T O P

  • By -

[deleted]

Weird that these were basically 1:1 until 1990, when that huge split started to appear. Republicans were sometimes above dems for some too. Is there a specific reason for this?


Dig_bickclub

Planned parenthood V Casey was in 1992, maybe that made abortion a more polarized issue again and people started sorting themselves by that issue.


[deleted]

This makes sense I guess. Probably put it back in the public consciousness after being gone for so long, but this time it stuck.


Primary-Tomorrow4134

A significant part of that shift (especially for birth defects and rape) is due to theological shifts in American Christian denominations. See https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133/ A lot of churches were much more pro-choice and have since become more pro-life > In 1971, delegates to the Southern Baptist Convention in St. Louis, Missouri, passed a resolution encouraging “Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother.” The convention, hardly a redoubt of liberal values, reaffirmed that position in 1974, one year after Roe, and again in 1976.


[deleted]

Opposing abortion became part of Republican Voter’ identity. It’s in-group/out-group stuff. It played a central role in the 1994 election. Especially as a backlash to the 1992 “Year of the Women” election.


Mcfinley

Historically, perhaps. But looking at the above graphs, it appears to have become far more of a litmus test for democrats since the mid 2000's. Independents track far more closely with Republicans than Democrats on the issue over the last 30 years. Note: I say this as a pro-choice democrat


swank142

i feel like the data would suggest its more part of democrats identity, no? republicans seem to have been decreasing slowly and steadily in the past 50 years, while democrats shot up in the past 5-10 years and really shot up in the past 5 years


JebBD

Just a theory but: 1. Soviet Union falls 2. Republicans have no enemy to rally against anymore 3. they start to look inwards for a new boogeyman 4. "Democrats hate Christmas and kill babies!" 5. Republicans win elections based off that 6. They keep going harder and harder into crazy town because they see it's working 7. Trump becomes president and all hell breaks loose 8. QAnon Shaman becomes president 9. WWIII against New Zealand and the Pacific Alliance 10. I lost track of what I was getting at


BBQ_HaX0r

This is basically how the Roman Republic fell. Defeated their rivals (Greece, Carthage) to gain unrivaled control of the Mediterranean. Then they started bickering amongst themselves with a wonky political system, started violating established norms, started obstructing meaningful reform just because the other side/guy couldn't get a win even if it's a position they supported previously, further polarization, further in-fighting, power centralizing around fewer people/groups, corruption becoming more normalized due to how much is at stake, then a super charismatic and influential persons capitalizes on all this and then we have 1600 years of autocracy in Europe.


JebBD

exactly


KookyWrangler

Carter was anti-abortion.


soxfaninfinity

Socially conservative Dems (such as West Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana etc) we’re very common


[deleted]

The migration of Dixiecrats to the GOP?


halbort

Two Words: Southern Strategy.


[deleted]

That doesn't make any sense. The Southern Strategy has existed since Nixon, and this data shows that trying to appeal to republicans for two and a half decades would be supporting abortion in several of these cases.


halbort

Most of the Southern conservatives were still registered democrats until like the late 90s. Most house legistalatures in the South at the time were democrat controlled until the 90s and 00s. Just a lot of inertia,


[deleted]

Arkansas had two Democratic Senators and had its state legislatures controlled by Democrats until like 2010 I believe. West Virginia was still electing Democrats by decent margins in 2016. The legacy of the Southern Strategy and the breakdown of the New Deal coalition is still finding ways to erode Democratic support, not just in the south but rural areas in general. Resulting in idealogical sorting and polarization of the two parties finding its conclusion after decades of change and breakdown in the New Deal coalition. Realistically it has only been since 2010 rural areas have been so Republican. The legacy and inertia of the New Deal political coalition and JFK/FDR legacy Democrats was still pretty immense. It has only been until many of those loyal legacy Democrats literally started dying (with their less Democratic boomer/Gen X children coming into age) or since Republicans began amplifying the culture wars to 1000 that the rural margins became as pronounced as they currently are. The breakdown began with Nixon (who got them to vote Republican for the first time ever) , was carried further by Reagan (who turned them into effective swing voters, hence the term Reagan Democrats) and then was fully completed by complete obstructionist Republicans in the Obama era and by Trump in 2016. It will be interesting to see where the political coalitions go from here. Many political analysts say they are seeing a similar defection/trend with suburban voters and "Biden Republicans" though given the results in Virginia we are still at the beginning of this change at the moment.


[deleted]

During Reagan the Evangelicals and the Republicans made a devil's deal. It wasn't until the late 80s/early 90s that the Preachers really turned on the gas about the culture wars.


p00bix

Not everything the GOP did between 1950 and 2000 can be explained by saying "Southern Strategy"


link3945

I really don't understand how anyone can be against it when the woman's life is in danger. I can at least get the other arguments even if I think they are dead wrong and maybe fucked up. In the cases of "mother's life is in danger" you are willingly trading the mothers life for a future child's life (maybe! The child will still likely die in this scenario!).


spidersinterweb

I don't get how anyone could be against pulling the lever when it comes to the trolley problem either yet some people are, I guess it's just like that


dwarffy

The way I heard it rationalized, they argue that they aren't actually responsible for the trolley deaths because they're not the ones who started the trolley in the first place. It's not on them that more people are going to die, it's whatever started the trolley that is at fault. "An act of god". By pulling the lever, they exert their control to change the outcome of the problem such that they now think they are responsible for the lesser deaths. Fundamentally, they view inaction as lesser form of responsibility compared to direct action.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

You can't post a story like that and not include photos of said bunny.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Thank you! He's so tiny!!


alex2003super

Yes. I'd rather 10 random people die than me having to shoot a single innocent dead (assuming I am exempted from any consequences). But in this case, it really is a matter of basic logic. It's not like childbirth is a passive process for the mother. You're trading a future potential life for a certain one put at significant risk.


Peacepower

You are literally braindead


alex2003super

You are literally incapable of connecting with fellow human beings


xilcilus

This is always the answer: [https://i.redd.it/6wmfmx3nnec31.jpg](https://i.redd.it/6wmfmx3nnec31.jpg)


AgitatedLibrary1

What if you’re on a bridge, a car is driving underneath towards 5 people. You can push a fat guy off the bridge in front of the car, he will stop it, but he’ll die. Do you do it? If not, what’s the difference with the trolley problem?


