Talk Elections

Option 1 for me.  When I was in high school, I favored outlawing it in most cases.

No, not since I started caring about it. Was always staunchly pro-choice.

No change, though I've gained a better understanding of where the "other side" is coming from.

I've been 100% pro-life without exceptions since the first time I heard of the issue and have always viewed it as my #1 priority.

Abortion seemed like a terrible idea when I first heard of it when I was 7 or so. But then I realized the necessity.

I view abortion itself more negatively than I used to, but my feelings on the legal status of it haven't changed.

No change.

100% pro-life (2008-2010)
"leave it to the states" + no federal funding (2011-2012)
100% pro-choice, morally opposed (2012-present)

more pro-life then in 2008 or so.

This.

Way more pro-choice.

More pro-choice. I was never against it, but now more realize how important it is for women and women's equality.

Was pro-choice until around the age of 17/18.

EDIT: To further clarify my shift in values, I was a politically apathetic progressive (didn't quite click with everything), until I was 17 (e.g. I supported Rudd for PM in 2007). I wasn't a serious pro-lifer (when I was 17/18, I identified with the pro-life movement, but wasn't all serious about it) until around the age of 19 though, when I read stories from the likes of Melissa Ohden and Gianna Jessen, abortion survivors.

I've always been very pro-choice.  Not much has changed other than that I'm increasingly skeptical of government involvement in people's lives in general.  Which I guess makes me "more pro-choice."

Oh, and runaway population growth is also something that's very worrying to me now.  But you can't talk about stuff that makes people feel uncomfortable now.

Aren't all moral intuitions necessarily either self-evident (if you share them) or inscrutable (if you don't)? That's all the problem with them.

Same.  I perfectly understand the logic behind pro-choice arguments, but I nonetheless find them abhorrent.  Our moral compass is what guides us on these types of issues moreso than anything else.

we should have abortion ONLY in any state that voted for Clinton.

call me back in 2028 GOP landslide.

More pro-choice due to women I've met in my life.

No change since college. Tight restrictions for late term abortions. Otherwise, I favored legalization.

Much more willing to ~legislate morality~ but no change to my moral intuitions. My previous post to this effect was, perhaps rightfully, deleted because of an intemperate remark about our R-HI friend here, whose own post I'll note is intact.

I've always been ProLife and I Lways will be ProLife because all life is precious.

Always Pro choice, like most Australians are.

No. Have always been pro-choice. (but opposed to late-term abortion after fourth month).

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 was very pro-life before and during the campaign for the 2007 abortion referendum but since then i accepted that the majority of the country wanted abortion legalized and now i'm more pro-choice, although i was in favor of a policy, proposed by the previous PSD/CDS government, in which women who had their 2nd abortion and beyond, should pay a fee in the National Health Service.

Used to be pro-life until college.  Since then, I have been decidedly pro-choice in the sense that I support upholding Roe.  However, I have become much more sympathetic to pro-life arguments over the years, not really because of what any pro-lifer says, but some of the outrageous things pro-choicers have said in defense of an overall good stance.  Overall, I'd say a nice generic way to put it would be "legally supportive, morally opposed."  I also find late-term abortions simply ridiculous.

I grew up in a very Catholic family so I was pro-life until fairly recently. As of now, I fall into the safe, legal, and rare camp.

I have always thought that if someone was outwardly alive, then they are alive but also that someone automatically coming into existence defied a reasonable sensibility and potentially debase what it means to be a person. As a teenager, I was OK with heartbeat bills but then learned most girls don't even know they are pregnant yet and would be as if someone magically existed as well. Then my timeline kind of drifted to if the fetus has its own basic voluntary instincts.

This doesn't even make sense, unless you think people start voting at 12 years old? Or maybe you think 6 year old children can be aborted?

More conflicted, because I want more minorities/Democratic voters, but it's not worth giving up women's fundamental human rights.

So, you're conflicted between force breeding a generation of Democrats and letting people do what's best for themselves?  LOL

When I was in favor of outlawing abortion, I simply understood it as whether or not people should allowed to end the life of a fetus.  That's obviously morally wrong, so I felt that people should not be allowed to make that choice.

My views changed as I realized the issue was more complex, and that abortion policies greatly affected the mother and her well-being.  I'm pro-choice now largely because abortion resrictions have the potential to greatly endanger women physically, even when the exception for the mother's life is supposedly there. 

