Will abortion ever be settled?

[Person Man]

A lot of options.

[Lief 🗽]

Well, racism against African-Americans in the South was never "settled", insofar as it still exists. However, racism is a no longer a socially acceptable viewpoint/opinion, and as such, it has been marginalized in general American society. I assume the same will happen with pro-lifers, eventually.

[Joe Biden 2020]

Option 1.  The "next few years" is an unspecified amount of time.  But, I believe that God will ulitmately triumph and that when He returns He will stamp out all traces of abortion.  Nobody knows when he's coming back, though.

[Gabu]

Option 1.  The "next few years" is an unspecified amount of time.  But, I believe that God will ulitmately triumph and that when He returns He will stamp out all traces of abortion.  Nobody knows when he's coming back, though.

That's not exactly the same as no one thinking that it's not murder, however.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Option 1.  The "next few years" is an unspecified amount of time.  But, I believe that God will ulitmately triumph and that when He returns He will stamp out all traces of abortion.  Nobody knows when he's coming back, though.

K....

Good to know...

Anyway the area of Australia I live in has completely de-criminalised abortion.

[Wakie]

No

For humanity to continue as a species there must be pregnancy.  Which means there will always be unwanted or dangerous pregnancy.  Even if medicine gets so good that there is no longer any such thing as dangerous pregnancy, there will always be unwanted pregnancy.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

I fully expect to see the pro-life movement marginalized but not until the late 21st century at earliest. Yes the US's protestant part of the population is demographically declining and secularizing but we're getting many millions of latin catholics which will the pro-life movement alive. The abortion debate will slowly decrease in political importance.

[Boris]

fewer and fewer people will start to care once they realize the status-quo cannot be changed and that there are other, much more important, issues to be dealt with. Hell, a recent poll by Rasmussen showed that just 38% consider abortion to be 'very important,' as opposed to Iraq, which is considered 'very important' by 63%.

[Erc]

Technology will eventually take care of the problem before people stop caring.

Whether that says somethng about the pace of technology or the determination of the pro-life camp remains to be seen.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

No. But it would be nice if the debate over abortion in the States moved away from the extremism (on both sides) that has dominated it for the past few decades.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The abortion question is very simple to answer...






... if you have an answer to the question of what constitutes a human life.


If a fetus is a human life, then abortion must be banned except when a pregnancy could present a significantly greater than normal degree of risk to the birth mother.

If a fetus is not a human life, then government has no reason to interfere in such decisions.

Note that this means that issues that have no bearing on whether a fetus is a human life, such as whether it was a result of rape or incest, should ideally play no role in the abortion debate.

As for whether we'll manage to achieve consensus on the question of whether a fetus is a human life anytime soon, I doubt it.

[nclib]

I'm not sure which poll option best expresses my viewpoint, but I'd say that for the foreseeable future, there will continue to be activists on both sides, though after a certain point, the pro-life movement will shrink, but not disappear.

Also, keep mind the fact that a solid majority of atheists/agnostics are pro-choice, which would imply that the pro-life position is more theological than scientific.

If a fetus is a human life, then abortion must be banned except when a pregnancy could present a significantly greater than normal degree of risk to the birth mother.

If we're excluding post-viability abortions, then I would disagree with this statement, since the fetus could not live outside the woman's body, and in no other case would someone be forced to use their body to preserve another's life. If someone needed an organ donor (say, only one potential donor) to stay alive, and the would-be donor refused, while it would be frowned upon, hardly anyone would believe that the would-be donor should be forced to donate or be charged with murder.

If a fetus is not a human life, then government has no reason to interfere in such decisions.

Agree completely, although some would still say that the woman should take responsibility and be punished for having unprotected sex, which suggests that many pro-lifers are more anti-woman than pro-fetus.

[SPC]

It will continue to be a distraction to other more important issues for generations.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If a fetus is a human life, then abortion must be banned except when a pregnancy could present a significantly greater than normal degree of risk to the birth mother.

If we're excluding post-viability abortions, then I would disagree with this statement, since the fetus could not live outside the woman's body, and in no other case would someone be forced to use their body to preserve another's life.

While it is hardly the same degree of imposition, there have been mandatory vaccinations done to help keep other people from catching a disease.

[nclib]

If a fetus is a human life, then abortion must be banned except when a pregnancy could present a significantly greater than normal degree of risk to the birth mother.

If we're excluding post-viability abortions, then I would disagree with this statement, since the fetus could not live outside the woman's body, and in no other case would someone be forced to use their body to preserve another's life.

While it is hardly the same degree of imposition, there have been mandatory vaccinations done to help keep other people from catching a disease.

While I am not very familiar with the statutes regarding mandatory vaccinations, I doubt that one who refuses a mandatory vaccination and then gets someone sick (who then dies of the disease), would be charged with murder, and many pro-lifers see abortion as the legal equivalent of murder.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If a fetus is a human life, then abortion must be banned except when a pregnancy could present a significantly greater than normal degree of risk to the birth mother.

If we're excluding post-viability abortions, then I would disagree with this statement, since the fetus could not live outside the woman's body, and in no other case would someone be forced to use their body to preserve another's life.

While it is hardly the same degree of imposition, there have been mandatory vaccinations done to help keep other people from catching a disease.

While I am not very familiar with the statutes regarding mandatory vaccinations, I doubt that one who refuses a mandatory vaccination and then gets someone sick (who then dies of the disease), would be charged with murder, and many pro-lifers see abortion as the legal equivalent of murder.

Since it would be impossible to prove a direct cause and effect, then such a prosecution for murder would be unjust.   However, in those cases where vaccination has been made mandatory, people who refuse have been punished.

[Person Man]

At this point, I understand that there is no right to refuse a mandatory vaccination. Though that line of reasoning was used to create a state police power of eugenics. Buck v. Bell. However, that precedet is now being challenged  on freedom of religion and right to privacy grounds, based on the right to initimate association. Griswald v. Connecticut.

[Brandon H]

Hopefully abortion will go the way of slavery (though without anyone starting a war over it).

[Friz]

No of course it will never be settled.  Just like everything else in the world.

[Gustaf]

THis is, frankly, a wortless poll with too many too detailed options to be answered. To answer it briefly, no, abortion will never be settled because it's a grey moral area where reasonable people will always be of two minds and unreasonable people will choose to pick one side or the other. Basically, I think most people with something of a moral compass recognize that an abortion is a bad thing but also recognize that forcing women to have unwanted children is also a bad thing. What to make of all that policy-wise is hard to tell.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Hopefully pro-lifers will go the way of jim crow supporters.

[Jake]

"Choice is here to stay, but a strong pro-life movment will outlive me."

This is probably most true. There will be a strong minority religious movement against legal abortion for a long time. It's doubtful it will ever succeed in outlawing the process.

[Person Man]

Hopefully abortion will go the way of slavery (though without anyone starting a war over it).

Could have slavery have gone without a fight?

[A18]

In the U.S.? It did elsewhere, though that doesn't answer the question.

The peaceful secession of the so-called Confederate States likely would have brought about slavery's swift demise, as there would no longer be egregious fugitive slave laws to prop it up.

Of course, this is very much off topic.

[Ogre Mage]

As someone who is strongly pro-choice, I believe the issue will never be settled, at least not in my lifetime (I am 32).  Roe vs. Wade is as controversial today as it was when it was decided in 1973.  I see no signs of it receding as a wedge issue.  Public opinion polls show people in my generation (Gen X) and young people today (Gen Y/Millennials) to be as divided on the issue as our Boomer predecessors and senior citizens.  In contrast, on gay rights you see far higher support among younger people than older ones.