How have your views on abortion changed over the years?

[Mike88]

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.

[RINO Tom]

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.

[anthonyjg]

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.

[Person Man]

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.

[Goldwater]

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

call me back in 2028 GOP landslide.

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?

[Beet]

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

[RINO Tom]

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

[TDAS04]

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.

[Santander]

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

[RFayette]

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

[Beet]

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

Jesus Christ, Beet. From either a pro-life or pro-choice perspective, your post is the one of the worst comments that I've ever read in any discussion of abortion.

Why is it bad from a pro-choice perspective?

[DC Al Fine]

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

Jesus Christ, Beet. From either a pro-life or pro-choice perspective, your post is the one of the worst comments that I've ever read in any discussion of abortion.

Why is it bad from a pro-choice perspective?

My party having a demographic advantage > abortion rights

[Mr. Smith]

More pro-life.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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.

Couldn't have said it better.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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

All except angry NH women?

[Beet]

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.

Couldn't have said it better.

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.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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.

[Higgs]

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

[Beet]

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?

Yes, but the same could be said of abortion.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[RFayette]

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

All except angry NH women?

Haha. Well, I definitely believe that unborn life is precious, but I also think people can forfeit their right to live in certain cases, as terrible as it may sound.

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.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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?

Yes, but the same could be said of abortion.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

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.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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

All except angry NH women?

Haha. Well, I definitely believe that unborn life is precious, but I also think people can forfeit their right to live in certain cases, as terrible as it may sound.

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.

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.

[Horus]

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.

[Beet]

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?

Yes, but the same could be said of abortion.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

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.

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.

[Antonio the Sixth]

If you want to argue against the position that the law should be totally devoid of any moral framework

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