On Choice, Millennials Say No to Absolutism


The first question most people seem to ask me is why, as an 18-year-old guy about to start college, are reproductive rights so important to me, important enough for me to become an activist of sorts. 

For me, reproductive rights are synonymous with human rights.  I can’t think of any greater, or more important human right than the right to control your own body.  In the United States no significant movement threatens to infringe on individual rights more than the movement to control women’s reproductive systems.  The implications of that lack of respect for and diminishment of privacy, individual rights, and human dignity for all people everywhere are intolerable.  The focus on controlling women’s bodies devalues them as individuals, and as members of society, and the extreme gravity of that injustice strongly compels me to action with or without immediate personal stake in the issue.

In pursuing activism around this issue, I have been overwhelmed with the response I’ve received.  Once people understand the issues, they have been extremely supportive.  Of course I’ve appealed primarily to my peers, and found that social networks are a great way to engage even issues as serious as reproductive rights.  In organizing and promoting the rally against Operation Rescue in Albuquerque, I found that the only thing preventing most of my generation from taking a much bigger interest in this issue is the fact that many of them don’t realize how fragile their freedom is.  Having grown up decades after Roe v Wade, a surprisingly high percentage of my peers think that a woman’s right to choose is as secure as her right to vote, and choose to ignore anti-choice views rather than respond to them.  Complacency is the enemy of choice and potential, reproductive and otherwise, and it is a common, but tremendous mistake to think that the freedoms we were born under are secure without our engagement.

One motivating factor for me was the Operation Rescue claim that my generation is more anti-abortion than my parent’s.  The response from the social networking we conducted and in particular from the people who came out to help with the rally (and who intend to continue activism) expose the real truth: we value the work of our parents’ generation, and feel strongly about maintaining the rights for which they fought. 

Some “pro-life” friends of mine, who would never get an abortion themselves for any reason, were extremely helpful in organizing the rally because they see the ethics of abortion as something that each person has to figure out for themselves.  I think the reality is that “pro-life” and “pro-choice” are not mutually exclusive, and that pro-choice remains descriptive of the majority in my generation. 

Most of my pro-life peers do not subscribe to the absolutism of the anti-choice fringe, and many will defend others’ right to come to their own moral and ethical conclusions just as they did, making them as pro-choice as I am.  The principle Voltaire articulated when he said, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” is making a great comeback in my generation, as we acknowledge the subjective nature of our own conclusions about how best to think and act.  Tolerance is the greatest weapon against the moral absolutist anti-choice fringe, and most of my generation, both willing to have abortions and not, wield it very well.

My generation already possesses exactly the weapon it needs to secure reproductive rights in this country.  We have only to recognize the magnitude, extent, and urgency of this threat, and decide that it is worth our time to stop it.  I have great trust in my generation’s care for basic social and legal freedoms.  I certainly plan to continue activist activities to defend against attacks on  reproductive and other freedoms.  I think that if my peers are reminded that if they do not make decisions, others will make them for them, they will indeed act to secure the freedoms we’ve been blessed to be born with.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

  • truth

    The case you make for Subjective Reason is oxymoronic. Reason is objective. Consider the following syllogism:

     

    To Kill an innocent human being is murder.

    An unborn baby is an innocent human being.

    .:To kill an unborn baby is murder.

     

    If your argument does not meet the definition of a sound & valid argument then your argument is illogical and without reason. If you want to protect human rights you have to protect those of the most innocent first. Otherwise, you will never begin to prevent those of sex, race, creed, color, etc…

     

    You might consider taking a Logic Class when you get to college.

  • jen-r

    “The response from the social networking we conducted and in particular from the people who came out to help with the rally (and who intend to continue activism) expose the real truth”

    That’s not exactly a valid polling mechanism. UCLA does a nationwide survey of incoming college freshmen every year, and this survey has found decreasing support for abortion (along with an increase in secularism and support for gay rights, and a decrease in support for war). That poll has its limitations too, because it’s surveying only people who can afford to enroll as freshmen in 4-year colleges and universities. Still, I think it gives a more complete picture than a group of people being solicited via social networking for a particular cause.

  • elliotdwilliams

    Great piece, Clayton.  I definitely hope you’re right about your/our generation being more open to tolerance and more willing to look past absolutism.  Unfortunately, tolerance can be a difficult thing to build politics and policy around, but with committed, well-spoken activists like you stepping up, I’m very hopeful that we will find a way.

  • md

    Most of my pro-life peers do not subscribe to the absolutism of the anti-choice fringe, and many will defend others’ right to come to their own moral and ethical conclusions just as they did, making them as pro-choice as I am.

     

    Does defending the rights of others to come to their own conclusions on a given issue mean legality?  I assume so since if I come to the conclusion that child abuse, animal cruelty, or murder is not wrong the state with its laws trumps my conclusions and I go to jail.  So why is it that I am not allowed to come to my own conclusions on these issues, but I must be allowed to come to my own conclusions on abortion (and thus the justification for its legality).  Millennials and many other demographics are trending pro-life despite your peer sample.  The pro-choicers, otherwise known as the pro-abortion crowd, are losing the abortion debate because of the obvious fact that abortion is murder.  It isn’t tolerant to accept murder of an innocent child.  It is the most intolerant act imaginable.

  • beenthere72

    An embryo is not yet a child and cannot be compared to the likes of child abuse, animal cruelty and murder as those involve living, breathing things that can feel pain and experience trauma.  

  • squirrely-girl


    Reason is objective.

     

    Only in theory. In practical application with real people… not so much.

    If your argument does not meet the definition of a sound & valid argument then your argument is illogical and without reason.

