The Nonreligious Are Most Supportive of a Woman’s Right to Choose

It perplexes me that women (and men) old enough to remember women dying from illegal abortions, and old enough to have it personally affect their families, are the strongest proponent against keeping abortions safe and legal. I am a pro-choice woman of color over the age of 55. I remember what the lack of access to legal abortion and poor access to birth control did to my mom, and how it affected my childhood for her to have children she did not want. Dad wanted a big family, mom did not. Dad got the big family, mom fell into alcoholism and depression. The entire family suffered. 

Umm… that’s how polling works. Long story. Take a stats class 🙂

 Good luck with that.

Yay for under 35, east coast, rich people!  They seem to be the only ones that have it figured out.

Seriously,  how is the US slipping in this direction?  The polls confuse the heck out of me.  With more people dropping out of church, the growth of the ‘nones’, and the loss of credibility of the Catholic Church,  how could the numbers for pro choice be slipping?

Remove the religiously unaffiliated who believe in God and you get much more encouraging figures. American Secular Census registrants (atheists, agnostics, humanists, etc.) are 97.6% in favor of abortion rights. See 
http://secularcensus.us/analysis/2012-03-30

I don’t necessarily have a problem with people being opposed to abortion. While it makes sense to me that non-religious (and presumably more rational) people are less likely to have a problem with abortion, I understand fully that many people do believe abortion is wrong, and I don’t think it’s reasonable to say that they are wrong in that view (although I certainly disagree with them). The fact is, you don’t need to assume a soul, or any religious philosophy at all, to believe abortion is wrong. There are many aspects of a personal philosophy that might reasonably lead a person to that viewpoint.

What this survey doesn’t tell me is just what people believe based on their self-identification as “pro-life” or “pro-choice”. How many people who are opposed to abortion call themselves “pro-life”, but nevertheless believe that the choice should legally exist? I certainly know people who are opposed to abortion and would be unlikely to ever get one, but fully support the legal choice.

A more useful survey would be one which asks people whether or not they agree that abortions should be legally available.

I guess it’s good that no such thing exists! 

George Carlin was right. “Pro-Life” is just code for “ANTI-WOMAN”.

As free-thinkers, a lot you have shown the term to be bullshit they way you approach this debate.

 I think a lot of people are right when they point out the faulty wording of this survey. I know many people who are personally pro-life (i.e. would never, under any circumstances, consider having an abortion) who nonetheless believe that terminating a pregnancy is a choice between each woman and her doctor. (Why these people don’t consider themselves pro-choice is something I do not understand).

As we learn more about fetal development, and as technology like 3D ultrasounds make the “babiness” (for want of a better word) of a fetus more apparent, it can change attitudes toward terminating a pregnancy. Add to this the survival rates of babies born extremely premature, and it muddies the waters even more. It’s not an issue that lends itself to certitudes. Back when birth control was difficult or impossible for women to obtain (my mom needed her mother to go with her to the doctor’s to get a prescription for the Pill–in 1966–when she was 19 and about to get married!), and less effective, I think the case for abortion rights was a bit easier to make. Today, when we have a myriad of choices for preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place…a pro-choice argument is not so monolithic. I can understand–to a point–how even the non-religious might be caught up in the twin notions of personal responsibility and the potential life of a fetus. (FWIW, I don’t share those notions.)

I would guess the numbers might be slipping because most people are too young to remember what life was like before the option of legal abortion. Just as a new generation has to be reminded that AIDS can be fatal, because they’ve grown up in an era in which medical advances mean that it’s a chronic illness rather than automatic death sentence. Most people alive today haven’t personally experienced a reality in which women they’ve met/known/loved have died from illegal abortions.

You see this same effect with the anti-vaccination crowd.  People who think there was no world before they inhabited it. Not a clue as to the repercussions.

I agree that virtually everybody who calls themselves “pro-choice” is likely to think abortion should be legal. But I don’t think the opposite is necessarily true for those who identify as “pro-life”. In fact, I know several people who call themselves just that, and still believe that abortion should be legal.