I do find the whole issue morally troubling, but I'm not simply "morally-opposed, legally in favor" because I consider moral arguments on the mother's safety to be the the primary issue.

I started out pro-choice, but my life experiences and returning to the church have led me to being passionately pro-life.

Why is it bad from a pro-choice perspective?

My party having a demographic advantage > abortion rights :P

More pro-life.

Couldn't have said it better.

All except angry NH women?

I think it stems from the idea that one can think something is morally wrong, but shouldn't be banned. For instance I think adultery is wrong, but wouldn't want it made illegal.

But presumably that would be because you think that making adultery illegal would result in a more immoral state of affairs than the existence of adultery itself?

Sound lawmaking always takes into account the consequences, but that doesn't mean it's not inspired by moral principles.

I favor rape/incest exceptions now but other than that no change.

Yes, but the same could be said of abortion.


Of course. To argue otherwise is somewhat of a straw-man. The meaning of the phrase "don't legislate morality" refers to the scenario I outlined above, not the position that law should be arbitrary and nihilistic.

I agree with this too, but not because all life is not sacred, but rather that the death penalty affirms the sanctity of life by showing that taking another life (or doing something life-shattering like kidnapping or child rape) will be paid for by the ultimate price, thus honoring the life of the victim.  So by having such a high price for capital crimes, we show how much we honor the lives of citizens.

The point is that there's no logical difference between "legislating morality" by banning something immoral and "legislating morality" by not doing so because of the immoral consequences it would have. You just come to one or the other side on a given issue based on what your specific moral framework dictates.

I'm sorry to say, but this just doesn't make any sense. You can't say that the right to life is an absolute and then say that losing it can be the "price" to "pay" for something (even taking another life). If you truly believe that life is sacred, then it must always be honored even when it's the life of a murderer or a child rapist. Any rationalization around that is sophistry.

For the record, yes, that's true of abortion too. I've made that point in another thread and I believe it.

Personally a bit more pro life, but my stance on abortion is the same and will probably never change. Legal in the first three months, in cases of rape/incest and for the life of the woman.

At this point, this is just semantics. If you want to argue against the position that the law should be totally devoid of any moral framework, go ahead, but not many people actually hold that position. I would argue it's more productive to engage in what people's positions actually are, rather than an absurd projection of their views.

Wait, what? ??? I'm arguing the exact opposite. What are you arguing, exactly?

I think maybe you are misreading something? Because if you were "arguing the exact opposite", that would mean you are arguing in favor of the idea  that law should be totally devoid of any moral framework.

...uh, yeah, I did misread.

OK, this discussion isn't going anywhere. My point was simply to reiterate that the idea that you "shouldn't legislate morality" is ridiculous. It seems we agree on that.

I have all these wishes to be pro-life...it sounds so cutesy and FFey..but in reality when you are confronted with an unwanted baby that will burden you and your family...and you don't have the resources to care for that baby...the choice is YOURS and yours alone.

The distinction is that the unborn child did nothing to deserve being killed, other than being an inconvenience to the mother.  That's why I strongly oppose abortion.  On the other hand, Genesis 9:6 is pretty clear to me, and the basic principle is that those who damaged another sacred life to such a degree, in order for society to truly recognize how bad that action was against another sacred life, that person's life must be taken. 

If there are special circumstances, then this means that life in and of itself is not sacred. Those things just can't go together. You are saying that life is sacred conditionally on not doing certain things. You're free to believe that, and to justify it however you want, but you must acknowledge the implications. Either all life is sacred, or some lives can be taken. It can be one or the other.

I view this as a false dichotomy, though it seems we probably have different definitions of sacred.  I do indeed believe that the right to life is indeed conditional upon not committing the worst of offenses, but I view this as completely compatible with upholding the absolute sanctity of life because once one infringes upon another's right to life, then the two come into a clash, and how we resolve that clash does not reduce the inherent basic sanctity of life.

I just don't understand this argument. The "clash" you talk about is entirely artificial, a construct you make that does not follow from your premises in any way.

If person A kills person B, then yes, A's actions have infringed on B's right to life. But it's A's actions that have infringed upon it. You can't say that it's A's life, in and of itself that infringes on B's right to life. Whether A continues living or not has absolutely no impact on whether B's right to life was upheld or not. B's right to life has already been violated - it's too late to change that. The State certainly can and should impose a sanction against this violation, but nothing the State can do will change the fact that the violation has occurred. Killing A certainly doesn't. If you think killing A is warranted, what you are saying is that sanctioning violations of the right to life is actually more important that upholding this same right. Which, in turns, means that the right is not absolute, but can in fact be suspended in certain account.

