What abortion policy set would you prefer?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 08:42:55 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  What abortion policy set would you prefer?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3
Poll
Question: .
#1
Available only in the first 10 weeks, 100% government-funded (pro-abortion)
 
#2
Available up to the point of viability (25-28), no public funding (pro-abortion)
 
#3
Available only in the first 10 weeks, 100% government-funded (anti-abortion)
 
#4
Available up to the point of viability (25-28), no public funding (anti-abortion)
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 66

Author Topic: What abortion policy set would you prefer?  (Read 2782 times)
RI
realisticidealist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,717


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: November 07, 2013, 01:16:36 PM »

I guess option 3, but the choices certainly are far from ideal.
Logged
traininthedistance
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: November 07, 2013, 01:25:26 PM »

Lots of people fine with forcing poor women to have kids against their will in this thread.

Yeah, I'm pretty disappointed by the pro-choicers here.

You are reading the results in a manner that is not just uncharitable, but completely unjustified.  I'm pretty confident that many if not most of the people voting option 2 are not "fine" with it in the least, they just consider it a lesser evil than option 1.  The whole point of posts like these is to present a deliberately bad/difficult set of choices and force people to weigh one set of principles and rights against another; to claim otherwise is a cop-out.
Logged
H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY
Alfred F. Jones
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,075
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: November 07, 2013, 01:42:02 PM »

Option 1, though I would very much prefer if it were up to about 24 weeks.
Logged
Redalgo
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,681
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: November 07, 2013, 01:46:47 PM »
« Edited: November 07, 2013, 01:50:54 PM by Redalgo »

Lots of people fine with forcing poor women to have kids against their will in this thread.

Yeah, I'm pretty disappointed by the pro-choicers here.

Aye, traininthedistance posted while I was typing this up and I really want to express my agreement.

It's not really a fair judgement to pass, considering most of us are being forced to choose from among options we do not like. Roughly a fifth of abortions in the United States appear to occur after ten weeks - most of those being performed within a few weeks of the tenth's passage. A significant number of mothers are going to be forced to bear and then raise unwanted children, put them up for adoption instead of aborting, or have to pay out of pocket for illegal procedures (poor gals included) no matter which pro-choice option from the poll is selected.

If you are disappointed because many of us chose to prioritize mothers being able to legally get an abortion for the entirety of the time a developing human (arguably) lacks personhood versus the economic empowerment for all to have access to abortions for a window of time long enough for most women to make up their minds that is alright, but please do not spin this as us being "fine" with how the current order wrongs women and workers.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: November 07, 2013, 03:44:35 PM »

Of course I've made this poll because the choice is not an obvious one, and you guys are entitled to your opinions. I am also entitled to mine, and to express my disappointment when these opinions are not shared by other posters.

My progressive principles make me privilege the importance of equality of access to abortion, because "freedom of choice" is worthless to me if it is reserved to a privileged elite. This is something very important to me, far outweighing the (undoubtedly serious) damage of stringent time limitations. I would have liked to see this view prevail, and am disappointed to see it's not the case. Doesn't mean I don't accept different viewpoints.
Logged
morgieb
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,624
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -8.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: November 07, 2013, 09:11:15 PM »

I guess option 3, but the choices certainly are far from ideal.
Well I don't think many people have similar abortion policies to these.

Voted Option 2.

Also, pro-abortion seems like bad language. I'm not pro-abortion, but I do respect and support the women's right of choice and feel that it is necessary in certain circumstances.
Logged
morgieb
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,624
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -8.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: November 07, 2013, 09:14:14 PM »

Lots of people fine with forcing poor women to have kids against their will in this thread.

Yeah, I'm pretty disappointed by the pro-choicers here.

You are reading the results in a manner that is not just uncharitable, but completely unjustified.  I'm pretty confident that many if not most of the people voting option 2 are not "fine" with it in the least, they just consider it a lesser evil than option 1.  The whole point of posts like these is to present a deliberately bad/difficult set of choices and force people to weigh one set of principles and rights against another; to claim otherwise is a cop-out.
Yeah, this is my view tbh.
Logged
barfbag
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,611
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.26, S: -0.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: November 07, 2013, 10:25:14 PM »

The free market is the only way to solve this problem which provides an environment of success and livability in our country. We'd be able to afford plenty of daycare, childcare, contraceptives, and affordable housing with proper free market principles.
Logged
traininthedistance
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: November 07, 2013, 11:08:54 PM »

Of course I've made this poll because the choice is not an obvious one, and you guys are entitled to your opinions. I am also entitled to mine, and to express my disappointment when these opinions are not shared by other posters.