 The argument is not whether a embryo or fetus is a human being, it’s whether it’s a person.

THIS HAS BEEN CLEARLY AND REPEATEDLY EXPLAINED TO YOU.

You are a very dishonest person. Disgusting.

And not a single shit given about those who could be fucking KILLED by something as simple as influenza. Their precious snowflakes are more important than the elderly, immune-compromised, disabled, and poor schmucks who are allergic to something in the vaccine!

/angry

Maybe they figured killing unborn human babies was a bad idea.

Is Ndonnan sufficiently disgusting to you such that you would deny his/her personhood?

Yeah, people with your depth of compassion for those with whom you disagree and who sit in judgement of who is and is not a person just warms the cockles of my heart.

 The only monolithic pro-choice argument I use is that it is the woman’s body and nobody has the right to use it without her consent.

Nobody implied?  There’s an awful lot o’ personhood denial going on around these parts.

I’m less concerned by how women use their bodies than I am how thier doctors use curretes and vacuum cleaners.

 Nope, xe always posts like that.

Dudette, IT IS MY BUSINESS!

LOL.

But you are right.  What a woman does with her uterus is between her and her doctor, and I don’t even care to have a say.

Now, about that person living in the uterus, that’s a different story, and I’m going to have my say every day.

The only way you can get me to stop having my say is to do to me what you advocate doing to the unborn.

You know, I had a say in the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.  Lot’s of men did.  Too bad you.

And even more men had a say with it was upheld at the SCOTUS in the Gonzales vs Carhart decision.  Too bad for you.

Ultimately, the pro-choicers will be shown to be on the wrong side of history with abortion, much like advocates of slavery have been shown to be.

Too bad for you (but great for humanity).

 That “person” HAS NO RIGHT TO RESIDE IN A WOMAN’S UTERUS WITHOUT HER EXPLICIT PERMISSION.

THERE IS NO RIGHT TO USE A PERSON’S BODY AGAINST THEIR WILL!

IF I DON’T WANT THAT FETUS IN THERE, I HAVE EVERY FUCKING RIGHT TO USE ANY AMOUNT OF FORCE NECESSARY TO REMOVE IT, UP TO AND INCLUDING DEADLY FORCE, AND YOU CAN’T DO SHIT ABOUT IT!

 You’re a liar. The Roe v. Wade decision affirmed a woman’s RIGHT to choose.

Fuck you, you woman-hating sack of shit.

You obviously have not actually read Blackmun’s majority opinion in Roe v. Wade. That, along with the Gonzales vs Carhart decision does indeed restrict abortion. Your right to kill the human child person within you is not absolute like you think it is. Too bad for you.

You need to school up.

You know, when it comes to liars and hatfule sexist bigots, you are projecting.  I have not lied, and I don’t hate women. 

If ever there were a phrase that demonstrated an utter, abject immunity to any sense of irony it would be the phrase, “Fuck you, you woman-hating sack of shit.”

Such bile, such hatred, such calumny, all marshalled in such a way as to suggest that the bile, hatred, and calumny were found in “the other” when in fact it is you.

 And how often do women wait until fetal viability to go, “Oh, oops, I want an abortion?”

(Hint: NEVER.)

“Ultimately, the pro-choicers will be shown to be on the wrong side of history with abortion”

So you want to make abortion illegal like it used to be in the “good ole days.” Except abortion never went away even when it was illegal. Women died getting illegal abortions. Women used coat hangers to give themselves abortions. Or do you not care about that?

Someone posted a heartbreaking story about growing up during a time where abortion wasn’t legal, women dying from illegal ones and poor access to birth control a few posts up. I, for one, would hate to go back to that time. 

And he has the nerve to ask why I called him a misogynist sack of shit. THAT, RIGHT THERE, IS WHY I’M ANGRY.

It seems a peculiarity of the religious (and arguably, right wing in general, but I digress) mindset that gives people a misplaced sense of their importance in the universe.

They seem to have the same trouble understanding that the world they live in has not always been thus, that not everyone has the same chances and choices in life and that a one-size fits all politics will not work when applied to the rest of the population as they do comprehending the vastness and age of the universe, the quantity of events it took to enable them to be here to spout their bile and their sheer insignificance on a universal scale.