OK, I guess I am a big believer that justice demands that a person who commits murder (in most cases) be put to death, thus showing how serious it is to take another person's life.  I will admit that for me, Genesis 9:6 settles the question (and reaffirmation throughout all the covenants in Exodus 21 and Romans 13), so different initial presuppositions do change how we approach the issue.  I certainly view the God of the Bible as viewing life as absolutely sacred but do not see that as precluding the ultimate cost for those horrific crimes.  If you disagree with that premise, which I understand but do not share your position, then I completely understand where you're coming from.

Your argument is veering close to an "it depends what your definition of 'is' is" one.

Under my definition (which strikes me as a commonly accepted one), something is said to be "absolute" if and only if it admits no exception. You are saying that the right to life is absolute, but at the same time that your notion of retributive justice (whether or not it's supported by the Bible is not relevant to my argument) sometimes requires putting people to death. Putting someone to death, by definition, is an exception to the right to life. Therefore the right to life is not absolute.

Again, you are perfectly free to believe that, but you should be consistent and recognize that your belief in the sanctity of life is conditional rather than absolute. This is all I ask.

Ever since I realized what it is, I have been against it. When I was in middle school they opened a huge PP by my house and there were massive protests, but I didn't know what abortion was and just heard that liberals are for it and conservatives were against it. In that moment I guess I was for it, but that obviously didn't last.

I'll agree to that, I suppose.  All I really wanted to do is that someone can uphold a consistent view respecting the sanctity of life while being both anti-abortion and pro-death penalty, though I accept the term "conditional" as you phrase it.

Fair enough.

For the record, I begrudgingly had to reach that same conclusion (although the nature of my conditionality is quite different from yours).

Hard to say. I guess I'm slightly more pro-choice, but no huge changes.

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.

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."

So, was there anyone who wasn't disgusted the first time they heard of abortion?  It must take a lot of rationalizing to support what is so intuitively murder.  Usually, our instant/gut reactions are right!

Not necessarily, no...

I don't support abortion per se; I just think that banning it would cause more problems than it would solve, and I don't think forcing people to give birth is really fair.

I used to be very prolife. Even in cases of rape. Now, I'm prolife, but don't want government involved with making abortion laws.

I was horrified when I first heard about abortion. Then I was horrified by hearing the stories of women who were forced to carry out a pregnancy against their will. It must be nice to live in a simple world when you see only half of the complexity of reality.

I should mention--a bit after the fact, it seems--that there's someone I respect very much who has a "don't legislate morality"-esque position on this, but in her case it makes more sense and is a bit more consequent than it usually does or is since she's an anarcho-socialist who wants pretty much every issue under the sun to be devolved to the commons, civil society, social norms, professional ethics, and so forth. Frankly I think this position is even more unmanageably utopian than my own but I think she holds it for the right reasons.

Decided I was moderately pro-life rather than moderately pro-choice in April 2009.

When I first heard of it(My age was probably in the single digits), I just though "IT'S A BABY" and opposed abortion. After a while, I was pro-choice but it wasn't a priority issue(not that it was unimportant). Now, I consider anti-abortion things to be monstrous.


Understanding human biology = rationalization. Of course, bypassing all science to BS that "abortion is never necessary to save a woman's life" totally isn't


LOLno

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

Of course a bastard who opposes the basic right of gay and trans people to be who they are would say such a thing.

My views have not changed very much.  What has changed is my views of political parties and politicians.  I am much more cynical now.  Sadly, ignorance is bliss.

Not really. You may be able to drum up some convoluted scenario involving abortion that my junior high self may have been "pro-choice" on that I would  be "pro-life" on today. But that's about it.

Apart from the buzzwords, I would try to ban abortion except to save the life of the mother.


That's probably a healthy shift. We ought never to make idols out of our politicians or party. Hold on to what is good in your own life first and try to make the small patch of world around you better. If we all did that, our politics would follow in time. Too often we try to do it in the wrong order and think if only the right person got elected all problems would go away, including the one this thread is about. That's one good thing about Trump: it has made some fraction of the "religious right" (generally the non-crazy ones) wake up to the reality that morality was never supposed to be about winning elections in the first place. Granted the word "morality" is probably about the one world less popular than the word "politicians" right now, but that's an example of how we've got our work cut out for us.