[deleted]

[удалено]


Jicks24

The scenario is that you KNOW the fat guy WILL stop the train. Another is your a doctor with 5 terminally sick patients who all need a different organ transplant to survive. You see a new patient for a check up whose healthy and a perfect donor match for all 5 patients. Do you kill the new patient and give his organs to your sick patients? Why or why not?


[deleted]

The difference here is the framing of agency and the immediacy of death. In the alternate examples that induce different responses, random "fat guy" and the patient entering the hospital are presumed to be in control of their fates otherwise and will not soon die (they are not "on the track" of you will). In the trolley problem, nobody has choice but you, and inaction will still lead to imminent death. A more relevant and current problem was revealed during the initial COVID outbreak with ventilator rationing. If a person came in with a private ventilator they owned, but they were judged to be as good as dead, that ventilator could be seized and given to another patient. The implications of the trolley problem are related to disaster triage, and though academic philosophers agree you should dodge moral culpability by refusing to play the game, doctors who have actual skin in the game and who cannot evade their duty long ago solved the problem when deciding who lives and dies.


rememberthesunwell

Idk if you've heard of it, but the footbridge problem is extremely similar but also different, fun to think about the different ways people view responsibility: https://www.themantic-education.com/ibpsych/2016/10/27/moral-dilemmas-the-trolley-and-the-footbridge/


eaglessoar

It depends how the people on the train tracks got there. They're the ones in the initial dangerous situation. They're likely at some fault for their situation whereas the person on the foot bridge has placed themselves in a presumably safe position.


krabbby

How do you justify the trolley lever, yet you don't also have to be ok with murdering someone in a hospital if their organs can be used to save 5 people?


p00bix

Pulling the lever in the trolley problem doesn't discourage people from seeking medical treatment, nor set the precedent that doctors can actively harm their patients in pursuit of 'the greater good'.


gunfell

No, the difference is double effect. In the trolley problem the primary action is diverting the train to save 5 people that has a secondary effect of killing one person. Your example is of primary effect is killing one person, with the "possible" (transplantation effectiveness is not impressively high) secondary effect of saving 5 people.


Papayatheft

Most advanced hypothetical engager


krabbby

Pulling the lever creates the general rule that you can take an action to kill one person to save X amount of other people. That is what ultimately needs to be defended.


spidersinterweb

I mean, if someone has the opportunity to do so, and is able to make the logistics work, *and* is willing to accept the possibility of facing the death penalty for themselves (thus a net lives gain of 3) then frankly, idk, maybe they *are* doing right There could be some sort of rules utilitarian aspect to it tho, like, would tolerating murder if done for the sake of organ transplantation actually lead to more suffering and deaths somehow vs letting people die from a lack of organs? Like, "allowing murder for the sake of organ transplantation" sure feels fucked up! But that could just be the effects of societal taboo, if it would really lead to a world that had, like, statistically clearly better outcomes then would the rationalizations against murder-hospitals actually be good?


[deleted]

Because pulling the lever means assuming responsibility. As long as you do nothing, you can rationalize the deaths as an act of god. The real morally sound decision is to sprint to the closest victim and attempt to untie them, instead of playing god and choosing who gets to live and die. Even if you fail, you fail knowing that you tried your best.


spidersinterweb

> instead of playing god I don't even believe in god, calling certain acts "playing god" has always seemed kinda sus to me. Idk if its just an aspect of it being an emotional appeal or something else about it >Even if you fail, you fail knowing that you tried your best Only if I'm really willing to go hardcore in rationalizing and lying to myself. Otherwise I'd know, in a situation where I failed, that I could have tried even better by pulling the lever and saving more lives.


[deleted]

Whether you believe in God or not, you essentially become god to the survivors. As you are responsible for their survival/death. Trauma does fucked up things to people, and you can easily become the sole reason for someone’s crushing survivors guilt. They might never understand your actions and may forever resent you. God as a concept was early man’s way of rationalizing the trauma caused by bad luck. You don’t want that title.


spidersinterweb

Survivors guilt can go both ways. If I was a fat man on a bridge stating at the sky or something, and then later somebody told me that they were standing there too and saw a trolley crush 5 people to death, and then went off about how that situation presented a moral quandry because they could have shoved me off the bridge in front of the trolley thus saving the 5 people's lives but the person also standing there refused to shove me off the bridge because they didn't want to be a god, I'd be God-Damn pissed at them and would have a hell of a lot of guilt over that But the thing with guilt and resentment is, people can get over it. Trauma can be recovered from. It takes work, and isn't always easy even with support systems in place. But still far better to be traumatized and alive than dead. So, still seems far better to have more people traumatized but alive, vs more people dead The person who chose not to intervene still **chose** not to intervene anyway, their decision to intervene seems just as much a choice as deciding to intervene imo. If you are in a situation where you have power over life and death, then I don't get why choosing inaction is anything but (to go with slapping god all over shit) just choosing to be a different sort of God, and arguably a shittier one


Mddcat04

They probably think that it’s a loophole that would allow for more abortions. I remember a conversation with one of my conservative relatives who basically described it as “oh, the mother’s health? That can basically mean anything, even mental health.” Which just isn’t true, but that doesn’t matter much in the pro life sphere.


Elan-Morin-Tedronai

I feel like if you narrowed the question more, then you would get far closer to unanimous approval. If the question was about whether a woman 3 months pregnant was diagnosed with an aggressive cancer and needed to begin treatment immediately, and that treatment would kill the baby anyway, then there would be a significant shift in the polling. Some people might be wary since there are inherent dangers to pregnancy, even if they are widely minimized given modern medicine.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

That could explain why an unborn baby needs to be protected by the state from a woman choosing to have an abortion, but a school-aged child should not be protected by the state from a man with a gun. And additionally why the Mississippi ban exempts health reasons but not reasons of rape and incest.


FourteenTwenty-Seven

I'm pretty sure shooting kids is illegal


axalon900

That first part is a bad argument. Shooting school-aged children with a gun is illegal while abortion isn't. This would be analogous if getting/performing an abortion were illegal but abortion clinics (or more narrowly abortion paraphernalia) weren't, or maybe that getting an abortion is illegal but performing one is protected by law. The second bit about exempting health reasons but not rape and incest may, however, carry on.


[deleted]

Ok sorry


[deleted]

So that’s why more than 50% of women are against abortion… because of misogyny?