    You mean, when the argument doesn’t match your definitions? Just because somebody lacks higher order moral reasoning and doesn’t understand an argument, doesn’t necessarily mean said argument lacks logic or reason.

     

    You might consider taking a class on psychology when you get to college. :/

  • sylvie

    Great article Clayton. You articulate how I feel too. I just wish I could articulate it as beautifully as and you do. Congratulations! You are a breath of fresh air and give me hope for the future.

    As Alice Miller days: “It is above all the children already born that have a right to life – a right to coexistence with adults in a world in which, with or without the help of the church, violence against children has been unequivocally outlawed.  Until such legislation exists, talk of “the right to life” remains not only a mockery of humanity but a contribution to its destruction.

     It is, in fact, not surprising to find that those who are both victims and apologist for the use of violence and severity against children are often those who most passionately proclaim their love of the unborn child, i.e., the kernel of life.  Abortion can, indeed, be seen as the most powerful symbol of the psychic annihilation and mutilation practiced since time immemorial on children.  But to combat this evil merely at the symbolic level deflects us from the reality we should not evade for a moment longer:  the reality of the abused and humiliated child, which, as a result of its disavowed and unresolved injuries, will insidiously become, either openly or aided by hypocrisy, a danger to society.”

    Read more: http://www.sylvieshene.com/articles-protecting_life_after_birth.htm

    The pro-lifers see a fertilized egg (Zygotes) as a person, whatever, but that is not reality. The reality is a fertilized egg is nothing but a fertilized egg (Zygotes).  Pro-lifers fight so hard for the un-born beings because unconsciously they want an endless supply of innocent powerless being like children to use, exploit and project their disowned parts, they suffer and secretly enjoy seeing other beings suffer too and unconsciously want others to have the same fate as them.   

     

  • bornin1984

    One motivating factor for me was the Operation Rescue claim that my generation is more anti-abortion than my parent\’s. The response from the social networking we conducted and in particular from the people who came out to help with the rally (and who intend to continue activism) expose the real truth: we value the work of our parents\’ generation, and feel strongly about maintaining the rights for which they fought.

    Okay, look. Nothing irks me more then people making absolute claims based on anecdotal evidence. It annoys me to no end. At any rate, what you say above is false, and has been proven false by studies detailing abortion attitudes over the past thirty or so years, all of which show that age is significant when it comes to support for abortion (i.e., subsequent generations are less likely to support abortion then their predecessor). And when it comes to Millennials, what you say is even more untrue, because Millennials are the least permissive of abortion. Having your own opinion is fine (even if it is wrong), but at the very least you should actually research a bit into things before claiming that X is absolutely true, because it just might not be.

    Anyway, human rights are not human rights if they are not afforded to all humans.

  • freetobe

    This is wonderful Clayton, and to the anti-choice people until you can give up eating all once living animals,ban all wars,ban the death penalty,eliminate male violence,rape murder,incest, physical and verbal abuse then you can talk your talk and then maybe I would listen. Until then  forget it. Control yourselves first then maybe your logic would make sense because all I see are violent murdering madmen everywhere on this planet.( With the exception of some men who really are wonderful and open minded )I see men as destroyers of life destroyers of the planet I see greed and evilness ,hypocrisy and lying for more money and more power.  I see humans as not worth saving to put it bluntly. We just are not worth the trouble you anti-choicers talk about.

  • truth

    Bravo, 1984.

  • beenthere72

    Because that which is forming in my body, living off of me and not yet able to survive on its own, is worth protecting more than I am – the living, breathing thing that currently supports a living, breathing family and is a productive member of society.   That’s really logical. 

  • bornin1984

    Intellectual dishonesty really rubs me the wrong way. Though, in this case, I think one can chalk it up to ignorance (which is not necessarily a bad thing. It just means that you did not know).

  • arekushieru

    ‘ExACTly’, Born.  So if you, and others of your ‘ilk’, try to deny women rights based on their anatomy, then the right to consent to who uses ones organs and when and how they are used is not a human right and organ donation MUST become mandatory. 

     

    Besides, I think you are unaware of the actual MEANing, as usual, of those polls.  If we look at them we see that the language they used is very biased and they used no real defiNItion of the terms.  So, nice try, ONCE again, Born.

  • arekushieru

    If you came to the conclusion that abortion is wrong based on your belief that abortion is murder, you have arrived at a false conclusion from a FALSE premise.  Murder IS illegal killing with malice aforethought.  Do you say that a doctor kills a person when they remove someone from artificial life support?  Do you believe that everything that is illegal is actually legal?  Do you believe that saving a fetus from inevitable pain and suffering is malice?  Do you believe that women deliberately CHOSE to develop a uterus within their bodies?  If the answer is no to ANY of these, then abortion is NOT murder.  The ONLY thing saving the *death penalty* from murder is its legality.  Something a disproportionately large number of ProLifers support. 

     

    It’s sad, too, that you seem to have missed the whole point of Clayton’s post.  He was talking about those who come at this with REASON, NOT the fact that they simply allowed others to do something.  Reading comprehension IS your friend, y’know….

  • bornin1984

    \’ExACTly\’, Born. So if you, and others of your \’ilk\’, try to deny women rights based on their anatomy, then the right to consent to who uses ones organs and when and how they are used is not a human right and organ donation MUST become mandatory.

    I, for the life of me, do not understand why you continue to make the same assertion ad nauseum, but it is incorrect. I am not so sure how you somehow come to the conclusion that telling a woman that she cannot kill the unborn at her leisure to be the same as telling a woman she must donate an organ to someone. To make use of an example provided by Vashra in another thread, do you think that refusing to donate a kidney to someone and them die because of it and stabbing someone in the kidney are fundamentally the same?

