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]

"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.

[raichu100.livejournal.com]

"I commend you for your support of birth control, but I simply think you're a bit incomplete in your approach."

I think we have sort of different goals here. I'd like to protect all parties involved, not just one. I don't pretend that this is an easy topic or a clean-cut one. It's not.

"In short, do preventive measures so that abortions themselves become less necessary"

Curious - why would you be interested in making it "less necessary" if there isn't anything wrong with it?

As for the last bit, imo if you don't want kids you shouldn't be making the choice to have sex. Choices have consequences. It really bugs me that pro-choicers often speak as if sex is inevitable. It's not. It's a choice.

[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.