Option 1. I changed my mind (from pro-life to pro-choice) when I read in a newspaper about an attorney who argued that if a fetus is an independent life with rights of its own, then putting a pregnant woman in jail is depriving a fetus of liberty without a fair trial.
Down through the years, I have also found it rather ironic that so many pro-lifers are so sure that "abortion is murder," yet they do not want to impose any punishment on a woman who asks to get an abortion.

However, I am NOT in favor of Roe v. Wade as an interpretation of the Constitution. Roe was not an interpretation of the Constitution at all. That Supreme Court decision must be overturned in order to restore a correct understanding of what the Constitution means.
From Justice White's dissenting opinion in Roe:
I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant women and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the woman, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.

I guess I've always been (more or less) in the "pro-choice" camp but I increasingly find the libertarian-esque language of "choice" off-putting and I also have come to realize (based on discussions with people like TJ, for example) the fact that the moral sense of right and wrong that (most) people have is neither dictated by evolving notions of Progress nor rational (lol) interpretations of empirical data - nor should it be.

Moreover, I now realize that people who genuinely believe that abortion is murder aren't necessarily heartless misogynistic troglodytes, by any means; and consequently - especially considering just how incredibly sensitive moral debates over such intimate matters as the human (specifically, female human) body, the family, and children are - there will probably never be any resolution to this issue (and if there were, what would that say about the state of the fundamentally subjective nature of humanity? Would we really want to live in a world where everyone agreed on everything??).

always have been "pro-choice" but now....contrary to my teenage years....i don't view abortion enemies as bigots but caring people with a different worldview on a matter which is even more important for them than for me.

^This is an important point (although it is only tangentially related to abortion) that is lost on a lot of folks who view women as whores but men as studs for sleeping around. I'd (of course) take it a step further and balk at the idea of expecting fidelity on the part of a woman while the man uses pornography.

Also the way pop culture portrays men as lazy sex-obsessed idiots while women actually run everything is not particularly helpful.

Take out the lazy and it's true.

I have to agree, but the key thing to remember is that it doesn't have to be so, especially since culture shapes society about as much as the other way around.

I've become more pro-life. I've never been a moralist, and don't believe in government intervention in many cases (I was for a period an anarchocapitalist of sorts), my problem with abortion, and the death penalty has more to do with what I believe is a growing problem in our society in general. An increase in hubris.

Still very much pro-life but I think i've cooled the rhetoric on the issue. It's still a prominent issue for me in GOP primaries but not in general elections.

     I was pro-life until I was about 14. Then I thought about it and I realized I held that view for a really inane reason. I made an about-face and have been pro-choice ever since.

I switched back and forth between "should I care or should I not?" Have been relatively apathetic on the issue over the years.

Far more pro-choice, I used to favor a complete ban without exceptions AND prosecuting women and doctors who got/provided abortions.

Option 2, but never definitively for either.

Growing up in rural Virginia, I've always been strongly pro-choice. Some people just should not have been born

I use to be 100% pro-choice although I may be drifting rightward on this issue in regards to late term/partial birth abortion.

When I first heard the term abortion, I didn't have an opinion on it. Then around my Sophomore Year of High School, after hearing arguments from both sides of the issue, I concluded that I was pro choice. I  oppose late term and partial birth abortions except for when the mother's health is at stake (which is the case for a majority of late term abortions anyway).

I still support exceptions for Incest, Rape and the life of the mother, especially in cases two and three and believe that forcing a rape victim to bring a pregnancy that was the result of a rape to term is putting the woman's health at risk, abet her mental and emotional health. I also believe that people who oppose abortions in cases of incest, rape, and the life of the mother are monsters. It's one thing to oppose abortion as a contraceptive measure, in fact I can respect their position even if I disagree with it, but to force a woman to carry a product of incest to term knowing the risks, or forcing a rape victim to carry her attacker's child to term, or to physically endanger a woman's life for the sake of carrying the pregnancy to term is ed up in so many ways it boils my blood when people try to make a case for outlawing it in these cases (what's worse is they do it on religious grounds). I would also federally fund abortion in these cases.

Now, as a contraceptive measure, I'm of the belief that it should be "safe, legal, and rare." I do not support any state or federal funding going towards abortions that are done solely as a contraceptive measure.  We should also be working to reduce the number of abortions and to do that, we need to have sex education in our schools that teach more than abstinence and we need to make contraceptives more accessible and more affordable.

To answer the question of the thread, I guess not much, if anything, has changed.