    Besides, I think you are unaware of the actual MEANing, as usual, of those polls. If we look at them we see that the language they used is very biased and they used no real defiNItion of the terms. So, nice try, ONCE again, Born.

    Not a poll. An actual, peer reviewed study on abortion attitudes over the past few decades. There are quite a few of them out there, and I have even taken the time to post some of them. Ignorance is not an excuse. You can easily look these things up.

  • sweetchild92

    I agree, a group of cells should always be put before my own life. After all I’m just a useless woman. Unless your dick isn’t in me, I really serve no purpose.

  • arekushieru

    Because I’m sure you’ve been told over and over that the uterus is an organ, here, as WELL as in your biology classes.  But, to quote you, even if you were unaware, ‘ignorance is NOT an excuse’ (emphasis mine).

     

    Not a poll. An actual, peer reviewed study on abortion attitudes over the past few decades. There are quite a few of them out there, and I have even taken the time to post some of them. Ignorance is not an excuse. You can easily look these things up.

     

    Really?  That’s aMAzing that no one has ever talked about them, then!  And that you can’t find a cite to link to YOUR claim.

  • bornin1984

    Because I\’m sure you\’ve been told over and over that the uterus is an organ, here, as WELL as in your biology classes.

    That is great, but what portion of my response does that deal with?

    But, to quote you, even if you were unaware, \’ignorance is NOT an excuse\’ (emphasis mine).

    I have no idea what you are talking about, but okay.

    Really? That\’s aMAzing that no one has ever talked about them, then! And that you can\’t find a cite to link to YOUR claim.

    The link -> http://hlmoon.com/docs/2312_week6_reading1.pdf

    I showed this link to crowepps months ago and she ignored it, and I even showed it to squirrely girl a few weeks back yet she just disregarded it. Hopefully, you are different. I am sure you will take interest into the age portion of the study.

  • arekushieru

    1.  To kill an innocent human being is murder.

     

    2A. A fetus is neither innocent nor guilty.  It lacks caPACity to be either.  While I agree that innocence is the default of guilt it is NOT so of the lack of capacity to BE guilty. 

     

    B.   A fetus is not a baby.  Baby is a slang term for a development stage outSIDE of the uterus.

     

    C.  Abortion DOES not kill a fetus.  Cause of death = killing.  The lack of compatibility with life upon separation from the uterus is what causes fetal death, just as the lack of compatibility with life upon separation from artificial life support causes the death of comatose (ACTual) human beings (ie. brain failure, the MEDICAL diagnosis of the cause of death).  

     

    D.  A fetus is not a human being.  It is human life, however.  But, ontologically, classification of a fetus as a human being requires that parasitic twins and fetus in fetu be classified as such. 

     

    E.  If you are willing to provide reasonable refutations as to why these things aren’t true, then please go ahead and do so, otherwise, like md, you come to false conclusions based on a false premise.

     

    3.  Therefore, abortion does not equal murder.

     

    If you want to grant fetuses EXtra protection, as you claim should be done, you have to deny rights to a certain segment of society based on their sex, and, thus, will never prevent sex discrimination.  Thanks.

     

    Now, I think there is someone who else who needs to take Logic Classes  alongside Clayton (if he does, indeed, need to), don’t you, Truth?

  • bornin1984

    2C is wrong. If there was no abortion, the unborn would still be alive. If I throw a pipe bomb into a car, blowing it up, and causing a piece of metal from the car to strike you in the head and kill you, should I be able to get out of a murder charge because it was the piece of metal striking you in the head that killed you, not me? 2D is definitely wrong, scientifically inaccurate and just all around a laughable assertion. If the unborn are not human beings, then what are they? And I am really not sure how you got to 3 from 1 and 2.

  • arekushieru

    That is great, but what portion of my response does that deal with?

     

    Um, it’s pretty simple, Born….  Uterus = organ.  Organ donation, ORGAN donation, ORGAN donation.  Don’t 4 of those words look like the very same word…?   I’m sure you can tell me what that word is….  Come on, Born, you can do it.

  • bornin1984

    Um, it\’s pretty simple, Born…. Uterus = organ. Organ donation, ORGAN donation, ORGAN donation. Don\’t 4 of those words look like the very same word…? I\’m sure you can tell me what that word is…. Come on, Born, you can do it.

    Not killing does not translate to have to donate. Take a look at my question you did not answer. I can only surmise the reason you ignored it is because even you can tell the difference between those two situations.

    And on the article, I am taking your silence to mean that you also are going to ignore it?

  • arekushieru

    I don’t believe it.  You actually did what I thought you weren’t going to do, accuse me of not reading something, WHILE I was reading it, something that is QUITE lengthy and should have given you reason to suspect that my most recent response to you was too quick to indicate that I had had enough time to read even the barest minimum, and, while at it, were quite rude about it, so I’m thinking you wanted me to just skim over the parts you thought would prove your point and ignore the rest.    Besides, I quite clearly remember crowepps and Squirrelly Girl mentioning that they HAD responded, you just didn’t like their answers.  Which makes me even MORE ready to believe it’s pointless to even respond to you about the article’s flaws…. 

     

    Btw, if a woman does not remove a PREGnancy (y’know, implantation of the fetal plaCENta - which is NOT the fetus - into the uterus) she is still donating the use of her uterus.  Or, didn’t you realize that if she doesn’t terminate a pregnancy it continues…?  Derrrr….  *Falls over sideways*  Guess I DID answer your question, it’s just aNOTher answer you DIDn’t like. 