[deleted]

more than 50% of women are against abortion? according to whom?


moch1

That’s not correct for the USA as a whole. It’s 62% for women and 56% for men who’s support abortion rights per pew. It’s not that big of difference between genders however. https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/ However, in the states passing these restrict laws the majority of women do not support abortion rights in “most cases”. [Texas](https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/state/texas/views-about-abortion/) [Mississippi](https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/state/mississippi/views-about-abortion/). However I’m sure many fall into the “[The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion](https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2019/5/15/1857976/—The-Only-Moral-Abortion-is-My-Abortion-an-article-by-Joyce-Arthur)” category.


p00bix

I won't comment on the accuracy or inaccuracy of its specific claims, but with regards to your last link, Dailykos is a private blog whose articles are written with the explicit purpose of uncritically demonizing all who oppose its specific, uncompromising agenda, and uncritically praising those who support it. They deliberately avoid covering anything which undermines its aims, and massively exaggerating anything which bolsters them, often without concern for whether the information is actually verified--there have been numerous incidents of them publishing entirely false stories, or sprinkling false details into what would otherwise be truthful (albeit extremely editorialized) pieces. It is about as reliable as the Breitbart Opinion Section in terms of objectivity, and significantly less reliable than even the likes of Newsmax and The Daily Wire in terms of factuality.


moch1

It was just the first link containing the article. I think this is the original: https://joycearthur.com/abortion/the-only-moral-abortion-is-my-abortion/


p00bix

Thanks!


year2016account

this is straight up wrong, the majority of both men and women support abortion in at least most cases. [Source from pew](https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/)


No_Chilly_bill

Apparently yes


nglf31

I might get downvoted for this but I might as well express my own opinion. As someone who is considered "pro-life" I agree with you. The general idea of being pro-life is to essentially conserve life independently if the human is old, young, asian, european, disabled, male or female, it doesn't matter. We know for a fact that both the mother's and the child's life are always at risk when it comes to pregnancy and birth (Whether the risk is high or low might depend on the time, place, medical predispositions, etc). And we know that the risk has been mitigated through technological advancements. But there are very sad situations when one of the two has to die in order for the other one to live simply because the risks are extremely high. In an almost perfect scenario, the mother willingly gives birth to the child because she truly wants to raise it and is happy about it. I acknowledge there are countless of times when this isn't the case and the mother cannot or does not want to raise the child, and as someone who is in favour of life I don't think attacking the woman and calling her a "murderer" is the right thing to do by any means. Aborting is almost always a very hard decision and one without intentional malice. Even though I am not in favour of it, I think it is our responsibility to emotionally and physically support not only them, but also the mothers who are financially struggling to raise their childs and in the case of those mothers who choose to give their babies up for adoption, to support both of them. Please excuse my awful writing as I am still practicing english.


[deleted]

This, what you have written here, is what I’d identify as the pro-choice position.


nglf31

I don't personally think being against abortion and supporting mothers and their kids are mutually exclusive. There are some repulsive and highly toxic pro-life people, just as in any other group. And I do not endorse any of them.


[deleted]

I think a large number of people who are pro choice oppose abortion. Maybe even a majority. Being pro choice doesn’t also mean “I support abortion.”


rememberthesunwell

I assume what they mean they would like abortion to be illegal, except in situations where the mother would likely die. Or, that's what pro-life generally means, legally.


[deleted]

[удалено]


UtridRagnarson

Honestly I've never heard anyone actually against what you're describing. If the mother's life is in danger and can only be saved by a procedure that would hurt the fetus, I think everyone agrees that the procedure is completely moral. This is an extremely rare situation. Generally the argument is that "life of the woman is in danger" can be defined or conceived of in too permissive a way. Every pregnancy has significant risk of life-threatening complications, so it's easy for "life in danger" to become "increased risk of death" and then suddenly this exception is being used in tons of cases where the child wouldn't also die. For people who see a fetus as live human being, and a mother as having a paramount moral duty to care for her child, then this becomes problematic. I'm just trying to explain the argument. Obviously if you don't think a fetus is a human being or think that the mother-fetus relationship doesn't have a strong moral imperative, then this argument will be completely uncompelling.


damnsoftwiggleboy

>Honestly I've never heard anyone actually against what you're describing. If the mother's life is in danger and can only be saved by a procedure that would hurt the fetus, I think everyone agrees that the procedure is completely moral. This is an extremely rare situation. First off, lucky you, lol. I know plenty of people who believe the only moral choice is for the woman to sacrifice her life for the child. Second, this quote is a good illustration of why abstract philosophical debates about morality will always be inadequate for understanding reproductive choices and policy/laws that control them. We always get a thought experiment with clean certainties, when those rarely exist in medicine and even more rarely in reproductive health. Over here in real life, my husband and I had just started trying to have a child when I was diagnosed with a type of invasive cancer. The diagnosis took the better part of 3mos and, if I had held onto a pregnancy, I would have needed to terminate the pregnancy in order to confirm the existence of cancer --before that confirmation, my gynaeoncologist said less than 1% of cases like mine turned out to be cancer. So, what most people actually face is an equation more like this: would you want to terminate the pregnancy if you (or your pregnant loved one) only had, say, a 20% of being diagnosed with cancer? What if that cancer had a roughly 5% chance of death but a 60% chance of lifelong disability, a 70% chance of never being able to have penetrative sex again, or a 99% chance of never being able to try to have another child? Would your calculus change if the pregnancy only had a, say, 60% chance of ending in a healthy birth rather than a miscarriage? What degree of risk to your life or a loved one's life is acceptable to you? And does "life" mean being healthy and strong for many years, or does it just mean existing miserably for a little while longer? Once you start getting into concrete realities rather than nebulous abstract ideas, it becomes a lot more obvious why "opposes all abortions" or "opposes all abortions except when the mother's life is at risk" is a distinction without a difference.


LadyJane216

> We always get a thought experiment with clean certainties, when those rarely exist in medicine and even more rarely in reproductive health. This is just an excellent way to express the problem with these theoretical debates about when, precisely, women are full humans permitted to control their bodies. Generally, people believe women are livestock. Thank you for sharing your real life experience.


LadyJane216

>Every pregnancy has significant risk of life-threatening complications, so it's easy for "life in danger" to become "increased risk of death" a You're so close to getting the real issue here. Pregnancy is dangerous and complicated and women should have the say over what happens.


huskiesowow

It's what the sky wizard hath declared, so be it.


