Pro-choice at record low?

Knoxville-Horn

Knoxville-Horn

1,000+ Posts
The Link

I find it interesting that those in favor of gay marriage rise as those identified as pro-choice drop. Anyone want to take a guess as to why? I'm genuinely curious. I always assumed that most social issues trend favorably to the left over time.
 
I would argue that they're not nearly as related as people would think. I've always maintained that "pro-choice" numbers were deceiving - that a large number of people call themselves pro-choice but would never actually have an abortion, and I'd like to think that the number of people who really think abortion is a good an acceptable option under any circumstances has never been particularly high.

I would argue that younger generations don't seem to have the need to identify themselves with a cause simply because it fits into a template. In the past, if you were a democrat or a feminist, you were pro-choice. As a result, I think a lot of very poor arguments have been used to prop up the idea that abortion is anything other than what it is - and younger people with no compulsion to fit into a political mold seem less inclined to accept them.

No mystery on gay marriage - society is getting more permissive. But I do think that the polls and elections indicate that the sentiment still isn't there, albeit it's certainly stronger than it has been. Hey, thanks to the media, people believe that one out of 10 people are gay - so I would imagine there's a feeling of inevitability about it as well as a greater feeling of comfort and familiarity with younger people.
 
Opponents of same-sex marriage are losing because they can't think of a non-religious answer to the question, "how does a same-sex marriage affect you or anyone besides the people married?" To most fair minded people, it's pretty clear how abortion affects people besides the mother. Furthermore, though religion often enters the picture, it doesn't have to. You can be a rabid atheist and still have as much of a moral problem with abortion as the most devoutly religious person.

Even when it composed a majority, I think the pro-choice community was wide but not deep. I've known tons of people who were pro-choice. I've never known anybody who wasn't at least a little uncomfortable with abortion from a moral or ethical standpoint, including a few people who have had abortions themselves.

I think the pro-choice movement is losing ground for two reasons.

1. Medical science. Doctors are able to make fetuses viable earlier and earlier. Of course, the sonogram now makes it possible to see fetuses. Intellectually that's irrelevant but emotionally it makes a huge difference. It's a lot easier to kill something you can't see than something you can see.

Both factors make it harder and harder for fair-minded people to deny that the fetus is a distinct life. And when people start viewing the fetus as a life, the "I can do what I want with my body" argument starts sounding more and more selfish and stupid.

2. Mexicans. In the last 20 years, we've seen a huge number of Mexican immigrants (mostly Catholics) enter the United States. Most of them think birth control is immoral. Well, if you think taking a pill or slipping on a rubber are immoral, you're going to think abortion is downright barbaric.
 
Of what do you think I'm ignorant? What facts or evidence is being ignored? What do you know that I don't? And don't tell me about how you are evolved intellectually because you believe there should be no moral objections to homosexuality - that's not factual or scientific or based on knowledge, it's based on your belief.
 
Fair points prodigal. what do you think about the legal incidents of marriage, though? For example, insurance benefits for partners, the right to make medical decisions, be present as a spouse would be in hospital settings, the right to inherit absent a Will, governmental and retirement benefits etc. These types of issues, not the ceremonial, emotional and spiritual elements of marriage, are the reason the government is involved. The "civil union" middle ground has appeal to me for that reason; frankly, I think the civil union aspects of ALL marriages are the only the government should be involved in. If paleo-Mormons want to have church sanctioned multiple marriages, I'm not sure that bothers me much, but the government should still have the power to recognize only the first without first amendment implications. The government can appropriately enforce elements of unions that impact society directly, or impact the due course of regulating property rights and who has the power to act on behalf of the couple, but beyond that I am not so sure.
 
Gay Marriage is way different then Abortion.

I believe most people think that Abortion is either an abomination or an act of last resort. Should women have the right to choose, sure, should they pay for it themselves, yes, no government monies.

Gay Marriage is one of a couple things, either the media overplays how much gay marriage is supported or people tell pollsters one thing and vote another way. It probably is a combination of the two. California's Prop 8 in 2008 is a prime example.
 
Interesting that, while Americans seem to have made some shifts in their associations with the labels most commonly used when debating abortion, their underlying feelings about the morality and legality of the procedure has not.
 
Whit- I pretty much agree with everything you wrote. I think the debate is silly and I have no problem with either r4ecognizing gay marriage or civil unions.

I do think it is one of those issues though that neither side really wants to "win" because it is a rallying cry for both parties. Just my opinion, but I believe that legislation to approve gay civil unions as opposed to gay marriage would probably carry. At least in many states.

I think the problem is that the stated reason for gay marriage is for people to obtain the various rights you mentioned. However, in reality, I believe the gay community really wants to prove a point and wants the "marriage" term applied. That makes it a hot button political issue that both sides will exploit shamelessly.

We have so many things in our country to deal with that gay marriage shouldnt be one of them. I think it is terrible that we dont acknowledge gay marriage but both sides have an incentive to not really solve the issue.
 
Shiner- I hate slippery slope arguments. and I fail to see how your questions has any relevance to this discussion.

But I can play. If at some point two consenting adults that happened to be father and daughter wanted to form a civil union in order to receive certain benefits that would not be available to them, then sure.

Why exactly would you be opposed to that?
 
Broco, I suppose just because I'm conservative and it is against the morals and traditions of the society that (I thought) I belonged to. I think incest is wrong and I don't think society should condone it. Likewise I don't think same sex couples should be married although I have no objection to legal civil unions. My point about the question is, as you say, the slippery slope. If we allow gay marriage I really do not see how incest laws would hold up under such precedent. To that same point I don't see how we could restrict polygamy.
 
Shiner- I agree that incest is wrong, both from a moral standpoint and a health standpoint to potemtial children and psycholgical damage to the participants. However, if we are being completely honest here, neither civil unions or marriage are licenses for sex. They are just a legal contract between 2 people that have certain rights attached to them. If the people involved follow the laws of the contract, they get the benefit of the contract. But the contract does not give them any new benefits/laws regarding sex. They can have sex with people whether married or civil unioned or not.

Kids in the past, and in some parts of the world can and do get "married" as early as 14. In our country, if an adult impregnates a 14 year old they go to jail. Even if they somehow got married, the adult would still go to jail.

Right now we have laws to protect children from sex, but there are no laws that prohibit gay sex.
 
I don't want government to tell churches they should conduct gay marriages. But I do believe these to be true:
1. Sexual orientation is not a choice. Sexual behavior is -- but it has a powerful ally in biology.
2. If people have homosexual orientation, having the pair up for long term, mutal support, is a societal good.

I've seen "old maid" sisters live together and parents with retarded children and certainly I could imagine some sort of acceptable formalization of that role to be a social good.
 
This is a great thread- and I agree with a lot of what has been said. Maybe the word marriage should be reserved for people who make their vows before a clergy person. If a couple goes before a judge or someone who is able to certify an exchange of vows, then that is a civil union. A common-law designation by the state should be considered a civil union. And if a particular church wants to call it a marriage, then they can. The government should consider all as civil unions if the appropriate paperwork is completed. The government should not try to force any church to recognize any civil union as a marriage, and the churches shouldn't try to force the government to recognize only their definition of marriage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top