  • bornin1984

    Responding to only part of what someone writes out whilst and not the rest makes it seem as if you are ignoring it. At any rate, let me help you out so you do not have to read the whole thing (unless you want to):

    The effect of age on attitudes toward abortion shows an interesting pattern. While bivariate analysis suggests that older people are less likely than younger people to approve of abortion rights (Ladd and Bowman, 1997), multivariate analysis reveals that this pattern is reversed after controlling for other socioeconomic and attitudinal variables (Kenny, 1993). In fact, ceteris paribus, older people are more accepting of abortion than their younger counterparts…

    …With the exception of the period from 1982 to 1985, where older people are more opposed to abortion than younger people in Model 1, age is significant only in the full model, and is consistently positive in its association with abortion approval, indicating that after controlling for other factors, older people are more approving of abortion than younger people.

    That study has no flaws, and is backed up by multiple studies on the same subject. I can provide you with more too, given a little time, but you will probably disregard those as well on the basis that they are, as you would say, flawed. So we run into an issue where anything which challenges your preconceived notion is instantly thrown out in favor of some ad hoc justification as to why they are wrong.

    And, for the record, crowepps flat out ignored the article, which is the norm for her, and squirrely girl did not even attempt to respond to it. Instead she went off on how she would rather see a study which follows a select group of people over the course of thirty or so years, which from research standpoint is vastly inferior to a study which measures age cohorts, because in the latter you are only measuring what those selected people believe over a given period of time, instead of a select demographic.

    Btw, if a woman does not remove a PREGnancy (y\’know, implantation of the fetal plaCENta – which is NOT the fetus – into the uterus) she is still donating the use of her uterus. Or, didn\’t you realize that if she doesn\’t terminate a pregnancy it continues…? Derrrr…. *Falls over sideways* Guess I DID answer your question, it\’s just aNOTher answer you DIDn\’t like.

    Responses like the above make you look dumb. Before you try to go derrrr to someone, make sure you are actually responding to that which you were supposed to be responding to. Anyway, not that you care any, but I would like to point out the fact that you, indeed, still have not heeded the difference between actively killing and and not providing for. This is why you have ignored the fact that you will not go to jail for not donating a kidney to someone, but that you would be jailed for stabbing someone in their kidney. There is a fundamental difference between the two that is easy to see, and you ignoring this difference does not mean it does not exist.

  • princess-rot

    If you want to protect human rights you have to protect those of the most innocent first. Otherwise, you will never begin to prevent those of sex, race, creed, color, etc…

     

    …that you should mention sex discrimination in a post expressing the wish to remove women’s wishes, bodily autonomy from them, and define them by the functions of the uterus. Overriding women’s agency and consent doesn’t sound so horrific when you couch it in the terms of “protecting unborn life”, but it won’t work here. We know what those words really mean: men must have absolute control over reproduction, and we don’t give a flying toss what that costs women in the long run, because bitches ‘ain’t shit.

     

  • saltyc

    Great points, Arekushieru.

    And no one has provided reasonable refutation.

    Hitting someone with a bomb is obviously not a form of withdrawing life support, so the mentioning of such would indicate that some people just like imagining doing that to us, wouldn’t it?

  • saltyc

     you, indeed, still have not heeded the difference between actively killing and and not providing for. This is why you have ignored the fact that you will not go to jail for not donating a kidney to someone, but that you would be jailed for stabbing someone in their kidney. There is a fundamental difference between the two that is easy to see

    You don’t go to jail for having a legal abortion either, derr. And what we are saying is that carrying a pregnancy to term is providing, not a default. A person giving a kidney is providing, the default is the person who needs a kidney dying and the person not donating staying the same. The default of me walking down the street and minding my own business is me staying the same. If I found out I were pregnant today, I would have an abortion tomorrow and I would stay the same. If I decided to carry the pregnancy to term, that would be (and I have done this so I know) my taking on another full-time job to provide and change my habits and donate my body and blood to a new person I would make and be accountable to. Not a default situation, more akin to donating a kidney than to letting a person keep walking down the street and not murdering by stabbing him/her. But I don’t expect you to understand, this is your mental and moral blind spot.

  • ldan

    To make use of an example provided by Vashra in another thread, do you think that refusing to donate a kidney to someone and them die because of it and stabbing someone in the kidney are fundamentally the same?

     

    Of course not. In one case, I’m exercising my right to not have my organs and body used against my will, in the other I’m taking away someone else’s right to the same, by affecting (quite adversely) the functioning of their kidney.

     

    However, abortion is not akin to stabbing someone in the kidney.

     

    It is more like detaching someone who has decided to latch onto my kidney, forcing me to donate its function. (It’s an actually somewhat plausible scenario, although messier and way more complicated to fuss with than machine dialysis) Whether or not I initially agreed to this arrangement where someone gets to live off of my kidney, as long as the kidney is still part of my body, I can end that arrangement at any time.

     

    How is a fetus, attached–and alive only because of that attachment–to my uterus, any different from the scenario where someone hooks into my kidney to live?

     

    Sorry, essentially parasitic lifeforms do not have the right to use of my body, human DNA or no.

     

  • bornin1984

    You don\’t go to jail for having a legal abortion either, derr.

    Well thanks for clearing that right up, seeing as how that was not common knowledge.

    A person giving a kidney is providing, the default is the person who needs a kidney dying and the person not donating staying the same. The default of me walking down the street and minding my own business is me staying the same. If I found out I were pregnant today, I would have an abortion tomorrow and I would stay the same. If I decided to carry the pregnancy to term, that would be (and I have done this so I know) my taking on another full-time job to provide and change my habits and donate my body and blood to a new person I would make and be accountable to. Not a default situation, more akin to donating a kidney than to letting a person keep walking down the street and not murdering by stabbing him/her.