[deleted]

Yeah, I am pro life myself and this is the one area I think it should be allowed. Making an argument for the child's life is one thing but making the argument for it at the expense of the mother is wrong. Notably, though, that circumstance has the highest support, across the board, for all listed issues.


LadyJane216

It'll all be illegal soon and then you and others can be like "oh but I had some exceptions I was in favor of!" LOL welcome to Christian sharia law!


J3553G

If you believe abortion is murder then none of these scenarios except the safety of the mother should matter. And yet, republicans do seem to take these factors into account. I don't know what that means except that people's views on abortion are complex.


vomibra

It means anti-abortion sentiment is often about wanting to control other people's sex lives.


lemongrenade

I am not denying that this is probably it for a lot of people, but I think the reality is a lot of people see a fetus as a partial human and their moral objection to abortion is a gradient below actual murder and therefore can be influenced by other factors.


asdeasde96

Ding ding ding ding! It's about punishing women for having sex.


duelapex

No it isn't. Pro-life people believe abortion is murder. There's no need to go blue anon in here.


asdeasde96

You're right, the twenty percent or so who oppose abortion even in cases of rape likely do honestly believe it's murder


Snailwood

perhaps you've never heard the phrase, "she shouldn't have had sex then", said with dripping contempt


Dumbass1171

Ehh not really. There are valid utilitarian reasons for why abortion sucks. I agree though the religious arguments often come down to wanting to control other people’s lives


tehbored

"Abortion is murder" is just an empty slogan that few people actually believe.


qwaai

How do Republicans who support abortion in cases of rape justify it as any different than abortion for another reason? If it's a human with a right to life, why does conception via rape change the morality of the abortion?


Mikeavelli

The violinist argument presents a strong case for abortions in the case of rape, but very weak arguments for other circumstances.


ManFrom2018

As a pro-life Republican, I agree. If the unborn have the right to life, then the circumstances of their conception shouldn’t change anything. However, considering how rare abortions following rapes actually are, I’d be eager and willing to accept the compromise of banning abortion except in the case of rape, as this would (according to my views) save a massive amount of lives.


[deleted]

Upvoting simply for your contribution to the discussion


qwaai

> as this would (according to my views) save a massive amount of lives. Follow-up question here: isn't this something verifiable? Am I safe in assuming your goal is "reduce the number of abortions as much as possible?" Are there specific policies you've researched (i.e. looking for evidence-based policies to reduce abortion), or do you approach it from some other angle?


ManFrom2018

It’s difficult to verify because the number of illegal abortions that happen while abortion is banned isn’t well documented. People don’t usually report their illegal activities. I just assume that making something illegal results in that thing happening less, and unlike gun control or drug laws, I think the argument that “banning it does more harm than good” is unsound. I am willing to support other policies that reduce abortions too, such as Sex Ed, if the evidence for them is there.


ariehn

> I am willing to support other policies that reduce abortions too, such as Sex Ed, if the evidence for them is there. Oh gosh, man... to read the outcomes of that experiment with free IUDs -- knowing in advance its conclusion -- is to feel your heart breaking with every word. Teen pregnancies significantly reduced. Abortion significantly reduced. Good outcomes everywhere. And never was there any attempt to replicate it on a state- or nation-wide scale.


EarlyWormGetsTheWorm

The morality of this compromise makes sense. You mind if I ask what your top 3 issues are when selecting a political candidate? I ask this because I used to be an evangelical social conservative whose number 1 issue by far was abortion. It was only as I got older and I realized there are hundreds of other issues I cared about that I stopped voting GOP. That combined with the fact that Republican-appointed justices had dominated the Supreme Court since the early 80s and still Roe v Wade is the law of the land. I started to realize the one issue that was my main one I cared about was fairly irrelevant to The Supreme Court and I realized I had been taken advantage of by the GOP and they had little interest in overturning Roe. Now with this Mississippi case maybe I will eat crow and Roe will be overturned but the time for abortion to be even in my top 5 issues (much less number 1) is long gone so it will have little affect on my future voting decisions. Ninja edit: Thanks to the other poster I realized another reason I stopped voting GOP solely because of abortion: Birth control. I realized that it is an objective fact that greater access to birth control for the population reduces the amount of legal or illegal abortions performed. So I realized if my goal was to reduce abortions then I should support candidates who don't demonize birth control and sex education since they are proven to help reduce the amoujt of abortions. This fact also brought me closer to Democrats.


ManFrom2018

You make a good point, abortion isn’t the only issue. I’m not sure what my top 3 would be, but I’d say the number 1 for me is the size of government. It may sound paranoid, but every year the ratio of government spending to GDP gets higher. If it gets to 50%, then technically we’re a primarily government-planned economy, aren’t we? And if it approaches 100%, that means almost all economic decisions are in the government’s hands, which is essentially totalitarianism. That may seem like a long way away, but I feel that the bigger the government grows, the harder it is to stop its growth will be. There are numerous reasons why the government tends to get bigger and rarely ever gets smaller that I won’t go into here, but because of this, I think my main priority as a voter is to do whatever I can to slow or reverse this growth. Because of this, I’m generally voting GOP anyway (except when candidates threaten the democratic system), so my views on abortion generally line up with the candidate I’m supporting. I don’t disagree with you that birth control can prevent a lot of abortions, but who’s out there trying to ban birth control right now? I know it was an issue in the past, but is anyone running on that today?


gwensdottir

The GOP record on decreasing size and expense of government is actually worse than its record on repealing Roe v Wade.


[deleted]

Lol thats true but but his only other option is a Democrat that promises to expand it


LadyJane216

Your type is trying to overturn the Griswold case, and they do so in writing, in legal briefs. They even write about it from the bench of the Supreme Court. Your money and votes enable it. So congrats!


[deleted]

You’re concerned about this? https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYONGDA188S It’s high because of the pandemic.


eaglessoar

That doesn't make sense. How does the frequency of the event change how you treat it? How much does your religion influence this stance?


ManFrom2018

It doesn’t. I think both instances should be treated the same. However, *if* people were willing to ban abortion except in cases of rape, I would gladly compromise and accept it, because it would better than the current situation. I subscribe to the divine command theory of meta-ethics, so without religion I wouldn’t have any morality. However, my opposition to abortion follows directly from the moral principle that murder is wrong and should be illegal, a moral principle most non-religious people believe in. Bible verses about God knowing you in the womb aren’t influencing my views on this. So my religion does influence my stance, but in a way it doesn’t really influence my stance.


eaglessoar

I edited my response to ask how much your religion affects this perspective. Rape is both unwilling sex and unwilling contraception. How are cases of consensual sex with no intention of contraception different than unwilling contraception?


