Why We All Need to Be Pro-Abortion

[Josie]

I thought I saw it in a Pew Research report but I can't find it there. The nearest I can find is this Gallup report

Broader Support for Abortion Rights Continues Post-Dobbs

More Americans, and particularly Democrats, support abortion rights and identify as "pro-choice" than they did before the Dobbs leak.

news.gallup.com

and even that doesn't show 88%. As for the word 'abomination', no report will say that. I used it because the poster I was answering used that word.

The next to the last chart in the Gallup report should astound everybody. In polling all women 40% of all women think abortion should be legal in all cases. That's what overturning Roe did. Pre Dobbs about 10 to 15 % of all women thought abortion should be legal under any circumstance. Now it is 40% !!!!! That represents a lot of very angry women.



View attachment 67517611

I think what you probably remember is 88% of women think abortion should be legal in some circumstances. I'm in that 88%. The number goes down overall after the first trimester.

 

[911Sparky]

This is my stance. And will remain my stance.

Because no one WANTS to have an abortion. Because abortion does have risks. Because women who have abortions are being forced to make choices they never wanted to make in the first place.

The risks to abortion are lower than the risks of pregnancy - but higher than if pregnancy can be avoided.

So no, I’m not pro-abortion. I’m pro-better birth control and better access to birth control so that women don’t have to make difficult choices that they never wanted to make in the first place. I’m pro-better maternal healthcare. I’m pro-science growing and expanding so we can have better outcomes for the wanted pregnancies that face horrible diagnosis.

I’m not pro-abortion. No more than I’m pro-appendectomies, pro-chemo therapy or pro-root canals.

Well said, thank you. I personally will continue to use the phrase pro choice.

 

[weaver2]

The worst part of the pro-abortion lobby is how cold hearted they are about the taking of an entire lifetime. they do not even want to admit that the baby is human or alive until it exits the birth canal, as if it at that point is magically sprinkled with pixie dust and given life. Up until then they consider it a lump of fetal tissue.

That statement represents the propaganda put out by the busy little anti-abortion mill which grinds out lies about women on a daily basis. The truth is that not one single pro-choice person, male or female, thinks a fetus is not a living entity. From the zygote stage to birth every pro-choice person knows it is a living organism and the fact is that until the embryo stage it is a clump of cells, dividing and expanding into the three layers of ectoderm, mesoderm and endoderm that will eventually grow into all the parts to make a viable fetus.

To them, abortion is just a casual choice, such as shall I drink a can of coke or a can of pepsi. Many women who have abortions deal with emotional issues over terminating the pregancy for years. I was no big fan of former president Bill Clinton, however he as least moderated his pro-choice stance with "Abortion should be legal but rare."

Every woman recognizes that the entity she is carrying will eventually be a child. And no woman regards abortion as a casual choice. Either you are lying about women or you simply do not know any women with an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy or the difficulty of making a decision to abort. Your vision of women as stupid and uncaring, ignorant of the basic biology of fetal development is straight out of the nonsense promoted by the anti-abortion movement. The alternative is that you have emotional and psychological issues about women. Which is it? Women are stupid and men or you are psychologically damaged. Your vision of women doesn't allow for any other interpretation.

 

[choiceone]

She has every right to not get pregnant in the first place. We have the technology to accomplish this. She willingly surrendered her autonomy when she surrendered her body. To call it "draconian" is saying you want it both ways. Life doesn't work that way.

Since contraception is not 100% effective, including even tubal ligation, you have made the perfect case for girls and women to decide never to have sex with any men again, and therefore never to marry but to choose to divorce their husbands as a threat to their health. What is it that the South Korean feminists have been saying? No marriage, no sex, no babies . . . . I've forgotten the fourth point, I guess.

If women want sexual satisfaction, self-gratification and other women are possibilities. The notion that some guys think having heterosexual intercourse is a woman "surrendering" her body sounds as sexist as the 1950s.

Have all the life you men want without women. I dare you.

 

[screenwriter]

You do realize contraceptive products have a disclaimer regarding not being 100% effective, right?

Individual autonomy is not automatically surrendered just because one has sex of becomes pregnant. I'm not sure where you get that absurd idea.

So what? What difference does that make? Or are you trying to make an appeal to emotion?