    You would have a point, if not for the fact that pregnancy does not just happen. Indeed, something has to happen for that pregnancy to occur, and that something is sex. Sex leads pregnancy, and pregnancy is not something which can be forced upon you, barring rape. If you do not understand, then let me simplify it for you. Pregnancy is the default situation for a woman who has sex and conceives. There is no getting around this. The rest of what you typed out really has no bearing on that because you are trying to rationalize the previous fact away based on things which, at the end of the day, simply do not matter.

    But I don\’t expect you to understand, this is your mental and moral blind spot.

    Mental and moral blind spot, huh? You know, there is a reason why, as time progresses, future generations are less approving of abortion then their elders, but you probably will not understand why as you seem content to continue using arguments from the 1970s without realizing that the world is passing you, and like-minded individuals, by. Makes you wonder which one of us is really the radical.

  • saltyc

    pregnancy is not something which can be forced upon you

    But you wish it were, and people you support are working hard to make it so. Sex is not an unusual event, but a normal and expected part of life. And people do it with zero intention of having children all the time, no place does it say sex=desire to parent.

     

    Oh and since you keep admiting, with a clearing of your throat, that insemination can be non-consensual. Do you support abortion access for rape victims?

     

    I am hopeful that future generations will see the light, as the more intelligent and education young people do, and support reproductive rights for everybody, and that we can all have lots and lots of great sex with our partners of choice.

  • bornin1984

    But you wish it were, and people you support are working hard to make it so.

    Yes because, we are trying to legalize rape.

    Sex is not an unusual event, but a normal and expected part of life. And people do it with zero intention of having children all the time

    No. The primary function of sex is to propagate the species. Everything else is secondary to this fact. Solely because you do not think it is so, does not mean it is not so.

    no place does it say sex=desire to parent.

    It does if you are a male which is fine, but it also needs to be applied to woman.

    Oh and since you keep admiting, with a clearing of your throat, that insemination can be non-consensual. Do you support abortion access for rape victims?

    No idea, really.

    I am hopeful that future generations will see the light, as the more intelligent and education young people do, and support reproductive rights for everybody, and that we can all have lots and lots of great sex with our partners of choice.

    I chuckled to myself. Millennials are less supportive abortion because we are more educated and intelligent and less willing to define others out of the same rights held by everyone. Good luck if you think a near thirty year trend is going to reverse itself and good luck if you think that once the people between their mid-to-late thirties and early sixties start dying off that someone is going to take their place in defending abortion, because it is not going to happen.

  • hekate

    Sex leads pregnancy, and pregnancy is not something which can be forced upon you, barring rape. If you do not understand, then let me simplify it for you. Pregnancy is the default situation for a woman who has sex and conceives.

    Do you have rape exceptions to your position on abortion? If no, this argument doesn’t really work. If we’re going to argue whether sex is consenting to pregnancy, we have to acknowledge that rape is not consenting to sex, so it is not consenting to pregnancy. So, the default state for a raped woman would be not being pregnant since it was forced on her. Since rape victims did not choose sex, they should be able to get abortions. Unless, of course, you want to argue that the z/b/f is still human life that should be protected. In that case it doesn’t matter if the woman consented or not because either way you think abortion is wrong. It doesn’t matter how it got there if you believe it has the right to be there regardless of the circumstances.

     

    I chuckled to myself. Millennials are less supportive abortion becausewe are more educated and intelligent and less willing to define others out of the same rights held by everyone. Good luck if you think a near thirty year trend is going to reverse itself and good luck if you think that once the people between their mid-to-late thirties and early sixties start dying off that someone is going to take their place in defending abortion, because it is not going to happen.

     

    I read the study. It didn’t indicate that young people are less accepting of abortion because they are better educated than older people. I believe you came to that conclusion on your own. I recall it saying the higher the education, the more accepting of abortion. 

    Educational attainment is one of the most reliable predictors of respondents’ views on abortion, with highly educated respondents of both sexes supporting legal abortion (Kenny, 1993; Ladd and Bowman, 1997). Luker (1984) offers a compelling argument for why highly educated women support legal abortion: they are more likely to engage in meaningful activities other than motherhood. Because of their broader view of acceptable women’s roles, highly educated women are more likely to see unwanted pregnanciesas potentially threatening to a woman’s well-being.

    Where does it say the young, educated, pro-lifers are too smart to support abortion rights? 

    To the extent that abortion attitudes have been shaped by social movement organizations, it appears that the pro-life movement has been more successful at framing the abortion issue than has the pro-choice movement.

    The influence of the pro-life movement is strengthened by the fact that people with passionate pro-life views are more likely to translate their beliefs into political activism than are those with equally extreme pro-choice beliefs (Verba et al., 1995).

    The pro-lifers are better campaigners. Like another particular group that dispensed propaganda and scare tactics in California during a particular election to get support for an unjust law. I believe it was Protect Marriage and the Mormon church. They told people that if we allow same-sex marriage to happen in California it will be taught in schools and their children would all be gay. Society would crumble, etc. It’s kind of like putting up large, graphic signs of aborted fetuses and telling people that this is how the evil doctors kill babies. Just like the proponents of prop. 8 in California, the pro-life movement relies on intimidation, scare tactics, and manipulation to get their point across. I don’t believe that the majority of Californians oppose same-sex marriage on any kind of moral high ground, nor do I believe that young people are more like to not approve of abortion because they recognize the sanctity of life. I believe both groups have dehumanized a group: non-heterosexuals in the case of prop. 8 and pregnant women in the case of the pro-life movement, making the decision easier for those who are ambivalent. When was the last time you saw an ad-campaign depicting dead mothers and their now motherless children as opposed to aborted fetuses?