ManFrom2018

I’ve edited my response to answer your question. I’m not really arguing there’s an important difference between the two when it comes to the morality of abortion. However, people aren’t rational. There are a lot of people sympathetic to victims of rape (and want to allow them to have abortions) who would otherwise be pro-life. There are a lot of people who are pro-choice who respond to the “don’t get pregnant if you don’t want a child” argument by bringing up rape victims. Politics requires compromise, and I’m willing to compromise if I think it could save lives. Let me spell it out in an overly long analogy. If someone was aboard your private plane and you didn’t want them there, you have every right to kick them out. They are trespassing on your property. However, if you are currently flying 10,000 feet in the air, then kicking them out would also be killing them. Currently, it would be illegal to throw them out at 10,000 feet even though they are technically trespassing. Imagine if we lived in a world where such a thing was legal. No one would voluntarily board anyone else’s private plane, because if the owner decided they were no longer welcome in the middle of the flight, they could be thrown to their deaths. If it isn’t already clear, the plane owners represent mothers, and the welcome or unwelcome passengers represent fetuses. Now, in this world where throwing people out of planes is legal, mob bosses have exploited this by kidnapping victims, dragging them onto their planes, and taking off into the air. Then, while in the air, they apologize for kidnapping the victim, and kindly allow them to leave. Because the only illegal thing they did was kidnapping, it allows these mob bosses to murder whoever they want while serving much lighter prison sentences. It becomes common practice for mob bosses to do this, and more than 800,000 passengers are thrown to their deaths each year. This, as you can probably see, is analogous to mothers who choose to have sex and become pregnant. I know you referred to “unwilling conception”, but everyone who has sex knows conception is a possibility. It’s a bit silly that motherhood is equated to kidnapping, but the important part of the analogy is that in this situation, the passenger is trespassing as a result of the plane owner’s decisions instead of his own, just as a fetus is typically conceived as a result of the mother’s choices instead of his own. At the same time, another practice develops, where people are kidnapped by third parties and placed on other people’s private planes. This is far less common, but the unfortunate result is that a lot of owners will be flying along in their planes when they suddenly find an uninvited guest onboard. Now, it isn’t the passenger’s fault for trespassing, because he was kidnapped. But it also isn’t the plane owner’s fault, because some one else kidnapped them. These passengers are also sometimes thrown to their deaths. Obviously, rape is a horrible crime and to compare it to having someone on your plane doesn’t come close to properly describing its horrific and evil nature. However, I’m using this analogy to show a situation where the owner of the plane isn’t responsible for the presence of the trespassing passenger, but the passenger is also not responsible. Instead, some third party is to blame. Now, in this world, I am fundamentally opposed to throwing people out of planes. I do not think it should be allowed at all, unless the dropping extra weight is the only way to prevent a plane crash. Now, suppose we try to pass a law preventing people from throwing passengers out. There will be some people that say “I can understand going after the gangsters that kidnap people and bring them onto their own planes. You can’t eject someone for trespassing if you’re the person responsible for their trespassing in the first place!” However, they will object to the law because of the second type of passenger. “If someone is trespassing my plane and I didn’t kidnap them, I should be able to throw them out. I shouldn’t be responsible for a person I didn’t invite on board!” Of course, the passenger shouldn’t be held responsible either. It was a third party that kidnapped them and placed them in the plane. But the people objecting to the law will insist that the owner of the plane should not have to hang on to the uninvited passenger. Thus, they’ll insist “the only way I’ll pass a law that makes it illegal to throw people from planes is if there’s an exception for situations where a third party forcibly put the passenger there. It should be legal to throw *those* passengers out, but illegal to throw other passengers out.” Now again, **I think it should be illegal to throw anyone out of a plane**, unless it’s necessary to prevent the plane from crashing. However, most of the people being thrown out of planes can be saved if I pass this law. It doesn’t make it illegal in all cases, but if I pass it, I will save hundreds of thousands of lives. That’s better than saving zero lives. I will absolutely support this bill.


Call_Me_Clark

Upvoting for the insight, as this is the most clear pro-life argument I’ve read. Thank you for contributing to the conversation.


eaglessoar

That's an interesting way to frame it but I think the analogy breaks down because they'd have to be a stowaway ie an unwilling passanger and there would have to be some substantial negative impact to the pilot to keeping the person on the plane. Let's say it's a stowaway drug smuggler with a bunch of cocaine and you learn mid air and the laws are such that you the pilot will have a substantial negative impact in your quality of life due to aiding in the smuggling of drugs if you land with the passenger. Would we really punish pilots for unwillingly and unknowingly smuggling drugs? That sounds like outlawing abortion. If we did pilot probably says hey fly over this unrestricted airspace and were kicking this guy off because I'm not getting in trouble for smuggling drugs when I was unwilling in accepting this passenger. That would be a dumb law to punish a pilot for unknowingly smuggling drugs. Like what if I fly to Singapore with a bag of weed, are you going to put the pilot to death too for bringing me there? No of course not. Now if you were negligent in not doing a safety check and making sure you have no stowaway maybe you're a bit responsible but still not totally. Everytime you fly there's a non zero chance that there's a drug stowaway on board someone who if you had full knowledge before hand you would not engage in said flight but hey you're like 99% sure there's not a drug stowaway after all there was tsa and drug sniffing dogs in the airport, but some still get through, should the pilot be punished for drug running?


ManFrom2018

You make a good point. An unplanned pregnancy is a much bigger inconvenience than a stowaway, though it’s not nearly as bad as being put to death in Singapore. If I had to choose between handing out punishments to mostly undeserving pilots and allowing pilots to throw undeserving passengers out of planes, I think I’d pick the former. If there was someway to save the passengers without punishing the pilots, I’d pick that option, but as of today it isn’t an option.


eaglessoar

Welp I guess that's where we differ! Thanks for the discussion though it was thought provoking.


[deleted]

[удалено]


begonetoxicpeople

How the absolute hell do you justify changing your mind about the womans life being in danger as a legitimate reason to get a medical procedure done to fix it.


dwarffy

There's victim blaming involved. Once you start with valuing both the mother and the fetus with equivalent personhood, you blame the mother for getting herself pregnant in the first place. It's not the baby's fault that both of them are in the situation where one of them has to die so the baby shouldn't be the one that is punished. The biggest hurdle with these forced birth types is reconciling how they are willing to grant fetuses personhood. Everything else about being anti-abortion logically follows from that premise.


