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

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Should they truly be falling under the same social umbrella? What am I missing here?

The thing is that "social conservatism" is a nice, short-hand way of saying "religiousness" in modern America. Think about the big social issues: abortion, same-sex marriage, stem cell research, teaching evolution, abstinence-only sex education. Each of these is most loudly, vigorously, and reliably decried by religious individuals. So they get grouped together because the groups that are most visible are united on the issues in question.

So there's no reason why the two must be linked - there's nothing about one that implies the other, unless you're using the Bible as your source for social policy.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I'm not a social conservative in any way shape or form, but I guess I'm missing what you're saying here - you've linked a bunch of issues under a "religiousness" umbrella (which I think is problematic on its own, but I'll run with it) but don't see why these two issues should be linked?

Or is it that there is a legitimate secular argument against abortion that you cannot come up with for gay marriage?

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

I'm saying that the practical observation is that most groups that oppose gay marriage also oppose abortion and non-abstinent sex ed and all the rest. Thus, they have been traditionally grouped together, when there's nothing in the one issue that implies anything about the other. The only reason we should be surprised at this "de-coupling" is if we presume that the people who say "no" to both gay marriage and abortion are getting that response from the Bible. Otherwise, a secular disagreement with abortion and a secular disagreement with gay marriage might coexist, but there's no reason to think that they should. Nothing in any argument I've heard for the issues implies a stance on the other except if the argument references or draws moral support from the Bible or other religious texts that are read to be critical of both.

[soliloquy76.livejournal.com]

One possibility: Abortion is already legal. That battle has already been fought and won, for the most part, and isn't in the forefront of social issues today like gay marriage is. Because of that, I think younger people have a better understanding of the arguments for and against gay marriage than for and against abortion.

Or not. These issues aren't really on my radar.

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

It would be nice to see all kinds of issues get decoupled: marriage rights, abortion, climate change, fiscal policy, immigration, drug policy, interventionism, etc. But the discussion is very box/label-driven. People want to know what side you're on.

[ytterbius.livejournal.com]

Hmm, so we just have to convince young boys and girls that to avoid the need for abortion, they should stick to gay sex.

"Rights" issues

[russj.livejournal.com]

many do not see the abortion issue as one of "rights," but rather one of life

Actually the "Right to Life" is the most fundamental of rights.

Perhaps you may should call abortion a Human Rights issue, and same-sex marriage a Civil Rights issue.

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

I think that's a very good point, Manservant Hecubus. Many young people see Roe v. Wade as a battle that's already been won, and while that clock is being rolled back on a lot of fronts, you do kind of have to be paying attention to realize that those freedoms are being snatched away from under your feet. If and when a lot of the more draconian anti-abortion laws are passed and have been in effect for a while, I suspect there's going to be an ugly wake-up call for a lot of young people who didn't realize that they could get prosecuted for having a miscarriage.

Also, while badlydrawnjeff makes an excellent point here ...

[...] gay marriage, as it is, has been a reality for millennials (folks ages 19-29) for most of their politically/socially aware lives now [...]

... Precisely because it's what social conservatives always warned would happen if gays got too much positive, everyday visibility in society, I'd likewise note that slut-shaming has ALSO been a reality for folks of that generation, in some ways even MORE than it' was for my generation, Generation X, possibly because we didn't have the Internet when I was in high school to ensure that every sexually "questionable" move that a girl or woman made could follow them for the rest of their lives, like an online scarlet "A." Regardless of the cause, though, we've gotten a LOT more comfortable, as a society, with passing negative judgments on women's sex lives, with so-called "feminists," particularly among the Baby Boomers of my parents' generation, showing themselves to be some of the more grudgey judges.

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

That depends entirely on whether you consider a fetus a fully-formed human whose rights trump those of the adult human within whose body it's growing.

Perhaps you may should call abortion a Human Rights issue

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Except that would be inaccurate since we don't assign the rights of Personhood to pre-sentient cell masses.

