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

[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.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

Not gonna prosecute the women themselves? So, criminal then in the sense of a violation, where jail is not appropriate, but a fine is? I mean if it's illegal in a punitive justice system, there must be punishment. Outside stress is indeed required, even if it's just a $2 fine.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

By the logic of the pro-life movement, though, you should prosecute them. Even in the case of miscarriage because how can you really know? Unless you're willing to admit that all life is equal but some is more equal than others.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

I'm fairly certain your assumptions about what I should or should not think have been passed through several of your trademarked self-made filters first. I'll sleep well as I ignore them.

[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?

[curseangel.livejournal.com]

I actually wasn't. But we're not supposed to insult people here iirc, so I got creative.

Seriously though, it was unnecessary to reference it and I do apologize, even if it still was heinous. It's been That Kind of Day. I'm gonna leave this thread pretty soon and go to Trader Joe's for some grocery-related retail therapy, so I'll check out.

[raichu100.livejournal.com]

I understand. You might want to also look at my own reply to this comment (I tried to edit it in but by then you had already replied.)

I'm sorry you think the things I say are "heinous". But I don't have the same background with these issues that you and some other members here (such as blue_mangoes) have, so please try to understand that I don't see things the same way - I don't say something with the intention of it coming across as a "heinous" idea even if you are more likely to associate that idea with those words.

[curseangel.livejournal.com]

I read it. All I can really say is that I will try to refrain from a knee-jerk reaction, but I do ask that you pay more attention to what you are saying sometimes. Because a lot of times, the things you've said here have been extremely offensive to others, and may trigger people (especially when talking about slut-shaming, rape apologism, and such). And a lot of times the things you say are similar to, if not the same as the things that people who are rape-apologists, flagrant misogynists, and slut-shamers say. You have to be willing to accept that when you parrot those words, you are going to get the same reaction they would, because people are sick to death of dealing with that shit. Especially if you come in saying those things in posts that are already volatile and where similar arguments have been going on.

Further, I'd say having an open mind is important, certainly, but not so open that your brain falls right out. I am open-minded, but if someone sounds and acts like a misogynist, I'm... probably going to assume they're a misogynist. If someone says things that are slut-shaming, I'm going to assume they're slut-shaming.

And sometimes, with things like the "education = sexual assault" thing? The best thing to say is not "but I didn't mean it like that!" it's, "I'm sorry, I'll think more about my words next time." The former just made me more angry, because it smacks of "it's your fault if you're offended" and "I can say whatever I want and as long as I didn't 'mean it' you can't get angry". The apology, however, is actually productive. As I've said, intent isn't magic, and saying you didn't mean something the way it came off doesn't erase the fact that people got offended or hurt by what you said... and you are responsible for it, because they're your words, regardless of your intent.

I really, really think you should try to educate yourself on these issues, maybe by joining some actual feminist groups, like ontd_feminism or something similar.

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

I would've joined, but I don't like being yelled at by a group of people for disagreeing with one or more of them.

[curseangel.livejournal.com]

If you consistently disagree with important things most of the community agrees on, try examining your point of view. I won't say the entire community is always right or some nonsense, because it's of course not, but generally, with big things... if everyone ever is saying being anti-choice is misogynistic and basically monstrous (which it is, btw), and you're anti-choice, maybe you should re-examine your stance. Get it? If everybody's saying you're an asshole for saying X, maybe you should look at why you said X and why you don't think Y.

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

But I've seen people yelling at someone who's been there for the first time and is disagreeing with something for the first time, not "consistently disagreeing" with "the most important things the community agrees on" (whatever that is supposed to mean in the context of a group of individual, supposedly critically thinking people).

I get what you're saying about misogyny, but on the other hand, implying that I must reconsider my points of view simply because a group of other people happen to disagree with me, sounds kind of disturbing to me. Exactly what kind of community is that? A place where people present their opinions for discussion, or where you have to adhere to certain opinions as an obligatory condition for being "accepted"? If it's the latter, then I'm not interested.

[curseangel.livejournal.com]

First, by "the most important things the community agrees on," I mean in a general sense -- groups like ontd_feminism are fundamentally pro-choice, pro-gay rights, anti-isms, and so on.

Sometimes people who are first-timers disagreeing do get yelled at. A lot of times it's because they say something really, egregiously offensive to people in the group -- shockingly, most people aren't going to bother taking the time to check whether someone is consistently a misogynistic asshole before they get offended, upset, or angry. Being a first-timer also doesn't give you a "pass" to freely upset and offend people. By "consistently" I didn't mean "in a number of posts" or something, I meant "whenever you come across an important issue, you disagree with the consensus" or something to that effect, you know?

I didn't say you had to change your mind, note. I said you should look at what you're thinking and why you think that way. Critical thinking is important. When people refuse to reexamine their own viewpoints in the face of evidence that they may be wrong about them, there's a problem. A serious, serious problem. And if someone is saying your viewpoint is wrong because it is offensive and sexist/racist/whatever, you should really shut up and see if what they're saying has any validity before you try to defend it. Assuming, of course, that the general "you" there accepts that being misogynistic/racist/etc. is a bad thing, which isn't always true, but I generally assume people understand it is.

[raichu100.livejournal.com]

Sorry it took so long to get back to you. Yesterday was super shitty so I just sort of stayed away from this whole thread all day. And now I've been online for a really long time already and am ready to go be productive. So later today I will post a response to all this.

To be fair, though, I can see where you're coming from, and I recognize that you are trying to be nice.

I just really can't get over your consistently condescending way of speaking. No, that's not a "tone argument". Maybe it's just the way you are. Whatever. I'm just trying to explain why I get so irked whenever I talk to you, and I think that's probably the reason. I have a very hard time dealing with condescending people. (not trying to be judgmental, just stating something about me.) So maybe it would be better overall if we just avoided each other.

[raichu100.livejournal.com]

also, jsyk, I'm not using your "tone" (i.e. being a jerk) to try to invalidate anything you are saying. so the "tone argument" thing is bullshit. I'm just using it to say that I find talking to you to be extremely unpleasant to talk to and I don't want to do it.

You can take that or leave it. If you want to talk to me, be nice. Give me a change to explain myself if I say something that you think is offensive rather than just jumping to conclusions about how I think. Try not to unleash all your RAEG on me when you don't really know much at all about the kind of person I am and how I see things. I get the feeling you and I could read totally different things into a statement spoken by someone entirely different. We just see things very differently. I'm not a rape-apologist, woman-hater, or slut-shamer. I'm just not. You are convinced that I am because of a single conversation over the internet (in which you took much of what I said in a completely different way than I meant it). You don't get to decide what I meant by what I say. You hardly know anything about me, yet are extremely judgmental.

Okay, I kind of went off on a rant there, I admit it. I just find the way you treat me to be very upsetting. So if you're going to continue along the path of "I am right, the end, your are wrong and evil and hateful because I said so," then I. do. not. want. to. talk. to. you.

tl;dr have an open mind; listen to me when I say I didn't mean something the way you took it, and respect that (and I will in turn respect you when you say the its common for people to interpret something a certain way when maybe I didn't know that); and don't lash out at the slightest provocation - or don't talk to me at all.

[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.