• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

"Why I support women's access to safe, legal abortion"

That chart is not showing up for me....not sure why not. The reality is that there isn't really compromise for anyone who is truly pro-life (which by polling is somewhere between 35%-55% of the public). Unless the compromise involves actually outlawing elective abortions, then at least 1/3rd of the population and as many as 1/2 of the population is not going to be satisfied.
 
When people are asked questions like "should a woman be able to get an abortion if the pregnancy is the result of rape" around 80% will respond "yes", and yet around 50% of the population describes themself as "pro life". This means around half or more of the "pro life" crowd is actually in the "legal with restrictions" crowd.
 
I come from the Bill Clinton school of thought (and the OP). Abortion should be safe, legal and rare. As a nation we have done a relatively good job on the safe and legal part but no much on the rare. I think that is where the "pro-life" folks should play. Unfortunately they often do the opposite as the most out spoken prolifers (Catholics) are also the most out spoken anti contraception and anti sex education. FAR too often abortion is used as a form of contraception and people that are truly pro life should do all in their power to stop that...and the answer ain't abstinence.
 
Deacon923 said:
When people are asked questions like "should a woman be able to get an abortion if the pregnancy is the result of rape" around 80% will respond "yes", and yet around 50% of the population describes themself as "pro life". This means around half or more of the "pro life" crowd is actually in the "legal with restrictions" crowd.
Click to expand...

I think you could definitely get the pro life crowd behind banning elective abortions and allowing rape/incest/mother's life abortions. Unfortunately you will never get the pro-choice behind that.
 
ThinkingWithMyDeac said:
Chart you can't see- 20% illegal completely, 26% legal completely, 52% legal with restrictions in place.
Click to expand...

See my previous post, but there is a lot of leeway in that 52%. If they ask the question:

Should we outlaw all abortions except in the case of rape/incest/mother endangerment you will see that poll go to 50/50. Asking if they would like to see abortion legal with restrictions could mean anything from outlawing all elective abortions, to maintaining the status quo.
 
OK, so you don’t necessarily disagree with the numbers related to my post, you just don’t agree that those that think abortion should be legal in the cases of rape and incest should be excluded from the "extreme," right?

What limitations do you consider for someone to be “truly pro-life”?
 
SkinsNDeacs said:
I come from the Bill Clinton school of thought (and the OP). Abortion should be safe, legal and rare. As a nation we have done a relatively good job on the safe and legal part but no much on the rare. I think that is where the "pro-life" folks should play. Unfortunately they often do the opposite as the most out spoken prolifers (Catholics) are also the most out spoken anti contraception and anti sex education. FAR too often abortion is used as a form of contraception and people that are truly pro life should do all in their power to stop that...and the answer ain't abstinence.
Click to expand...


Personal responsibility.
 
avalon said:
OK, so you don’t necessarily disagree with the numbers related to my post, you just don’t agree that those that think abortion should be legal in the cases of rape and incest should be excluded from the "extreme," right?

What limitations do you consider for someone to be “truly pro-life”?
Click to expand...

If someone is truly pro-life then the only exception is if another life is in danger (the mother's). I am all the way pro-life, no exceptions. But I would sign on the dotted line immediately if you told me I could outlaw elective abortions if I had to give up rape/incest clause. Less than 1% of abortions are because of rape/incest. The reality is that that clause has nothing to do with why we have abortions. We have abortions because it is convenient. If rape/incest were the real reason to have abortions than over 90% of the current abortions would be obsolete. But we both know that isn't the case.

No pro-choice person is ever going to go for outlawing all abortions except rape/incest/mother's life because that would effectively end abortion as we know it.
 
Wrangor said:
If someone is truly pro-life then the only exception is if another life is in danger (the mother's).
Click to expand...

OK, then the number is 22% that are truly pro-life by your definition. (Unless they are lying in the polls.)

Link

Edit to clarify: the 22% is the amount that says abortions should not be legal if the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest.
 