     

    It also really doesn’t help that “pro-choice” politicians completely fail at promoting safe and legal access to abortion, constantly express remorse for abortion’s existence, and always use it as a bargaining chip. Pro-life politicians, on the other hand, do their best to place restrictions on abortion, even holding up healthcare legislation because they don’t agree with abortion access. When one side takes it so seriously, and the other takes it as a joke, it’s no surprise that the pro-life movement has much more success.

     

    And then there’s the taboo of abortion. Women who have abortions often do not talk about or tell others that they had an abortion. There are women who have abortions and feel like theirs was the only acceptable abortion. Young people and everyone in general would probably accept abortion more if they were aware of the women in their lives who had one. Kind of like how people are more accepting of homosexuality when they actually know someone who is gay.

    The net result of these separate trends is that the pro-life movement has had relatively more success in defining the terms of the debate, but that success has not led to broad-based opposition to abortion.

  • squirrely-girl

    … the less you have to take back.

    Pregnancy is the default situation for a woman who has sex and conceives.

    Not necessarily. A rather large number of fertilized eggs simply fail to implant. About 25% of pregnancies result in miscarriage and not all pregnancies result in viable human beings.. That doesn’t exactly scream “default.” Similarly, there is no default or standard pregnancy… it’s not a one size fits all scenario. 

     

  • crowepps

    No. The primary function of sex is to propagate the species. Everything else is secondary to this fact. Solely because you do not think it is so, does not mean it is not so.

    The primary fuction of sex is the pleasure of both or one of the participants. Most of the time when people have sex they have no intention of starting a pregnancy and most of the time they do not create a conception at all. People have sex hundreds and thousands of times during their lifetimes and conception only results at most a couple dozen times. Solely because you do not think it is so, does not mean it is not so.

  • prochoiceferret

    No. The primary function of sex is to propagate the species. Everything else is secondary to this fact.

     

    You must have a pretty awful sex life to hold that opinion!

     

    [Do you support abortion access for rape victims?]

    No idea, really.

     

    I guess protecting precious innocent little human beings must not be particularly important for you, then.

     

    Good luck if you think a near thirty year trend is going to reverse itself and good luck if you think that once the people between their mid-to-late thirties and early sixties start dying off that someone is going to take their place in defending abortion, because it is not going to happen.

     

    I’m sure that the people who were against female suffrage also thought they were going to win in the end.

  • littleblue

    Did you really mean to type this, BI1984?

     

    Yes because, we are trying to legalize rape.

  • bornin1984

    The primary fuction of sex is the pleasure of both or one of the participants. Most of the time when people have sex they have no intention of starting a pregnancy and most of the time they do not create a conception at all. People have sex hundreds and thousands of times during their lifetimes and conception only results at most a couple dozen times. Solely because you do not think it is so, does not mean it is not so.

    Humans, no matter how some people would like to believe, are not above nature. Humans do not have specific mating seasons. Unlike most organisms, humans are able to become pregnant year round in rapid succession. Pleasure exists as a means by which to entice people to engage in sex often, as the more often one engages in sex, the greater the likelihood of producing offspring. This is a simple biological fact and denying it does not make it less so.

  • bornin1984

    Do you have rape exceptions to your position on abortion? If no, this argument doesn\’t really work. If we\’re going to argue whether sex is consenting to pregnancy, we have to acknowledge that rape is not consenting to sex, so it is not consenting to pregnancy. So, the default state for a raped woman would be not being pregnant since it was forced on her. Since rape victims did not choose sex, they should be able to get abortions. Unless, of course, you want to argue that the z/b/f is still human life that should be protected. In that case it doesn\’t matter if the woman consented or not because either way you think abortion is wrong. It doesn\’t matter how it got there if you believe it has the right to be there regardless of the circumstances.

    Read what Salty wrote out. She seems to be under the impression that pregnancy is not the default situation arising from conception, which follows sex (Yes, that includes rape but, for the sake of argument, I excluded it purposely). Indeed, it is, because it is what will naturally occur if a woman conceives (the fact that the embryo sometimes does not implant does not change this fact). Now you can argue that a woman should not have to go through a pregnancy if she does not consent to sex, which is another argument, but that is completely not what I was responding to in my post to Salty, and does not change the fact that pregnancy is the default situation arising from sex.

    I read the study. It didn\’t indicate that young people are less accepting of abortion because they are better educated than older people. I believe you came to that conclusion on your own. I recall it saying the higher the education, the more accepting of abortion.

    I am pretty sure I said more than that. But, at any rate, you should have read further down:

    Second, the decline in the sizes of the education and Catholic religion unstandardized slopes between the first and last time periods, while not statistically significant, nevertheless is consistent with the drop in their respective Betas and suggestive of a weakening association between these background factors and abortion attitudes.

    Where does it say the young, educated, pro-lifers are too smart to support abortion rights?

    Pretty sure I never said that.

    The pro-lifers are better campaigners. Like another particular group that dispensed propaganda and scare tactics in California during a particular election to get support for an unjust law. I believe it was Protect Marriage and the Mormon church. They told people that if we allow same-sex marriage to happen in California it will be taught in schools and their children would all be gay. Society would crumble, etc. It\’s kind of like putting up large, graphic signs of aborted fetuses and telling people that this is how the evil doctors kill babies. Just like the proponents of prop. 8 in California, the pro-life movement relies on intimidation, scare tactics, and manipulation to get their point across. I don\’t believe that the majority of Californians oppose same-sex marriage on any kind of moral high ground, nor do I believe that young people are more like to not approve of abortion because they recognize the sanctity of life. I believe both groups have dehumanized a group: non-heterosexuals in the case of prop. 8 and pregnant women in the case of the pro-life movement, making the decision easier for those who are ambivalent. When was the last time you saw an ad-campaign depicting dead mothers and their now motherless children as opposed to aborted fetuses?