Just an observation.

Also, did America really go from 42% pro-choice in 2009 to 49% pro-choice last year to 41% pro-choice today? That is a lot of jumping around. Could it just be bad sampling technique?

You indicated that you do in the “Do Rape Victims Have Too Many Rights” thread last week.

 So instead of refuting the point, you have to say that I’m violent towards those with whom I disagree? Your projection is noted. You’re one sick little piece of lying shit, Nordog.

 Of course you have the right to be offended. These woman-hating sleazeballs are very offensive. What he’s saying is that they’re TROLLS. They KNOW they have no good case, which is why they have to ignore ours. They do not care about the debate, and are aware they’ve lost, badly. They just want to get a rise out of someone so their little chubs can get semi-unflaccid.

 You’ve been demonstrated to be lying several times in this thread. Too bad for you, lying dumbfuck.

Is that the actual question asked? “Are you pro-life or pro-choice?”

That’s a terrible question, and it’s why I put little interest in polls like this. They word them badly and that can skew the meanings of the polls in peoples’ minds to a level that it changes the results.

It’s still a far cry from where it should be for our group, but if you
want evidence that religion is bad for women, look no further.

Because we’re all required to think alike, believe alike and do alike? How does that make us any different from the religious blocks?

 Should’ve said, “feminism and reproductive rights”

 The majority of Americans polled, not necessarily the majority of Americans.

 It doesn’t want to. It’s not a process that it starts on its own, or has anything to do with. Let’s dispense with the notion that the developing fetus is somehow maliciously demanding the use of an unsuspecting uterus.

Interestingly, you’re using the same appeal to emotion to argue your side as the religious use to argue theirs.

It’s not too much of a stretch to think that atheist wouldnt want to be part of the religious push to control reproduction through the control of women’s bodies. Perhaps though some are anti-choice out of sheer chauvinism.

Or perhaps some take a more nuanced view of things and don’t want to be pigeonholed. This black-or-white, with-us/against-us, thing is very reminiscent of something. Can’t for the life of me think of what it is, though. Couldn’t be connected to atheism, though.

That doesn’t mean it isn’t valid for a woman who has just found herself with an unwanted pregnancy to think that way.

Womens reproductive rights are on he wrong side of history? Not very familiar with earth history are you.

Fuck you, you woman hating sack of shit!

Hmm, I think wmdkitty might be on to something.

Allow me to play devil’s advocate…

It’s not as if a clump of cells is going to walk up to a woman and jump into her uterus. Aside from instances of rape or coercion, a woman has to DO something to get that clump of cells in there. It’s not taking up residence; it was invited. I realize that birth control fails, and medical and other issues happen, which is why I support abortion remaining a legal medical procedure. But aside from the obvious exceptions, unwanted pregnancies don’t happen on their own.

Here’s an idea: if you don’t want anything taking up residence in your body, either use reliable birth control or keep your pants on. It’s not that difficult.

 Did you just try to sneak in a passive-aggressive argument from Hitler/Stalin/Mao?

 More accurately, hiding in a bunker and declaring victory while plaster rains down from the ceiling.

 But abortion IS the killing of babies.

 Actually, it’s the same issue as with restricting earlier abortions: who gets to decide what is right for the woman, and how, even if they possess that fabled Solomonic wisdom in the first place, are decisions going to be made quick enough?

One of the reasons why restricting abortion rights by letting some authority weigh in on whether a particular abortion is “valid” simply doesn’t work is that people are going to suffer and die waiting for a decision, and others are going to be arrested and given horrible treatment because the state makes an incorrect decision that those people cannot accept.

It is not right, it is not humane to say that women have to turn their genitals over to a regulatory agency for inspection, that they have to hand over their records and sit around and wait to fucking justify and defend themselves like criminals not even considered innocent until proven guilty after making a decision like that. And that is exactly what any restriction amounts to.

