Trends

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

An interesting finding in recent polling on social issues. I'll let this piece give the details:

Americans are now evenly split on same-sex marriage: 47 percent support marriage rights for gays and lesbians, and 47 percent oppose them. That stalemate won't last long—critics of gay unions are dying off. According to a new report from the Public Religion Research Institute, only 31 percent of Americans over age 65 support gays getting hitched, compared to 62 percent of Americans under 30.

But strong millennial support for gay marriage has not translated into an uptick in acceptance of other sexual freedoms, like the right to an abortion. The Public Religion Research Institute notes that popular support for keeping abortion legal has dipped a percentage point since 1999, and young Americans are not swelling the ranks of abortion rights supporters. Today, while 57 percent of people under 30 see gay sex as "morally acceptable," only 46 percent of them would say the same thing about having an abortion.

The institute calls this a "decoupling of attitudes." Support for same-sex marriage and abortion rights have traditionally gone hand-in-hand, and that's changing. Though young people today are "more educated, more liberal, and more likely to be religiously unaffiliated" than their parents—all factors traditionally correlated with support of abortion rights—they are not actually more likely to support abortion.

The article goes on to give some reasons as to why this decoupling is occurring, but I believe the issue is much more simple than that - gay marriage, as it is, has been a reality for millennials (folks ages 19-29) for most of their politically/socially aware lives now, and they see quite clearly how the issue really doesn't matter - gay people getting married doesn't impact their straight marriages, or their lives at all, really. There's no harm involved. The difference with abortion is that the harm involved remains self-evident - at the end of the day, we know how many abortions occur, and such "decoupling," as it were, likely reflects that difference. I also speculate that many do not see the abortion issue as one of "rights," but rather one of life. That those who self-identify as pro-life remains competitive ideologically with those who self-identify as pro-choice for the first time in a while may be a sign of that.

Why do you think these issues are separating? Should they truly be falling under the same social umbrella? What am I missing here?

Comments

[raichu100.livejournal.com]

Well, usually (not always, but usually) the two parties are weighing different rights. Only one has his/her life on the line.

Occasionally the other does have her life on the line - which is why I believe abortion should not be dismissed as a medical procedure.

Then there's the question of why an adult's rights trump that of a fetus, since we generally believe they do not trump the rights of a child or baby.

[box-in-the-box.livejournal.com]

... Because a fetus, unlike a child or a baby, is not a person?

[raichu100.livejournal.com]

According to you.

[box-in-the-box.livejournal.com]

I'm a guy. In a very real sense. I don't have a horse in this race. Moreover, I think it's kind of fucked up that legislative bodies which are male by vast majority are telling women what they can and can't do with their own bodies. When personhood begins can be pretty damned subjective. When a fetus is part of a woman's body is not at all subjective. Being pro-choice means I think that government needs to stay the fuck out of women's decisions about whether or not what's growing in their bodies are "people" or not. I've known quite a few women who are pro-life with regard to their own bodies, but pro-choice with regard to everyone else's bodies.

[raichu100.livejournal.com]

"When a fetus is part of a woman's body is not at all subjective."

I...don't think a fetus /is/ part of a woman's body. Attached to it, yes, but part of it? It's a separate human being. It has separate genes. It is destined to eventually be autonomous in every sense - which could not be said of a fingernail, or an eyeball, or any other part of an adult's body which /is/ unequivocally "part" of that body.

Anyway, the only point I was making in that comment was that not everyone agrees on whether a fetus is a person. To me, that's the crux of the debate. And from a biological point of view, I have to say I think it is a person.

[box-in-the-box.livejournal.com]

It's growing inside of a woman's body and feeding off of it like a parasite, after having grown from the genetic material of her body, and any attempts to get at it before it's born necessarily involve going through the woman's body. It's NECESSARILY part of her body. This is not debatable. To suggest otherwise is squarely in 2+2=5 territory. Whether it is EVENTUALLY autonomous is irrelevant, unless you want to defend the sacred rights of all the sperm that die in condoms or tissues or teenage boys' crusty socks because they're prevented from fulfilling their biologically intended destiny of fertilizing eggs.

And yes, I acknowledge that there is disagreement about whether a fetus is a person. In fact, I said as much myself in my own posts. As such, in the absence of such a consensus, I once again say that the only people who should be making this decision are the women whose bodies these fetuses are growing inside of.

[raichu100.livejournal.com]

Okay. I see where you are coming from. As a biologist (so to speak) I was just mincing words. Yes, a fetus is (at least for a time) inseparable from its mother's body. This we can agree on.

"unless you want to defend the sacred rights of all the sperm that die in condoms or tissues or teenage boys' crusty socks because they're prevented from fulfilling their biologically intended destiny of fertilizing eggs."