Of course; and I'm just expressing my disappointment that you seemed to endorse TNF's intellectually dishonest smear of those who would, however regretfully, choose Option 2.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think you're wrong on the facts here.  Abortion is (in most cases) actually a relatively simple and inexpensive medical procedure; to say that restricting access to those who can pay out-of-pocket leaves it to a "privileged elite" is gross hyperbole.  What actually does the heavy lifting of restricting abortion access are regulations like waiting periods and TRAP laws meant to hound abortion providers out of business.  And I must regard a ten-week limit as of a piece with those sorts of measures- that is to say, as a practical matter it really does more to limit equality of access to abortion than monetary issues would, because the primary obstacle to access is not strictly monetary, or at least does not intersect with class in quite so simple a manner.

Of course, it also should go without saying that privileging the most expansive theoretical freedom of choice and definitions of bodily autonomy would take precedence from a liberal philosophical perspective.  I do also believe that, in pragmatic terms, the best way to expand "rights" and access for everyone is to articulate and encode a broad theoretical set of rights, and then work on trying to make sure that everyone can exercise them.  A right that everyone can theoretically access but not everyone has the means to is certainly worth less than one that everyone does have the means to exercise.  But it is a great deal better than a right that nobody has, because it really is the prerequisite for truly "universal" rights.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: November 08, 2013, 01:00:53 AM »

TNF's post was hyperbolic in an Atlas fashion, I wouldn't take it at face value (though, for the reasons stated above, I do agree with the broad feelings behind his post).

I think I remember that an abortion may cost up to several thousands of dollars, which I'm pretty sure would be a significant burden to a lot of women. Maybe not to the point of reducing access to a privileged elite, but certainly enough to deny this right to many working-class women. Conversely, as it has been said before, a large majority of abortions occur before the 10th week, so the proportion of denied choices would be roughly the same in both situations. If the dilemma is between denying choice to the poorest women or denying choice to late-deciders, the latter definitely strikes me as the least worst option.
Logged
Miles
MilesC56
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,324
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: November 08, 2013, 01:17:40 AM »

I'm having a hard time choosing between 3 and 4.
Logged
traininthedistance
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: November 08, 2013, 01:22:47 AM »
« Edited: November 08, 2013, 01:25:40 AM by traininthedistance »

TNF's post was hyperbolic in an Atlas fashion, I wouldn't take it at face value (though, for the reasons stated above, I do agree with the broad feelings behind his post).

I think I remember that an abortion may cost up to several thousands of dollars, which I'm pretty sure would be a significant burden to a lot of women. Maybe not to the point of reducing access to a privileged elite, but certainly enough to deny this right to many working-class women. Conversely, as it has been said before, a large majority of abortions occur before the 10th week, so the proportion of denied choices would be roughly the same in both situations. If the dilemma is between denying choice to the poorest women or denying choice to late-deciders, the latter definitely strikes me as the least worst option.

I was definitely under the assumption that most abortions are more like $200-$300 out of pocket*, which can obviously be burdensome to some, but is much more widely within reach.

I think if the average abortion went for several thousand dollars a pop, that is the sort of information that might cause me to rethink my position here.  What I would rethink it to, I honestly can't say for sure.

*And IIRC that's just surgical abortions, not medical ones- though obviously the abortion pill is less and less an option the further you get into pregnancy.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: November 08, 2013, 01:44:12 AM »

Apparently it can go from $90 to $4520. Abortions before the 10 weeks limit can be as expensive as $1800. Extreme case, but still.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,135
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: November 08, 2013, 02:57:50 AM »

I guess option 3, but the choices certainly are far from ideal.
Well I don't think many people have similar abortion policies to these.

Voted Option 2.

Also, pro-abortion seems like bad language. I'm not pro-abortion, but I do respect and support the women's right of choice and feel that it is necessary in certain circumstances.

     I agree, though I went ahead and voted option 4 in protest. I first heard "pro-abortion" being used as a dysphemism by people like Libertas, because abortion is a hideous thing and strawmanning abortion rights advocates as supporting abortion itself is a very easy way to delegitimize their position. Using the term to describe yourself is purely senseless.
Logged
Nichlemn
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,920


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: November 08, 2013, 08:26:26 AM »

Option 2, because the costs of not being able to have a late term abortion are deadweight losses that accrue to no-one. The costs of publicly funded abortions accrue to the government/taxpayer.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: November 08, 2013, 08:51:36 AM »

I guess option 3, but the choices certainly are far from ideal.
Well I don't think many people have similar abortion policies to these.

