]

#4, although I honestly can't think of an issue I'm more ambivalent on than cannabis.

My only strong cannabis opinion is that alcohol is the superior drug *shrug*

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

(I read it as "cannibals", and I was like "whoa, that's dark! Eating fetuses?")

It is hardly an unnatural conclusion. If fetuses are fundamentally closer to animals than humans, which is a tenement of pro-choice arguments, then eating them can hardly be considered cannibalism.

Of course, such a conclusion would likely only be reached by the likes of Peter Singer.

I actually know a religious (Episcopalian) pro-choicer who does see fetuses as a form of animal life, but her takeaway from this is that abortion should be assessed with at least the same level of moral scrutiny that we give to killing animals, rather than having the status of the fetus actively and insistently denigrated.

[Santander]

This is the most reductionist poll I've ever seen on here.

How so?

Because there is a wide array of possible policy preferences on abortion, and I guess on cannabis too.

Eh, I'm ok with forcing people to choose a side on this one. The most obnoxious people in the abortion debate, to me, are the ones who waffle over how many weeks the limit should be placed at. Or worse, the people who say "I'm against abortion except in cases of rape or incest." I don't have a ton of interest in this whole debate, but for God's sake, be consistent.

The rape/incest exception is justified by the right to self-defense.

I'm familiar with this line of thinking, but it only makes sense if you accept the "tacit consent" premise, which I find to be misogynistic. If you don't accept that premise, there's not any other reason why pregnancy from rape constitutes being attacked but pregnancy from consensual sex that wasn't intended to result in pregnancy doesn't.

To my mind, the correct application of the self-defense doctrine to abortion exemptions is in the case of abortion for maternal health.

Is it truly consent if you don't also acknowledge the potential consequences?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

This is the most reductionist poll I've ever seen on here.

How so?

Because there is a wide array of possible policy preferences on abortion, and I guess on cannabis too.

Eh, I'm ok with forcing people to choose a side on this one. The most obnoxious people in the abortion debate, to me, are the ones who waffle over how many weeks the limit should be placed at. Or worse, the people who say "I'm against abortion except in cases of rape or incest." I don't have a ton of interest in this whole debate, but for God's sake, be consistent.

The rape/incest exception is justified by the right to self-defense.

Not really. The only moral justification for banning abortion is that a fetus is a human being. That isn't affected by how abhorrent the circumstances were that caused that fetus to come into existence. What the reticence in cases of rape or incest betrays is doubt by most people who propose to ban abortion as to whether the unborn are human beings.

[Santander]

This is the most reductionist poll I've ever seen on here.

How so?

Because there is a wide array of possible policy preferences on abortion, and I guess on cannabis too.

Eh, I'm ok with forcing people to choose a side on this one. The most obnoxious people in the abortion debate, to me, are the ones who waffle over how many weeks the limit should be placed at. Or worse, the people who say "I'm against abortion except in cases of rape or incest." I don't have a ton of interest in this whole debate, but for God's sake, be consistent.

The rape/incest exception is justified by the right to self-defense.

Not really. The only moral justification for banning abortion is that a fetus is a human being. That isn't affected by how abhorrent the circumstances were that caused that fetus to come into existence. What the reticence in cases of rape or incest betrays is doubt by most people who propose to ban abortion as to whether the unborn are human beings.

The right to self-defense extends to situations where the "attacker" is not culpable.