A sperm by itself will not become a person. Terminating a living person is a totally different thing from preventing the creation of that person in the first place. The latter I am very much in favor of (though of course condoms are not foolproof, etc. etc.)

"As such, in the absence of such a consensus, I once again say that the only people who should be making this decision are the women whose bodies these fetuses are growing inside of."

I guess I think human life is too precious to gamble on. Is it a person or not? The idea that it might not be isn't enough to go by, if you ask me.

Of course, "personhood" is nothing more than a definition - nothing more than a word. What is important to me is the emphasis that ALL human life is precious and has intrinsic value.

Believe me, I am not (as some people would like to believe...) a raging woman-hating reactionary monster. I favor programs that connect women to other options and support over the immediate de-legalization of abortion. I'd rather see a cultural change than a political one, in this case. Because I believe that when two lives are in conflict, if there's a solution that has the best possible outcome for both parties involved, it should be taken. Yes, there are times when abortion is appropriate. I don't think "I don't feel like having a baby" is one of those times, but I do want to see resources in place for women who are pregnant but not yet ready to raise the child.

[box-in-the-box.livejournal.com]

I guess I think human life is too precious to gamble on.

I'd rather protect the existing, confirmed person (the woman) than the potential, possible person (the fetus), because realistically speaking, in the vast majority of cases, if a woman gets pregnant and she's not ready to be a parent, forcing her to become a mother WILL fuck over both her own life and that of her child (and yes, there are inspiring Reader's Digest-worthy stories of moms and kids in such circumstances who bravely overcame the odds, but that's like saying that institutionalized economic inequity is okay because BOOTSTRAPS). Again, the reason I don't have kids is because any children I might father would literally be better off NEVER HAVING EXISTED than having me as a dad.

I'd rather see a cultural change than a political one, in this case.

I don't believe they're mutually exclusive. Tell kids that birth control and STD protection exist, at the same time that you provide abortion rights and morning-after pills for those who still get pregnant. In short, do preventive measures so that abortions themselves become less necessary, but don't rule out abortion itself. I commend you for your support of birth control, but I simply think you're a bit incomplete in your approach.

Yes, there are times when abortion is appropriate. I don't think "I don't feel like having a baby" is one of those times [...]

Why the hell not? That's why I'M not having kids RIGHT NOW! It's the same reason why, as a former military enlistee, I will NEVER support reinstating the draft, because I've seen enough of the problems that crop up even when people make a PREMEDITATED CHOICE to enter into a thing, so it can get a lot WORSE if they're doing something that they DIDN'T want to do to begin with. The fact that I don't WANT to have a kid is proof enough that I SHOULDN'T have a kid.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Whether it is EVENTUALLY autonomous is irrelevant

Not according to Roe vs. Wade, well in a legal sense.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Whether it is EVENTUALLY autonomous is irrelevant

That is an assumption on your part, not a fact.

unless you want to defend the sacred rights of all the sperm that die in condoms or tissues or teenage boys' crusty socks because they're prevented from fulfilling their biologically intended destiny of fertilizing eggs.

And this does not logically follow from the other.

[curseangel.livejournal.com]

A fetus is not a fully-formed human being; it is not sentient, and it acts in a parasitic way upon its human "host." Ergo, no, it does not get the same rights as a child, a baby, or an adult.

Further, even if we accept that a fetus is a "person," there is no reason to suggest that the adult woman should be required to fully and completely support said "person" for nine months, risking her own life for it (and before you say that childbirth is "safe," think about the fact that the U.S. has one of the highest maternal mortality rates in the developed world). That is against her human rights.

Essentially, what anti-choice activists want to do isn't give the fetus the same rights as anyone else -- they want the rights of the fetus to trump the rights of the woman, to the point that survival and continuation of the fetus is more important than the rights and life of the woman. I call bullshit.

You can't make a law mandating that you have to die and donate your heart to your sibling if they have a heart condition. You can't make a law mandating that you have to donate your kidney while you're still alive. Even if a fetus is a "person," the woman has no obligation to support it and continue to let it exist inside of her.

But that's all moot, as a fetus is not a "person," and I'm not really inclined to continue arguing that particular point to someone who has said before that attempts to educate them are comparable to sexual assault.

[box-in-the-box.livejournal.com]

Thank you.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

I thought personhood wasn't an issue for you.

[box-in-the-box.livejournal.com]

I said that, as a guy, I don't have a horse in this race, which I don't. I shouldn't have the right to decide whether a woman aborts or carries to term. It doesn't mean that I don't enjoy seeing someone whose ideas of personhood are just as strong as yours telling you that you're wrong, since by your own stated standards of subjectivity, you really don't have a leg to stand on to contradict them.

