I first heard of the issue when I was maybe nine years old, and my first instinct was very strong opposition. I didn't exactly dwell on the issue much, and around the age of twelve, I looked back at the issue with some pretty fresh eyes and began to see the issue as much more complicated. As I got older and developed a more coherent set of political views, I've generally move in a pro-choice direction, maybe at one point supporting some moderate hero restrictions, but I've since dropped that position. So I guess option 1 works pretty much whenever you decide is a reasonable starting point (comparing my views now to the ones I had in fourth grade seems wrong to me), although my position on this has been remarkably stagnant for the past two years or so.
Much more willing to ~legislate morality~ but no change to my moral intuitions.
Me too. I bought into that 'you can't legislate morality man!' nonsense a bit in high school and college, so I had some vague convoluted idea of treating abortion like a misdemeanor or something.
I'm glad that both of you noted this. This has to be one of the dumbest arguments in favor of legal abortion. Anyone who really believes that abortion is a moral wrong that isn't outweighed by the wrong implied by prohibition or lack of access has no business supporting abortion.
And the broader implications are horrifying. Relegating "morality" to the status of something more comparable to an aesthetic preference is downright dystopian. It says a lot about our politics that this argument passes muster and carries a great deal of popular credence.
Yeah, this always bothered me. I really can't get behind the rationalization that something you'd consider to be killing should be legal under the guise of "choice."
Poll