I despise that abortions have to occur, but there is NO ONE besides a mentally able pregnant woman who is competent to make that decision in her own case. There is not even anyone but that woman who is competent to decide whose advice should matter to her.

No, I’m pretty sure the killing of babies is the killing of babies, abortion is actually abortion.

 A few counters:

1. Therefore, men should be required to get snipped in advance of any sex (to be reversed when a couple wants children of course), because that procedure is simpler, cheaper, faster and more humane than forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term.

2. Therefore, people must not be treated for communicable disease, because they chose behaviors like being around sick people that resulted in living cells taking up residence in their bodies.

3. Likewise, many, perhaps most, other medical conditions should not be treated. If a couple is engaging in sex play and something gets stuck or torn, it’s their own damn fault and they can go home and deal with the consequences. If someone is driving and an accident slams his head into the windshield, then he should have had his seatbelt on. Oh, it WAS on? Then it should have been adjusted tighter. His own damn fault.

4. Demanding that humans not engage in sex is unrealistic to the point of delusional. We have hormones. We have brains. They conspire to make us feel attracted to one another. They reduce inhibitions and rationality. The Right’s abstinence argument is pure Fantasyland.  They themselves prove that, as they can’t stick to their own plan! And the RCC has plainly shown us the horrible consequences of demanding abstinence.
This isn’t about whether individuals can refrain from sex or show total responsibility when copulating. It’s that the species, along with every other one, is geared primarily TOWARDS HAVING SEX. It’s arrogant, and I think demeaning towards women, to trivialize that.

Isn’t it weird how men are never told to “keep their pants on”? It’s almost as if that phrase is used to shame women for being sexual creatures… Nah.

 You’re the one who keeps using the same refuted claims over and over while demanding that people turn over their lives to your beliefs. Since you wanted to Godwin up things, it’s YOUR Hitler fantasy. Enjoy.

Too bad for you, you proven lying fuckwad.

 Classy.

Oh, and exactly what is this lie I’m supposed to have told?

 “Isn’t it weird how men are never told to “keep their pants on”? It’s
almost as if that phrase is used to shame women for being sexual
creatures… Nah.”

YES!!!

Birth control and condoms are not 100% effective. Men should keep their pants on.

 “No one who is pro-choice wants to people to have abortions after a 9 month term or anything like that. ”

Well given that after a 9 month term the babies have usually been born, this is basically true.

But if you mean to say that no one wants to see extremely late term abortions “or anything like that” then you are wrong.  Just look at all the people who fought against the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act before its passage, and afterwards in the courts.

A fly has more sense of consciousness?  I think the usually insect of choice around here is “tick.”

Nobody is, just advocating the right to abortion.

Ok, people fought against it.  So?

And I didn’t realize people use the tick analogy instead of fly, but the point still stands.  You think that makes it murder?

 Not really.

 Belief in god is a pretty basic idea, which can be called black-and-white. All-atheists-must-also-subscribed-to-the-following-conditions is not a basic idea; it is a societal one, and thus it requires a more nuanced approach.

Its called scientific facts,less to do with religion.

 Neither do I do that. I don’t pretend anything, and I don’t want to keep people from marrying their atheism to other ideas: feminism, gay/lesbian rights, abortion rights, what have you.

What I object to is the de facto welding of these ideas to atheism, which in its purest form is nothing more than a rejection of religious claims, and then claiming people who don’t subscribe to the exact version of atheism that you hold aren’t real atheists or they are misogynists or whatever.

And I don’t necessarily mean you, as in personally you, either.

You know, as an aside, I never really thought about this until a couple of years ago when Daylight Atheism said in the blog, “Atheists must be feminists.” Well, you know what, fuck him and the high horse he rode in on. He doesn’t get to tell me what to think or believe. This isn’t China or North Korea or the Soviet Fucking Union.

 Regardless of whether it “wants to” or not, it still does not have the right to use my body as a life support system WITHOUT MY CONSENT.

And no, having sex is NOT “consent to pregnancy”.

