I know many pro-choice people, including guys like me, don't blame men for laws against abortion. However, some people want to stir up hatred between men and women and say stuff like "80% of anti-choice legislators are male" and "if you don't have a uterus, you should not be allowed to vote on abortion." 80% of legislators, pro-choice and pro-life, are male. That does not mean the males are causing the problem. As for those without a uterus not voting, that sounds reasonable at first. But what if the pro-choice women lose? Would you not want the men coming to the rescue then? It is called bystander intervention. Look at Gallup polls. See how split it is within each sex. The men are not the problem. It is society that is divided.
There are many Pro-Choicers, like me, who do not advocate that "if you don't have a uterus, you don't get to...whatever" I blame anyone who wants to take away women's rights for being cruel, ignorant, unfair, un-Constitutional, Un-American.
Should not have been, but now that there are laws, voting is one way to repeal them. As for judges, they rule from the bench either direction.
Mate I live in a state where abortion is illegal. The law goes back to 1899 before women ev n had a vote. Now those countries where abortion is illegal are either avowed patriarchial societies or religious or both
Yes it is in the criminal code - at the present time, however one of the members of parliament has just put forward a private members bill to decriminalise it. It will be going to a conscience vote, which means that they do not have to vote on party lines Despite the laws on the books we have a similar abortion rate to the USA. See, there is a "h although and welfare" clause. Anywhere that has this clause the laws become unenforceable
Bolding above , mine. Yes, some people want to stir up hatred and that would be anyone, female or male, who want to restrict the rights of others , the most basic way to stir up hatred.... and that would be the hilariously named "Pro-' Life' " group. From the polls I've seen "society" is not divided, the majority think abortion should be legal, so the majority don't hate and the majority still believes in freedom and liberty and law..........(even for women !!)
I can only talk on what I have seen here and in other places, the majority of pro-lifers who want the greatest restrictions on abortion are male, they are also the ones most likely to advocate sterilization for women who have an abortion and feel that women are obligated to remain pregnant. America is one of the countries with the greatest split and debate concerning abortion, the majority is split between religious and non-religious, and by party lines. Men tend to be more pro-life than women, in 2013 50% of men considered themselves to be pro-life, with 42% considering themselves to be pro-choice, while for women in the same year it was 46% pro-life, 47% pro-choice.
All the pro-life men I talked to only got upset when I said 5 month abortions should be legal. They got very upset about that, actually. I met one woman who said abortion should be allowed at any stage, and far more who got angry and said that is murder. Most people think abortion should be legal until 3-4 months. I've debated pro-life people on the embro being a person, and they did not get angry. They just got into an academic debate. Same with Rand Paul. Even he does not care, and dodged the question by attacking 3rd trimester abortions. There is the liar syndrome, though. People who think something unpopular should be legal will often take the opposite extreme when questioned. Maybe some of the Gallop women are in that category.
Personally I think there should be no restrictions what so ever on abortion, after all it is nothing more than a medical procedure and we don't restrict other medical procedures . .the often cited cry of pro-lifers that removing any and all abortion restrictions would result in an explosion of late term abortions simply doesn't hold any water .. just look to Canada to see that no restrictions does not equal more abortions, in fact their late term abortion rate is lower than the USA and I think this is because the very restrictions in place in the US push abortions into later terms and as such give the pro-lifers more ammunition to restrict even further, when the very legislation they support is causing the problem.
Restricting late term abortions closes the option for women with grossly abnormal foetuses to chose this as a palliation. But then the RTL'ers have muddied the waters so much that palliation is not even considered - even though it is the most outstandingly common reason for third trimester abortions
I'm just curious about the poll part - what polls are you looking at? Gallup has been polling on this for quite a long time, and only 29% believe there should be no restrictions. 19% believe it should be illegal period, and 51% believe it should be illegal under certain circumstances. Oddly enough, I'm in the centrist group on this issue, and on this board apparently being one of the 70% who believe there should be SOME restriction makws me just another generic pro-lifer XD http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx
I think you're right about the 3-4 month mark being where most people think it should be - I do, but somehow that apparently makes me far right here. :/ On Rand Paul - he's obviously talked about the issue more than once, but if you're talking about the case I think you are then I don't see how his comments were unfair. As you said, the most common view seems to he thay it should be legal up to around 3-4 months, and Paul was being painted as extreme and being questioned on when exactly it should be illegal. He did pretty much dodge it, but he wasn't at all unfair in trying to suggest that the "other" side is more extreme. He specifically mentioned Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (I think that's where the orginal criticism of his position came from), because she said it should be legal at all times, and I think it's fair to say that - at least in relation to where the public view is - she's the one who is extreme on the issue, not Paul.
Ya, 80% think it should be legal, the decent people who think women have as much rights as everyone else.......50% still see themselves as Pro-Choice(Pro-Equality even for WOMEN ) !! ....but there are those who we must drag out of the 19th century, kicking and screaming and longing for the days when women were dirt under their feet... There does NOT need to be restrictions....women are NOT the stupid evil beings that Anti-choicers INSIST they are. Women in Canada where there are NO restrictions do NOT "enjoy" the pain and damage to their bodies of 7-9 months of pregnancy just for the "fun" of having a late term abortion.....and I don't see where women from other countries would be any different.. Wanting "some restrictions" though does NOT means anything except they are against late term abortions as is EVERYONE...and late term abortions are already ILLEGAL...