    It sounds to me like you ignored the part of the article that did not suit you.

    The two social attitude constructs that have become more closely correlated with abortion attitudes are attitudes toward sexuality and belief about the sanctity of human life. These are the two central issues that have been emphasized by pro-life media campaigns (Ferree, 1998). The pro-choice movement, on the other hand, has focused on the claims that legal abortion is an entitlement of the right to privacy, that the state should not be coopted by religious views, and that abortion is necessary for gender equality (Ferree, 1998). Our results indicate the correlates that increase in strength are sexual liberalism and belief in sanctity of human life, the values that have been emphasized by the pro-life movement. The frames most utilized by the pro-choice movement, feminism and religiosity, have remained stable or weakened in their association with abortion attitudes.

    It has nothing to do with, as you say, being the better campaigner nor fearmongering, the latter of which pro-choicers just love (see the constant reference to coathanger abortions and how millions of women will die in back-alleys if abortions are made illegal). It has to do with the fact that the pro-choice movement continues to use outdated and outmoded arguments that society, as a whole, simply does not care about. It is really no more complicated then that. Using this site as reference, and clicking on nearly any thread where a pro-lifer shows up, you will notice that no matter what the pro-lifer types out, 95%+ of the arguments levied against the pro-lifer by pro-choicers will either:

    1.) Claim that the pro-lifer a misogynist who hates/wants to control women. Or
    2.) Claim that the pro-lifer is a fundie who wants to force his/her religion on others.

    And if you want to deny it, then I can very easily go on a quote fest as it happens like clockwork. Now, without taking the time to reiterate why neither arguments are essentially compelling (the first because gender equality has become generally accepted as a social value, the second because religion has become a weaker influence on abortion attitudes as the years have progressed), the problem with the pro-choice position is that there is absolutely no way to promote (access to) abortion within the confines of the strongest predictors towards abortion attitudes without either claiming that people have a right to have as much wanton sex as they want or without asserting that some humans are inherently worth less than others. Of course, no pro-choicer in his or her right mind would ever argue as much, which is why they do not, and which is why, at the end of the day, they relegate their arguments to something which simply has not mattered in the grand scheme of things for well over thirty years. In the end, the movement is doomed to failure as they either refuse to argue abortion on moral grounds, thus ceding the argument to pro-lifers, or they argue abortion on the grounds that abortion is moral because the unborn are inherently worth less than any other human being. Both of these situations are lose-lose, though, which is just fine by me.

    On another note, your contention linking the pro-life movement to the anti-gay marriage movement, well… It does not work, especially not when you apply it to younger generations, as younger generations are more approving of homosexuality then their elders yet less approving of abortion then their elders. Unless you are going to assert that, on the issue of homosexuality, they are immune to, as you like to call them, scare tactics while on the issue of abortion they are not, then your contention does not make much sense. Like it or not, the pro-life movement is linked to other, broader social movements which is why you see an increase in pro-life sentiment while also seeing an increase in the number of people who are okay with suicide, euthanasia and gays (the article even points this out).

    It also really doesn\’t help that \”pro-choice\” politicians completely fail at promoting safe and legal access to abortion, constantly express remorse for abortion\’s existence, and always use it as a bargaining chip. Pro-life politicians, on the other hand, do their best to place restrictions on abortion, even holding up healthcare legislation because they don\’t agree with abortion access. When one side takes it so seriously, and the other takes it as a joke, it\’s no surprise that the pro-life movement has much more success.

    Politicking is completely irrelevant and has no effect on overall attitudes towards abortion. Since you used the issue of gay marriage, following your logic, as more and more states either amend their constitutions or pass laws making gay marriage illegal, or as more people come out in opposition to it, you should see an increase in the number of people saying gay marriage should be illegal, yet you see a decrease. Why? Because the broader social movement exists independent of politics or politicians. Social movements start at the bottom and work their way up, not at the top and work their way down.

    And then there\’s the taboo of abortion. Women who have abortions often do not talk about or tell others that they had an abortion. There are women who have abortions and feel like theirs was the only acceptable abortion. Young people and everyone in general would probably accept abortion more if they were aware of the women in their lives who had one. Kind of like how people are more accepting of homosexuality when they actually know someone who is gay.

    If I remember correctly, something like 60 – 70% of Americans know someone who has had an abortion. I highly doubt that people become more accepting of abortion if they know someone who has had an abortion because, if that were true, then people should be more accepting of abortion today then they were in 1973, as far more women have an abortion today than they did in 1973, and the odds of running into a woman who has had an abortion today are far greater than they were in 1973. Yet they are not. To make the comparison, a woman explaining to you why she drowned her children is not going to make you more receptive to the fact that she drowned her children. It is the same thing with abortion (it also does not help that it is not hard to find someone who has had multiple abortions and is unapologetic about the whole thing).

  • bornin1984

    You do realize that does not make what I typed out false, correct? Because X sometimes does not happen, does not mean that X is not the default situation. It means that sometimes X fails to happen. That would be akin to saying that birth is not the default action of pregnancy, because sometimes the woman miscarries or has an abortion.

  • bornin1984

    You must have a pretty awful sex life to hold that opinion!


    I did not know facts were now opinions. Odd.

    I guess protecting precious innocent little human beings must not be particularly important for you, then.

    Who is innocent and who is guilty?

    I\’m sure that the people who were against female suffrage also thought they were going to win in the end.

    Oh, really? And how do you know?

  • crowepps

    Humans do not have specific mating seasons.

