How have your views on abortion changed over the years?

[Goldwater]

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

Wait, what? I'm . 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.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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

Wait, what? I'm . 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.

[Ban my account ffs!]

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.

[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.

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.

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. 

[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.

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.

[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.

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.

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.

[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.

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.

[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.

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.

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.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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.

[Illiniwek]

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.

[RFayette]

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.

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.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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.

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).

[Figueira]

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

[SWE]

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."

[100% pro-life no matter what]

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!

[Goldwater]

Usually, our instant/gut reactions are right!

Not necessarily, no...

[Figueira]

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!

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.

[Enduro]

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.

[New_Conservative]

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

[Antonio the Sixth]

So, was there anyone who wasn't disgusted the first time they heard of abortion?

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.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

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.

[bagelman]

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

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

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.

It must take a lot of rationalizing to support what is so intuitively murder. 

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[Green Line]

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.

[TJ in Oregon]

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.

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.

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.