[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]

In fact, now that I think about it, badlydrawnjeff's quote is even more telling than I realized, because yes, in their families, their circles of friends, their places or work and worship, and the broader world of media representation, young people have seen, more and more and more, that gay people not only EXIST, but that they also run across so much of the full spectrum of humanity that, contrary to campy stereotypes of comic fabulousness in yesteryear, many gays are actually BORING, just as much as "straights" are. In many ways, that's the REAL triumph of Ellen DeGeneres — she was never an especially witty or insightful or distinctive comedienne, but she was NICE and she was ORDINARY, to a level so innately comforting that only the most virulent homophobes could think to try and demonize her for her sexuality. In that sense, it's kind of like the end of the Cold War, because once we started getting glimpses of the true Russia from behind the Iron Curtain, we didn't have the HEART to hate those people anymore, simply because their lives were so goddamned DULL. You can't build someone up as some sort of Lex Luthor in the Legion of Doom-type villain in your imagined "culture war" when they're so fucking BEIGE that they remind you of your Uncle Merle and Aunt Maxine living in the Great Lakes.

By contrast, how many women do we see or hear — among our families, friends, offices, churches or media — talking frankly about having had abortions? I'm gonna put that number at damn near next to ZERO for a lot of folks out there. For fuck's sake, for as much as abortion ISN'T mentioned as a possibility in mainstream TV or movie plotlines that include unplanned pregnancy, you'd think we were still living in the days of the Hays Code. Contrast that to the '80s, when movies and TV shows frequently confronted abortion issues head-on.

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

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

Re: Perhaps you may should call abortion a Human Rights issue

[raichu100.livejournal.com]

That isn't a universal view. Some people assign the rights of personhood to a person at any stage of development, whether it's sentient or not.

[raichu100.livejournal.com]

According to you.

Re: Perhaps you may should call abortion a Human Rights issue

[russj.livejournal.com]

There was once a time when we did not grant personhood to people with different colored skin. (Well maybe 3/5 of a personhood.)

[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.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

That's a bit of a perspective-transference there. Formed/unformed isn't under consideration on the pro-life side. Existence/non-existence is probably more accurate. Both are equally deserving of the right to exist. Abortion skews that balance one-way only. Otherwise, there is a bog of parsing which awaits over rights-qualifiers such as independence, formed, survivability, etc. Qualifiers many of which even abortion-rights advocates cannot agree upon. I have encountered many of whom which argue from these positions, but always in varied combinations of pseudo-criteria.

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

See my response here. (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1144626.html?thread=91077170#t91077170) I don't profess to know when "personhood" begins, but I do know that a fetus is part of a woman's body, and that's why I'm pro-choice, because this decision shouldn't be in the hands of anyone other than them whose bodies these fetuses are growing inside. To do otherwise necessarily requires ALL of us to adopt ONE standard on this, which is NOT forthcoming.

Or, to put it another way, whether fetuses are people is a question mark, but whether women are people whose lives are going to be irreversibly altered by being forced to bear children is NOT a question mark. Guess which side I side with.

[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.

[bex.livejournal.com]

Not much at all, for fear of the blowback. One of my professors just shared this article (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-mendelson/dirty-dancing-remake_b_943715.html?ref=fb&src=sp) the other day - it highlights how the movie Dirty Dancing might be seen today, given that much of the story centered around an unintended pregnancy and an abortion. Can you imagine the scandal today?

[blue-mangos.livejournal.com]

It's not a question mark in Canada, our Supreme Court took a stance on it, declaring it began when the fetus is expelled in a living state from the birth canal. Yet another reason I am so happy to live here.

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

In the absence of hard-and-fast reliable evidence to the contrary, I'd favor Canada's standard, but yeah, what I'm really arguing in favor of is the right of you to not be hamstrung by my or anyone else's subjective standards on this shit. I favor the right of women to abort for any reason at all, up to and including, "Because I don't feel like it," which is frequently treated an an illegitimate justification. Fuck, the only reason I'm not having kids is because *I* don't feel like it, which is why I'm currently saving up for a VASECTOMY, because MY worst nightmare is to learn that I've accidentally impregnated a woman who wants to KEEP it.

[raichu100.livejournal.com]

I should hope the issues are separating. They are completely separate issues. It is encouraging to see that people are thinking critically about individual issues rather than just hopping about a bandwagon of conservatism or liberalism.

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

Thank you.