I think I would fall into a similar group. It's not that I believe there should be restrictions so much as completely okay with the idea that there could be restrictions. What I want most of all is to carve out a solid middle ground. Maybe that means neither side achieves it's ultimate goal. For example, solid bans at the 20-24 week time frame for elective abortions(with the normal exceptions) in exchange for solid access to legal abortion prior to the date. So elective late-term abortions and ones that occur earlier after the cutoff would be illegal, but women would also not need to worry about zealous legislators playing games with laws to close down clinics, deny women access, or flat out harass them(mandatory and unnecessary invasive ultrasound procedures). I would see no problem with wanting assurances that the opposite would not happen as well, like playing games with laws to increase or ignore the cutoff. As a democratic country I realize that nobody is ever going to get to have things exactly the way they want and that compromise is a critical part of that process.
You want to take away a man's rights. You are then to blame for justification of taking away rights. Do not cry when others do to you what you do to others. "The Golden Rule"
NO, I am NOT going around and around with you again over "poor little men and how unfair life is for them"....I have told you, even IF life was unfair to men I ONLY care that women have a right to abortion....I do NOT care if men feel cheated or are having a mood swing and feel whiney... Do you understand , " I do NOT care"....go whine and whimper to someone else....I do NOT care... And I'm sure you'll come back with that whiney self-righteous crap about "oh, you're a hypocrite"...go ahead, I do NOT care....Look up the words, "I do not care" and figure out what they mean.
That's likely because of the "yuck" factor and how you feel personally about it. That kind of thinking is quite dangerous, because personal opinion and approval shouldn't have anything to do making laws. Democracy should never about appeasing the majority. Only a minority of women will choose abortion at a late stage. The reasons for that vary and are not important to us. They matter to the women concerned. Enlightened democratic countries protect the rights of minorities, no matter how unpopular that might be. There should only be a valid reason to restrict rights. Disapproval of another person's behaviour isn't one of them.
But it still does to a certain degree. This isn't an ideal democracy and judicial system by any means. There is still very much an element of "majority rules", and that's rightfully so. But without appealing to a non-existent higher standard or power as an objective baseline, what "should be" is always going to be subjective. In a Democracy, even a democratic republic like we have, government and laws are more or less set by the people themselves. You can't really cut the people, with all their different beliefs and morals, out of the equation and expect to get anywhere. Compromise is essential, mandatory even. Preaching to the choir, although I would mention that a democracy actually is about pleasing the majority since the majority are the ones who have the most power within one. It's not limitless power, but it is enough that you can't pretend it's not a thing. It is only through the majority agreeing to a set of standards that does protect minority rights that those kinds of protections will exist. In an ideal world, rights would only be restricted when there is an objective reason to do so like you say and with which I agree, but we don't live in that world yet and we can't pretend we do. It is in that spirit that I would be willing to agree with reasonable restrictions on abortion laws. Not because I think that it's ultimately right, but because I know compromise is necessary.
Not if it means minorities will have their rights eroded or denied. We won't ever live in that world unless we argue for it. No rights were merely give to us. They were all hard fought for.
Exactly. It was a process that had to be worked towards, and compromises were made along the entire path. That's how democracies work. It isn't just someone on a soapbox talking about perfect worlds and everyone else falls in line. It's dealing with the reality of the country you live in and working with the system it has, and sometimes changing that system. It's realizing that you're not going to get what you want all the time. That's all I'm saying and all I mean when I say I'm willing to compromise on an abortion cutoff. Why should I get to have things exactly the way I think they should be? What makes my version "right"? Nothing. Only our chosen beliefs systems offer a baseline, but that baseline will always be on equal ground with other people because we're all standing on the same ground. You fight for what you believe to be right. Minority rights only exist in a democracy if that democracy enacts them. It takes more than just being insistent, you have to get others to agree with you, enough that laws can be created, changed, or repealed. While I may not share the pro-life viewpoint or agree with the laws those folks make, I can't pretend they don't exist and that they don't have a legitimate voice in how things are done. If I do that, I'll find myself on the losing end more often than not. I'm pro-choice. I don't believe the government should be involved in a woman's decisions about her reproductive organs. But I am just one voice out of hundreds of millions of voting age adults, and my voice is not any louder or more important than any of the others. That's what a democracy really is. If the people aren't in charge of the laws in the end, it's not a democracy.
What makes any version wrong is if it erodes or ignores anybody's rights. You don't need to pretend they don't exist. Their wishes don't need to be taken into account if what they they wish erodes the rights of other people. Living ina democracy does not mean you need to pander to the bigoted. If a country does not respect the rights of everybody livingi n it, then it's not democracy. A democracy does not equate to being mob rule.