Voted Option 2.

Also, pro-abortion seems like bad language. I'm not pro-abortion, but I do respect and support the women's right of choice and feel that it is necessary in certain circumstances.

     I agree, though I went ahead and voted option 4 in protest. I first heard "pro-abortion" being used as a dysphemism by people like Libertas, because abortion is a hideous thing and strawmanning abortion rights advocates as supporting abortion itself is a very easy way to delegitimize their position. Using the term to describe yourself is purely senseless.

I had to pick neutral terms, and my alternative was either this or the traditional "pro-choice"/"pro-life" dichotomy, which I would never use because I loathe the term "pro-life" (I'd have gone for "anti-choice", but some people wouldn't have liked it). Pro/Anti abortion rights would get too lengthy.
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: November 08, 2013, 09:32:09 AM »

Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,004
Latvia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: November 25, 2013, 09:06:49 PM »

Option 2, although I loathe to describe myself as "pro-abortion"
Logged
Deus Naturae
Deus naturae
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,637
Croatia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: November 25, 2013, 09:20:25 PM »

Option 2, although I loathe to describe myself as "pro-abortion"
Logged
Leftbehind
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,639
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: November 25, 2013, 10:17:37 PM »

#1. Rights that the poor can't access tend to be forgotten.
Logged
Ebowed
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,597


Political Matrix
E: 4.13, S: 2.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: November 26, 2013, 02:08:36 AM »

Option 1, as the law would benefit the most people, though I strongly oppose a 10 week limit.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,135
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: November 28, 2013, 09:36:38 PM »

I guess option 3, but the choices certainly are far from ideal.
Well I don't think many people have similar abortion policies to these.

Voted Option 2.

Also, pro-abortion seems like bad language. I'm not pro-abortion, but I do respect and support the women's right of choice and feel that it is necessary in certain circumstances.

     I agree, though I went ahead and voted option 4 in protest. I first heard "pro-abortion" being used as a dysphemism by people like Libertas, because abortion is a hideous thing and strawmanning abortion rights advocates as supporting abortion itself is a very easy way to delegitimize their position. Using the term to describe yourself is purely senseless.

I had to pick neutral terms, and my alternative was either this or the traditional "pro-choice"/"pro-life" dichotomy, which I would never use because I loathe the term "pro-life" (I'd have gone for "anti-choice", but some people wouldn't have liked it). Pro/Anti abortion rights would get too lengthy.

     You could have used "anti-life"/"anti-choice" for the humor of it. Tongue The thing about the traditional dichotomy is that it at least uses postive descriptors for both sides. The way you put it tends to characterize one position more negatively than the other.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: November 30, 2013, 04:23:18 PM »

Option 1, as the law would benefit the most people, though I strongly oppose a 10 week limit.
Logged
LeBron
LeBron FitzGerald
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,906
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: December 01, 2013, 01:02:10 AM »

Lots of people fine with forcing poor women to have kids against their will in this thread.

Yeah, I'm pretty disappointed by the pro-choicers here.

You are reading the results in a manner that is not just uncharitable, but completely unjustified.  I'm pretty confident that many if not most of the people voting option 2 are not "fine" with it in the least, they just consider it a lesser evil than option 1.  The whole point of posts like these is to present a deliberately bad/difficult set of choices and force people to weigh one set of principles and rights against another; to claim otherwise is a cop-out.
Yeah, this is my view tbh.
It is very biased, I agree. There's no option up there for being pro-"abortion" or the correct term pro-choice, legal till the 28th week, and it being government funded. There needs to be funding no matter what and it shouldn't even be in question and shouldn't be on the poll.

Also, options 1 and 3 are incredibly Republican biased. 10 weeks? Come on, 20 weeks is one thing but 10 or even 6 is another. 

I voted for option 2 in apathy.
Logged
politicallefty
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,200
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -9.22

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: December 01, 2013, 06:23:25 AM »

Option 2, with the caveat that I am not pro-abortion. I am personally anti-abortion, but I am also strongly pro-choice up to viability. And even though I don't think abortion should generally be a covered procedure under government-sponsored health plans, I oppose the Hyde Amendment and also think it should be covered under certain situations (i.e. life/health of the mother, rape, and incest). I'm generally of the mind that elective procedures shouldn't be covered unless medically necessary.

With that said, I'm strongly in favour of the government providing contraception at no cost to all who request it, particularly the pill and condoms.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.058 seconds with 15 queries.