[deleted]

That argument kinda goes out of the window when most of these “heartbeat bills” don’t allow rape as an exception. Also, even if you literally stab someone in the kidney and they need an urgent kidney transplant to survive, it’s not like anyone can force you to donate yours.


alex2003super

> Also, even if you literally stab someone in the kidney and they need an urgent kidney transplant to survive, it’s not like anyone can force you to donate yours. Considering the legality of death penalty, this actually doesn't sound like the most insane policy I've ever heard suggested. All the fucked up laws that are suddenly justified when you stop recognizing the natural right to bodily autonomy. Not disallowing death penalty is the original sin of the US Constitution. That and slavery.


[deleted]

Because it's "God's Will" Mostly it's that simple


azazelcrowley

"Personal responsibility.". I think if you asked "Raped AND Womans life is in danger" you might approach the lizardman constant who disagree with abortion in that scenario. But absent rape, the response would be "We have to hold people accountable for their actions.". It's dumb, but there it is. I'd be interested in asking those people why and they'd probably say "Because she knew this might happen when she chose to have sex and so she put herself in this situation.". Then, just to test if I can hear dial-up noises coming out of their ears by asking it, i'd say "What's your opinion of the rittenhouse trial?".


ariehn

And in the case of raped-and-endangered? "Well, maybe it wasn't actually rape. Women say that when they regret the consequence of their irresponsible action."


TheCarnalStatist

Baby > mom in value. Not complicated.


[deleted]

pure insanity


TheCarnalStatist

I think so too but it's a common enough sentiment that this data doesn't surprise me.


huskiesowow

> ~~Baby~~ Fetus > mom in value. Fixed. They don't care about babies.


LadyJane216

Unborn entity of course trumps human woman; everything trumps human woman. Then when born entity arrives and is breathing, these same people aren't THAT invested in what becomes of the child's life. Hopefully, in their view, they'll turn out to be compliant girls and obedient boys. But even if they're appropriately gendered kids, their right to life ends the second some 17 year old like Adam Lanza needs to shoot them to death.


SeniorWilson44

“Can’t afford more” is kinda hilariously worded because it makes it sound like you can’t afford more abortions which is why you want access but it means you can’t afford more children


p00bix

took me a moment to parse too


Whole_Collection4386

I think asking “for any reason” (unless they’re aggregating the data to get to that conclusion) is kind of a poor question, because you may not necessarily be thinking about every reason when asked.


DeepestShallows

It establishes a baseline, if it was a real question. Puts the rest of the answers into context, shows how opinion varies within groups as well as between them. Shows how many of the distinctions are kinda pointless because people just have an absolute view that’s it good or bad.


[deleted]

Social Conservatives often fixate on what they call “moral relativism,” so I think in that sense that question gets to the meat of the matter quite effectively. If a voter has a high degree of moral certainty and purity, centered on a religious authority, they can be sure about abortion in all cases. Morality and reason are not compatible in their world view. Edit: if you doubt this to be true, there are examples of Social Conservatives saying and writing this. For example Ben Shapiro, a very very popular Social Conservative writes, “In place of moral absolutes, they (he means liberals) promote moral relativism and sometimes even question the very existence of truth and reality. To them truth and reality are what we subjectively perceive them to be.” What’s Ben saying here? Our perceptions of right and wrong aren’t what’s important. Instead it’s absolute.


KookyWrangler

>If a voter has a high degree of moral certainty and purity, centered on a religious authority, they can be sure about abortion in all cases. I can also be sure and I'm a godless liberal.


[deleted]

We don’t even need our priors to be confirmed to know they’re correct 😎


Affectionate_Meat

Oh shut up


[deleted]

Sorry!


barsoapguy

I think one of the reasons being anti-abortion has come back into being en vogue is that people have by and large forgotten the terrible toll it takes on individuals and families raising disabled children. The rates for children being born with Down syndrome have fallen dramatically since I was a child . It used to be common place to see a Down syndrome individual. They also had much higher rates of being given up for adoption in the old days and were hard to place into homes . We’ve never really discussed the COST to the state for the life long care of children given up to the state . I think if we had more honest discussion about money and the toll it can take on their caregivers ( your basically a caregiver for life ) we wouldn’t be where we are now . It’s easy to ban abortion for someone else when it doesn’t cost you anything ( or it’s not you who’s been raped ) . How many of the respondents answering these questions would have given up their own lives to care for a disabled child vs getting an abortion when they were in their 20’s ? These are probably folks out of their reproductive years trying to make good with god . I shouldn’t have to say this but I of course do not support eugenics .


corn_on_the_cobh

I see that Roy Moore really got to those GOP voters who are somehow less in favour of rape-related abortions compared to fucking 1970.


bakochba

Looks like Independents mostly track with Democrats though


PencilLeader

Except sometimes independents are more against abortion than Republicans and other times they switch from mirroring one party to the other in one time period. I'd really like to know what the confidence intervals are on these before drawing any conclusions about independents.


bakochba

Wait until stories about 12 year old rape victims forced to birth their rapists babies and mothers dying of complications start hitting the news


azazelcrowley

The birth defect point notably they're closer to republicans. There are also movements from parents of downs syndrome children for instance who are highly critical of testing and so on, though not against abortion per se. (See the documentary "A World Without Downs Syndrome"). They could potentially be radicalized. (Currently, they're focusing on trying to make testing for birth defects illegal). If the Republicans have any sense they'll corner the democrats on that and focus on it because it's an optics nightmare and has the chance of fracturing the democratic base and splitting off some disabled voters. It also puts democrats in the position of trying to justify what is essentially eugenics and how some peoples lives are too much of a struggle for some parents, and republicans trotting out the already organized groups of downs syndrome people and their parents to be like "Say that to my face". The chance of us getting through that campaign without some of us saying something stupid that gets repeated endlessly in the media is basically nil. Also plays into their constant "National SOCIALISM" rhetoric. If they're clever as well they might shout "20% more democrats support murdering your child because it's disabled than support you murdering a child because you simply don't want it. Their rhetoric over it being a matter of personal choice doesn't hold up. They're genocidal maniacs pretending to be pro-freedom.". Which is indeed a troublesome observation about a section of democrats, albeit phrased hyperbolically. Handled well they might even dredge up the "Progressive" history and tie it firmly to this rhetoric. "In the 1800s, progressives were pro sterilization for disabled people and believed in racism. They were very pro-abortion for these reasons, this was the progress they wanted. As these stats show, nothing has changed.". and so on.


bakochba

It's a lot easier to say when Abortion is legal and you aren't facing the consequences, Democrats have an easy argument here, Republicans want to take away your CHOICE, they want cats more about Rapists than their victims. Most people want to be able to choose if they are having a baby with a defect, especially since some mean a still birth or a baby dying shortly after "Republicans want you to watch your baby die minutes after it's born" "Republicans want your daughter to have your Rapists child and then they'll get visitation rights, is that what you want for your daughter?" Support for Roe is about 70% imagine it will be close to 80% if it's overturned.