No mercy or regard for the pregnant

Do you have the same stance on warning labels on Cigarettes? Your statement really doesn't support your argument unless you're actually wanting people to be irresponsible.
Where do you get the idea that it's okay to dispose of a unique human? Talk about absurd ideas. "Do as you wish is a very Peter Pan attitude - and then to do away with another human life

Since contraception is not 100% effective, including even tubal ligation, you have made the perfect case for girls and women to decide never to have sex with any men again, and therefore never to marry but to choose to divorce their husbands as a threat to their health. What is it that the South Korean feminists have been saying? No marriage, no sex, no babies . . . . I've forgotten the fourth point, I guess.

If women want sexual satisfaction, self-gratification and other women are possibilities. The notion that some guys think having heterosexual intercourse is a woman "surrendering" her body sounds as sexist as the 1950s.

Have all the life you men want without women. I dare you.

 

[choiceone]

I agree - they very well may reject the concept of abortion on demand. There's an observable fact that gets completely glossed over: The psychological impact on the society. Every barometer we have for psychological health has plummeted since the introduction of Roe. There's on in particular that I think is quite telling. Before Roe, there was no such thing as a random school shooting. There were shootings on school grounds, from the time of the first schools, but they were always the result of grievances between individuals - they were also limited to the individuals. The random shooter appeared on the scene pretty much the same time as Roe. It's easy to look up - there's a fair amount of data on school shooters. When you analyze the data, it's easy to spot when the random shootings started. To justify abortion, you have to dehumanize the offspring. Thing is, you dehumanize one - you dehumanize them all. Makes a person ask - are our children acting out on this dehumanization?

Dehumanize women again and discover that it's much easier for women to give up men than vice versa. You are dehumanizing women. It worked when they had inferior educational opportunities and educations, inferior employment opportunities, etc., but it won't work now. Don't overrate what men have to offer women.

 

[Gordy327]

Do you have the same stance on warning labels on Cigarettes? Your statement really doesn't support your argument unless you're actually wanting people to be irresponsible.

Strawman argument.

Where do you get the idea that it's okay to dispose of a unique human? Talk about absurd ideas.

What's wrong with it? If it's OK for the pregnant woman to choose, that's her business. It's certainly not yours!

"Do as you wish is a very Peter Pan attitude - and then to do away with another human life

Emotional rhetoric.

 

[quip]

Many abortion supporters identify as “pro-choice”, but choice is simply not enough. “Choice” assumes that everyone can get an abortion, and someone just has to choose whether or not they want one. It fails to address the many structural and societal factors that leave people with very few or no choices at all.

Pro-choice is a political and ideological position. We fight for all (pro-fetus as well as pro-abortionists) women's liberty to choose to abort, if she so desires...in all vicinities of the USA. The practical matters of poverty and other societal factor affecting this choice is complex and an issue reaching far beyond the sole issue of abortion freedoms. Moreover, how exactly would transforming choicers into pro-abortionists make these societal factors less daunting?

It’s not uncommon for people to say “I’m pro-choice, not pro-abortion.” If you are one of those folks or know someone who is, we know your heart is in the right place. But this framing is hurtful to people who’ve had abortions and those who might need abortions in the future. It implies that abortion isn’t a moral good and that while legal abortions are needed, they are somehow bad.

The morality of abortion lies primarily and subjectively within the individual in question along with their particular circumstances. Not all will uniformly agree, hence such liberties must be designated as an individual's free choice.

 

[Lursa]

Pro-choice is a political and ideological position. We fight for all (pro-fetus as well as pro-abortionists) women's liberty to choose to abort, if she so desires...in all vicinities of the USA. The practical matters of poverty and other societal factor affecting this choice is complex and an issue reaching far beyond the sole issue of abortion freedoms. Moreover, how exactly would transforming choicers into pro-abortionists make these societal factors less daunting?

The morality of abortion lies primarily and subjectively within the individual in question along with their particular circumstances. Not all will uniformly agree, hence such liberties must be designated as an individual's free choice.

Pretty sure you wont get a response that addresses any of that directly. I'm not sure any "factors" matter to some except "it's killing a baybee" and I've not seen many defend it legally, societally, or even morally because they dont include the woman in those moral considerations. As long as she doesnt die, she gets no moral consideration at all. To reduce a moral argument to the success in the expulsion of a baby as paramount to ALL ELSE dehumanizes both. What do you think?