If it was meant as a metaphor, then I don’t think it’s a very good one. It’s a metaphor for nothing. The other poster makes it sound like it’s a chest burster from the Alien franchise. Even in its embryonic form, it’s far more conscious and aware and proactive than a human embryo. It wants to be in your chest, and it wants to literally rape your body to death, and it’ll kill you before it lets you take it out. Of course, it’s an equal opportunity killer: it doesn’t discriminate between men and women. Or, for that matter, even aliens.

A regular, human embryo and later fetus, isn’t like that. It doesn’t want, it just is. That’s all I’m saying: we should dispense with all this emotionally overcharged language about parasites who want to use your body  without permission.

Yes, English is an imperfect language, but as Shakespeare pointed out, it can be beautifully used nonetheless.

1. You may not want to go there. If the default position is that men become safely-and-reversibly snipped, women instantly lose whatever social power they have now, and quite literally become completely at the mercy of men.

2. I thought I was accused lately of not understanding metaphors.

3. Bite your tongue. How many hilarious House episodes have we seen all due to patients being treated for the results of their coital shenanigans.

4. I’m sorry, but did you just argue that biology is destiny? The species is geared toward procreation, not sex. If it was toward sex, it wouldn’t be that easy to get pregnant. Why is it only demeaning toward women?

 Well, we still throw people in jail for killing people, even unintentionally. So I’m still missing the difference.

False equivalence.

Paying child support is in NO WAY SIMILAR to enduring a pregnancy.

Pregnancy entails changes in the body, ALL of which are uncomfortable, some of which are permanent, some of which can be FATAL. Pregnancy puts a woman at higher risk of death, by both natural means (pregnancy complications) and via assault and murder (by angry men who don’t want to pay child support).

Paying a monthly sum of money has no effect on your body.

Quit whining “What about teh menz” and get it through your fucking head that WOMEN are the ONLY ONES QUALIFIED TO DECIDE whether or not to remain pregnant. Shut the fuck up and sit the fuck down — when men can get pregnant, you can have an opinion.

So, this should be a judicial matter, with judges and lawyers involved? What about those cases where there is no choice but to abort? Is that just a case of justifiable homicide?

He doesn’t, unless he has a legal contract with the women to produce a child. Otherwise, he may voice his opinion, but it should carry no legal weight.

I didnt make that claim either. I just wondered as to he motives of someone being anti-choice if they weren’t religious, suggesting that it might be due to chauvanism. I don’t know where you got this “with us or against us”/”black and white” stuff from.

What cases would those be?

I notice how everyone on this page is voting for pro-choice, which they should…especially for cases such as rape, incest, or the fetus threatening the life of the mother, (shouldn’t destroy the factory over one car) but I’m pro-choice for that tiny creature, in the case of the woman who didn’t choose to pay for birth control (which in most cases is cheaper) or abstinence, or my personal favorite, jack-rabbit sex; and I think that, whether or not we consider it a parasite, an animal, or a nuisance that has to be destroyed, we should also think for both sides that this animal is compositionally a human, and the choice should be in the hands of the mother. But don’t keep saying that the people who are pro-life are not as smart or more primitive than pro-choice. The battle is not a matter of who is what, but of simple opinions that we all have rights to. We can only hope that our government keeps our freedom.

Here Here well said, angry girl hates personal responsibilityShes all victim mentality .

Men aren’t superfluous to the discussion, but it isn’t their decision, just like it isn’t a woman’s decision whether or not her partner gets a vasectomy. Essentially, the woman needs to take his feelings into account IF they have a relationship. That doesn’t mean she has to do what he wants.

If they don’t have a relationship, then to put it bluntly, it needs to be discussed about as much as one needs to discuss what to do with a used condom. It’s a lousy situation, but every alternative is lousier.

 Several orders of magnitude difference there. Also, the welfare of a helpless person (not a bundle of undifferentiated cells or a brainless embryo) is involved. There’s also both a strong stabilizing motive for society, and a strong economic motive.

 yeah, that’s not how modern abortions are done.

 Not must “should,” there’s a difference.

 What social power are you talking about? How does not being able to impregnate a woman make her lose social power?

 none of my replies are showing up under the comment to which I replied. hmmm