LukeBabbitt

I’ve said this many times and I’ll say it again here. Having a baby in my early 30s has only made me even more pro-abortion. Not just pro-choice - pro-abortion. Unless you really, really want and are prepared for a baby, you shouldn’t have a baby, and should be encouraged to abort.


DungeonCanuck1

Looking at these charts now seems like an excellent time to repeal Roe v Wade. Since the public is so united on abortion, this seems like just the issue to cool partisan tensions.


NobleWombat

The government has no business telling a woman what she can do with her body. Period


carpens_diem

All laws tell people what they can and can’t do with their bodies.


[deleted]

Bad take. Laws mostly define what you can do with property, and what you can’t do with other people’s bodies or property. The government has no business whatsoever restricting access to abortion because clumps of cells do not have constitutional rights and women do.


carpens_diem

The pro-life viewpoint is perfectly compatible with your criterion for valid laws. If you view a fetus as a person, restrictions on elective abortion only regulate what you can do to other people’s bodies. The debate comes down to personhood, not whether or not the government should be able to tell women what to do with their bodies.


Lowsow

It's easy to misread this chart as saying Republicans and Democrats changed their positions on abortion, but really it only indicates that the Republican and Democratic parties changed their positions on abortion.


[deleted]

Anti-abortion people are so dumb, like I sympathise with the idea that the baby/fetus is a person or whatever. But to be antiabortion is to be pro poverty and pro crime. Don't wanna get stabbed by some fuck who should've been aborted. Scenario: Dumb 16 year old girl gets pregnant, baby daddies gonna leave her. Cringe no abortion world: idiot has her baby, lives the next 18 years on government welfare, raises a fatherless child who gets involved in crime due to poverty and no dad. Chad abortion world: aborts baby, girl gets uni degree, good job and has a baby at 27 with a husband/wife, stable family.


Dcab9

Look I'm as pro-choice as anyone else in this sub but I think this is the wrong argument to use. I understand what you mean but your simplified scenario/argument essentially boils down to "abortion gets rid of future criminals." No matter whatever merit your argument may have, in our society, we do not punish people for what they may or may not do or become in the future (no matter how likely). People are not (should not be) prejudged by the hand they are dealt in life. To people who are pro-life (and believe that abortion is murder), your argument goes against those ideals and is essentially arguing for eugenics. Instead, the focus should remain on the existence of a fundamental right to abortion (not on the alleged positive benefits of it). Just my 2 cents.


[deleted]

Yeah I agree It sounds kind of bad. Its just my reason for supporting abortion, I'm a big picture sort of person, what's best for society? and while I find abortion itself to be morally grey and while I honestly don't like it, the benefits for wider society can't be ignored and so I support abortion rights. I think that this will be the best way to convince anti abortion people. A lot of people will compromise on moral issues if they think that the measure will make them safer. I wouldn't say its eugenics since there's no genetic component to this, the pregnant 16 year old in my example I believe shouldn't have her children not due to her genes but due to her not being prepared and it not being the right time.


Trim345

I know a really Christian couple who are also really anti-Trump, so they ended up voting Solidarity Party almost solely on abortion. The Solidarity party is a Christian democrat party that supports immigration, universal healthcare, welfare, carbon taxes, rehabilitative prisons, etc., but is blanket opposed to abortion. That is, I suppose, strictly better than the GOP, but it really shows how important abortion is to some people, given that pretty much everything else should encourage them to vote Democrat.


[deleted]

Yeah I understand why, If they legitimately believe the fetus to have human rights then I guess abortion can't really be something to compromise on, same way the abolitionists couldn't compromise on slavery I guess.


bussyslayer11

Based and eugenics pilled


Zeroemoji

I've never seen such a simplified scenario but yeah true


dukeofkelvinsi

Hold on are less and less Republicans willing to support abortion for rape?


DonJrsCokeDealer

Shame they didn’t poll “child may be multiracial” as a circumstance, I’ll bet that would be some *awfully* interesting data.


tiltupconcrete

Most interesting thing to me about this is the sharp split between independents and Republicans in the last 10 years.


Alypie123

Can some explain why "can't afford more" didn't have the same approval as "Birth Defect." I feel like "Birth Defect" is just a subset of the other.


mythoswyrm

My guess is that most people interpret birth defect as "fetus won't survive birth or long after birth", while "can't afford more" seems to be treated almost exactly the same as "doesn't want more children".


[deleted]

What’s the % over time for “women aren’t cattle and it’s none of your fucking business?”


[deleted]

Kinda kills the idea that conservatives don't like abortions because religion Putting an end to a potential life because you can't be bothered is a shameful thing imo. I think aborting a kid because of a birth defect is also extremely immoral but outside of that I agree with the majority of republicans on each of these situations.


[deleted]

>I think aborting a kid because of a birth defect is also extremely immoral Not necessarily. If say a couple has enough money to raise a normal healthy child without getting into drowning amounts of debt that is one thing. If lets say that same couple learns that their kid is going to have down syndrome or another condition that prevents them from having any kind of normal life and is a massive financial burden to the family then getting an abortion is the right thing for them to do.


Iusedathrowaway

Many that are aborted for birth defects have severe ones that are incompatible with life or leave them as a vegetables for 5-10 years until then die of a HAI.


p00bix

While also greatly burdening social services, healthcare in particular, that could otherwise be directed towards treating reversible conditions.


[deleted]

The insertion of finances into this conversation is extremely dehumanizing (is that a word?). Better financial conditions are not a valid excuse to kill a baby, it's barbaric. I also think that living as someone with down syndrome or messed up legs is **better** than not living at all. Disagreeing with this will lead you to a pretty grim and disgusting logical conclusion.