Last edited:
By my definition yes, but I am not going to define someone else's position for them. I tend to try to let people explain their own position rather than assume it for them. Like I said. Pro-life + rape/incest exception while somewhat inconsistent is still better than pro-choice. And I think most of the pro-life + rape/incest exception consider themselves pro-life.
 
I lived a couple of blocks from an abortion clinic in Richmond in the early '90s. Every Saturday morning there were protesters out front, and invariably there were a few 3 and 4 year kids holding up ultra-gruesome pictures of aborted fetuses. Those type of protests still exist some places, but have been widely discontinued mainly because they turned off everyone but the no exception crowd.

GOP platform still contains a no exception plank and likely will for the foreseeable future. Last two GOP nominees supported exceptions, but I can see a future GOP nominee who doesn't. Akin and Mourdock hurt the no exceptions crowd badly with their remarks, and will make it extremely difficult for future GOP presidential nominees to explain why they oppose exceptions for life of the mother, rape, and incest.
 
FuckmouthedRube said:
I lived a couple of blocks from an abortion clinic in Richmond in the early '90s. Every Saturday morning there were protesters out front, and invariably there were a few 3 and 4 year kids holding up ultra-gruesome pictures of aborted fetuses. Those type of protests still exist some places, but have been widely discontinued mainly because they turned off everyone but the no exception crowd.

GOP platform still contains a no exception plank and likely will for the foreseeable future. Last two GOP nominees supported exceptions, but I can see a future GOP nominee who doesn't. Akin and Mourdock hurt the no exceptions crowd badly with their remarks, and will make it extremely difficult for future GOP presidential nominees to explain why they oppose exceptions for life of the mother, rape, and incest.
Click to expand...

Don't agree with the gruesome protests. Nobody's mind will be changes that way. Those protests are more to satisfy the individual than to enact change. Definitely agree that the pro life no exception platform has been damaged by incompetence.
 
avalon said:
I wonder if we will hit a point where all the recent focus on abortion will backfire on both parties. For all the attention given to the extremes, it seems like the bulk of people are somewhere in the middle – either because they think abortions should be legal for victims of rape or incest, or because they hate abortion but don’t think it is the government’s role ban it, or because they think abortion should be legal but are OK with limiting the time period in which women have access, or whatever else. At what point do all those people get tired of hearing it from both sides?

(And yes, "years ago" is an acceptable response.)
Click to expand...

Dems would benefit by being pulled to the right (thus the middle) on abortion. Available, restricted, and a personal choice represents a large majority viewpoint.
 
Poll taken 1 month ago.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/162548/americans-misjudge-abortion-views.aspx

I realize that there are plenty of polls that paint a different picture. Which to me means that the country is very much divided on this issue and that there is not some super majority that can be tapped.

This pol also goes to address the misconception that is very prevalent (and is being made on this thread) : the sample as a whole grossly underestimated the percentage of people who are pro life.
 
Wrangor said:
By my definition yes, but I am not going to define someone else's position for them. I tend to try to let people explain their own position rather than assume it for them. Like I said. Pro-life + rape/incest exception while somewhat inconsistent is still better than pro-choice. And I think most of the pro-life + rape/incest exception consider themselves pro-life.
Click to expand...

I think we are arguing past one another. I specifically excluded those that agree with a rape exception from the "extreme" in my post. You argued that I was underestimating the extreme, and backed it up with numbers that include those that agree with a rape exception.

Based on the link I posted, about 50% of the population falls between "abortions for all" and "abortions for none." I'm not claiming that they all believe the same thing, just that they are not part of those extremes, they're part of the massive grey area in between.
 
Wrangor said:
Poll taken 1 month ago.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/162548/americans-misjudge-abortion-views.aspx

I realize that there are plenty of polls that paint a different picture. Which to me means that the country is very much divided on this issue and that there is not some super majority that can be tapped.

This pol also goes to address the misconception that is very prevalent (and is being made on this thread) : the sample as a whole grossly underestimated the percentage of people who are pro life.
Click to expand...

lol. it shows a 5% gap.
 
18% net gap. They underestimate pro life by 13% and they overestimate pro choice by 5%. That is significant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top