You want to choose for yourself never to have an abortion? Fine, whatever. You want to choose for anyone else? No, fuck that. It's the same reason I support legalized suicide and drug use, even though I don't do drugs and I don't believe in suicide (as tempted as I've been by the latter at certain points in my life), because I don't believe we have the right to tell people they can't take their own lives or take drugs (as long as they're not endangering others, as per current DUI laws). The woman is UNQUESTIONABLY a person, as opposed to the nebulousness of the fetus, so you don't get to tell the one who IS a person that their rights are trumped by the one that only MIGHT be a person.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

The woman is UNQUESTIONABLY a person, as opposed to the nebulousness of the fetus, so you don't get to tell the one who IS a person that their rights are trumped by the one that only MIGHT be a person."

A person who shoots blindly into the trees knowing that there's a chance someone amongst them and kills a human being he did not see there still has at least some responsibility for his actions.

In other words, to which side does one get to err when the possibility of life is threatened? Typically the responsibility is to err on the side of life unless it can be shown with certainty that it is not at risk.

[box-in-the-box.livejournal.com]

A person who shoots blindly into the trees knowing that there's a chance someone amongst them and kills a human being he did not see there still has at least some responsibility for his actions.

Except that you can't convict for murder based on a hypothetical. And in the absence of concrete evidence of personhood, that's pretty much what you're asking for. Which brings up the question: If abortion is illegal, do you support prosecuting and punishing the woman who terminates her own pregnancy? Because if not, you're simply going to encourage reputable doctors to stop treating those women, who will then turn to back-alley chop-shops or do-it-yourself methods, but if so, you're necessarily telling a woman what she can and can't do with her own body, which is as morally reprehensible to me as trying to prosecute someone who attempts suicide for breaking anti-suicide laws.

Typically the responsibility is to err on the side of life unless it can be shown with certainty that it is not at risk.

A whole LOT of laws would be VERY different if that were actually the case, from tobacco and alcohol permissions to speed limits and health care regulations.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

We have varying degrees of punishment even within the parameters of murder. I see no reason why parameters can't be established (outside of murder charges) for the unique conditions that inherently surround the unique biological situations pregnancy presents.

No, I would not prosecute the women themselves, there is enough pre-existing emotional stress involved, and there's no need to impose outside stress on top of that.

[raichu100.livejournal.com]

"and I'm not really inclined to continue arguing that particular point to someone who has said before that attempts to educate them are comparable to sexual assault."

what. the. actual. fuck.

One, wtf are you talking about, I never said anything like that. Two, f you don't want to argue with me, then DON'T DO IT. okay? please?

because I kind of cringed as soon as I saw your comment. I'm not really interested in arguing with you, because the only other time I tried that you were shitty and downright venomous. Not interested in going down that road again.

[curseangel.livejournal.com]

Actually, you did say that (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1038512.html?thread=82576304#t82576304). The notes feature is a wonderful thing!

And god forbid someone be "venomous" when someone is trying to curtail their human rights and advocating forcing them and millions of other women to go through forced pregnancies! To say nothing of your defenses of slut-shaming and rape analogies as in the post linked above. I mean, there's nothing to be venomous about there!

Lastly, I believe I'm allowed to post what I'd like. I said I didn't want to debate the "personhood" issue with you, but the rest, well... I think it speaks for itself that the only part of my post you replied to was the end bit where I brought up your prior bad acts.

[raichu100.livejournal.com]

And I debunked that below - it wasn't really the sentiment I was trying to convey. Convenient to ignore that amirite?

"I think it speaks for itself that the only part of my post you replied to was the end bit where I brought up your prior bad acts."

That's because I really don't want to talk to you, so I replied to the part where you said /you/ didn't want to talk to /me/ (or so it seemed) and capitalized on that.

Seriously. You won't ever take anything I say seriously and refuse to admit that it might be possible you misinterpreted. You were toxic to me from the start (and arguments don't have to include toxicity). I enjoy civilized debate and discussion and have debated with people who agree with your views on many of the things you disagree with me on, without the kind of shit-spewing that arose in our last, er, debate. I don't want to repeat that. So, unless you're going to stop being a jerk, I don't want to argue with you about this. Okay?

[curseangel.livejournal.com]

Except that you said right there, with "I was making a philosophical connection," that you meant to compare the two things. You absolutely freaking meant it.

And I think when you say offensive things, you actually do have to deal with the fact that people are going to be -- gasp -- offended, and get angry. So no, I'm not going to apologize and stop "being a jerk" by getting upset when you offend me. But you know, keep on keeping on with that tone argument.

[raichu100.livejournal.com]

Why are you trying to continue a months-old argument? really?

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

A fetus is not a fully-formed human being; it is not sentient, and it acts in a parasitic way upon its human "host."

This is plainly unbiological and false.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Then there's the question of why an adult's rights trump that of a fetus, since we generally believe they do not trump the rights of a child or baby.

No, we 'generally' do.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Yes, because all pro-lifers opposed capital punishment and are pacifists.