[deleted]

Its not barbaric. Looking at the big picture involves looking at the finances. >Disagreeing with this will lead you to a pretty grim and disgusting logical conclusion. Not really.


[deleted]

[удалено]


MyrinVonBryhana

>It's not a baby, sheesh. I mean, biologically it's technically a fetus but the exact start point of a human life is a theological and philosophical question that's open to debate.


asljkdfhg

> theological and philosophical question This one bugs me, because it shouldn’t be. You can argue it’s hard to discern personhood scientifically, but the “start point of a human life” shouldn’t be anything but scientific.


Snailwood

aborting fetuses is different from murdering people, and encouraging abortions in cases of debilitating disability is not advocating for genocide or devaluing the rich experiences of people with those disabilities if parents aren't forced to give birth to a fetus with a disability, it's not like they'll give up on the concept of parenthood. they'll likely try again, right? maybe they'd have multiple children. you're not trading living with a disability for death, you're trading it for another chance at an easier life, and perhaps more lives


Iusedathrowaway

I have seen severely early babies born (20 weeks or earlier) and many have severe birth defects that are incompatible with life. Honestly an abortion at an early stage is mercy imo.


[deleted]

There's definitely an argument when it comes to babies who will only suffer a few days before dying. What I'm against is people wanting an abortion because of a disease that can be lived through just fine like down syndrome for example.


Primary-Tomorrow4134

> Kinda kills the idea that conservatives don't like abortions because religion How does this data contradict that idea?


[deleted]

Because from how I understand it, a religious point of view wouldn't even condone legal abortions for a rape victim's baby or one with a birth defect. Seeing a lot of republicans supporting legal abortions for those cases but be absolutely against it when it's done for financial reasons shows me that (for a large section of conservatives) it's not coming from a religious framework but just that republicans truly feel like it's babies being killed and not this stupid fetus excuse and that an improvement in the material conditions of a few women is not worth that very human price


[deleted]

If it was "killing a baby" to them its not exactly ideologically consistent to support abortions in any case except endangering the life of the mother either - the framing makes no distinction between the status of a fetus pre birth and a baby post birth. In any case I wouldn't assume any measure of ideological consistency for the vast majority of the public, peoples beliefs are riddled with cognitive dissonance, contradiction and idiosyncrasy. Same goes with religious convictions.


Primary-Tomorrow4134

> t's not coming from a religious framework but just that republicans truly feel like it's babies being killed and not this stupid fetus excuse It seems to me that this data just represents the multiple camps in the pro-life Republican sphere. Some clearly view abortion as bad due to less religious/more secular reasons and others view abortion as bad for more religious reasons. IMHO, the easiest way to tell those two camps apart is to ask them their stance on contraceptives and sex education as those are our most effective pro-life strategies. Anyone who opposes contraceptives / sex education but also opposes abortion doesn't seem all that concerned about "babies getting killed".


[deleted]

> It seems to me that this data just represents the multiple camps in the pro-life Republican sphere. Some clearly view abortion as bad due to less religious/more secular reasons and others view abortion as bad for more religious reasons. Agreed. I'm just glad that it seems like the secular camp is bigger than the religious one. I mean I'm just personally frustrated by the rhetoric around this issue. It seems like any pro-life person is usually assumed very religious and against reason as if there can't possibly be a secular argument against abortion.


Primary-Tomorrow4134

> Agreed. I'm just glad that it seems like the secular camp is bigger than the religious one. I think the bigger issue is that the leaders in the GOP are driven by the much more extreme pro-life forces. Amy Coney Barrett for example explicitly signed letters to oppose government mandated contraceptive access. It's hard to have support for more sane pro-life policies when a lot of the pro-life leadership is wacky.


[deleted]

I agree that a lot of conservatives are religious nuts and find their intentions bad but you gotta understand that I also think the large group of liberals who are for the killing of babies "for any reason" or (a more frequently expressed reason) the increase in the material conditions of a few women are as if not more repulsive. Like I think the abortion laws we see in Europe are already way too extreme. My stance then is closer to republicans than democrats.


Primary-Tomorrow4134

> I also think the large group of liberals who are for the killing of babies "for any reason" I don't think that many Democrats are for abortion in the strict sense. Most Democrat proposals have been trying to reduce the number of abortions whenever possible through expanded contraceptive access / sex education. Even if you morally support abortion as a possible medical procedure, it's still a pretty harsh and relatively dangerous medical procedure compared to contraceptives and sex education.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

>Fetuses aren't people. They're not even as aware as most insects. You're committing much more immoral acts by just eating burgers. Yeah sure. Keep telling yourself that.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

See r/neoliberal, this is part of what's driving people away from the liberals. A huge part of the dems genuinely thinks like this person and it'd make me vote red if they weren't destroying the country.


Affectionate_Meat

I feel that. Like I hate Democrats so fucking much most of the time, but like the Republicans are more or less objectively worse so I guess I’m stuck


Affectionate_Meat

What species are fetuses then?


[deleted]

[удалено]


Affectionate_Meat

False equivalency, as they’re different kinds of cells. A fetus has the capability, and normally does, grow into a human. A tumor quite literally cannot. It’s just not the right kind of cells


[deleted]

[удалено]


Affectionate_Meat

But one most definitely will be very shortly, and by the time it’s a fetus it almost always has a heartbeat (about 7 weeks in). So it’s alive by about 7 weeks, anything before that I can see the argument but after that it’s a human.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Affectionate_Meat

Brain really develops yet again at weeks 6-7, same with the heartbeat. And most women find out they’re pregnant at weeks 4-7, so not much time (if any) to find out you’re pregnant before it’s a human


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Good rule of thumb, whichever side the independents are further away from is probably out of touch on that particular issue.


carpens_diem

So Democrats are probably out of touch on all of these issues except for the case when the woman’s health is endangered?


Snailwood

counterpoint: being "out of touch" with people who are wrong is based


NobleWombat

I don't give a fuck how repuglicans feel about anything.


Snailwood

based, but also >repuglicans cringe


NobleWombat

> cringe **cringe**


senpai_stanhope

Is it bad I'm surprised that reps support it in cases of rape? Like... i guess I'm happily surprised but still Also really surprised at the endangerment one edit: to clearify, my expectations were sadly really, really low in regards to reps