    Well, since you’re talking about biology, and the whole purpose of specific mating seasons, and the ‘seasons’ associated with them, is to minimize the amount of energy required over the annual cycle for reproduction, maximize the likelihood that offspring will be born at a favorable time of year, and limit sexual contact to short periods so that the participants aren’t ‘distracted’ from survival by reproduction, you have any speculations about just why humans are so unusual?  Certainly one would think that if pleasure in sex was merely to entice people to conceive then women would be repulsed by the idea of having sex when they were already pregnant.

     

    Speaking of needing to accept “simple biological fact” it’s also true that naturally human populations should be winnowed regularly by epidemics of disease to keep the population down and the five-year survival rate for children should be the ‘natural’ rate of approximately 50%.  Are you also opposed to the use of medicine, vaccination and antibiotics as artificial and unnatural interferences with biology?

  • bornin1984

    Number one, I said that the primary function of sex was the propagation of the species, not the only reason. Number two, different organisms have different mating habits that suits them, and not every animal has a specific mating season (Bonobos, if I remember correctly, are able to become pregnant year round but are unable to become pregnant in rapid succession). And number three, I really have no idea what the last paragraph had to do with me pointing out that the primary function of sex is the propagation of the species, so I am not going to bother.

  • crowepps

    The point is that the ‘natural’ biological process of reproduction in humans includes both a high mortality rate for women delivering and ALSO a high mortality rate for children after they’re born.

     

    If you’re going to insist that “biological truth” must be served in conception, it seems logical to extend that truth right on through the process. Instead of winnowing the number of children through abortion the ‘natural biological process’ is to have the population of children halved after they’re born by having the weakest 50% die from ‘natural biological processes’.

  • prochoiceferret

    I did not know facts were now opinions. Odd.

     

    Yes, when they’re subjectively true for you but not necessarily other people. Statements like “anchovies are disgusting” and “abortion is murder” fall into the same category. Now you know!

     

    Who is innocent and who is guilty?

     

    You’re not going to argue that the innocent little unborn humans gestated from rape are guilty, are you?

     

    Oh, really? And how do you know?

     

    Because retrogressive ideological movements involve lots and lots of wishful thinking!

  • bornin1984

    Yes, when they\’re subjectively true for you but not necessarily other people. Statements like \”anchovies are disgusting\” and \”abortion is murder\” fall into the same category. Now you know!

    And the primary purpose of sex being the propagation of the species does not. And now you know, though you should have already known.

    You\’re not going to argue that the innocent little unborn humans gestated from rape are guilty, are you?

    And yet again I ask, who is guilty and who is innocent?

    Because retrogressive ideological movements involve lots and lots of wishful thinking!

    Odd. I thought the pro-life movement was progressive, seeing as how the issues it bases itself off of are themselves progressive.

  • bornin1984

    I have said this once before, and I say it again. You really do need to stop reading so much into what people type out. I have no idea how you got from me pointing out that the primary function of sex is the propagation of the species to whatever you said in your last sentence.

  • prochoiceferret

    And the primary purpose of sex being the propagation of the species does not. And now you know, though you should have already known.

     

    Sorry, but that’s your opinion. My opinion is that the primary purpose of sex is to form and strengthen human relationships. After all, people may have reproductive sex two or three times in their lifetime, but they have plain-fun sex thousands upon thousands of times. Not unlike bonobos.

     

    And yet again I ask, who is guilty and who is innocent?

     

    Looks like there is a more important concern than the life of the rape-gestated fetus. And here I thought you were against the whole culture-of-death thing.

     

    Odd. I thought the pro-life movement was progressive, seeing as how the issues it bases itself off of are themselves progressive.

     

    You’re not too hot at comic relief, but at least you do it better than anti-choice advocacy!

  • bornin1984

    Sorry, but that\\\’s your opinion. My opinion is that the primary purpose of sex is to form and strengthen human relationships. After all, people may have reproductive sex two or three times in their lifetime, but they have plain-fun sex thousands upon thousands of times. Not unlike bonobos.

    A kind of wise man once said that while you are entitled to your own opinions, you are not entitled to your own facts. With that being said, I am sorry (not really), but you do not get to pass off a scientific fact as an opinion, which you tend to try to do a lot. If there is no sex, human relationships will still be formed and strengthened (Because heaven knows I have never had sex with any of my friends or coworkers or even family). On the flip side, if there is no sex, the species will eventually die off, and then the point about having sex to form and strengthen humans relationships becomes moot as there are no humans. Sex evolved for a reason, you know, and it was not to help facilitate pair bonds or whatever you want to refer to them as.

    Looks like there is a more important concern than the life of the rape-gestated fetus. And here I thought you were against the whole culture-of-death thing.

    It also looks like you are, as you usually do, purposely evading the question. I would say I am surprised, but I would be lying.

    You\\\’re not too hot at comic relief, but at least you do it better than anti-choice advocacy!

    Unfortunately, being right is not as funny as being wrong. I suppose that is why you are better at bringing the laughs than I am.

  • prochoiceferret

    On the flip side, if there is no sex, the species will eventually die off, and then the point about having sex to form and strengthen humans relationships becomes moot as there are no humans.

     

    Oh, I don’t disagree that reproductive sex has the nice effect of propagating the human species. This is, of course, the precise reason why the majority of the 6+ billion people the world over engage in sexual activity. And it’s clearly not a subjective matter to bestow more importance to the underlying biological mechanism than the human motivations involved. Relationships? Love? Spirituality? Piffle! In the end, it’s all just animal husbandry with bipeds!

     

    It also looks like you are, as you usually do, purposely evading the question. I would say I am surprised, but I would be lying.

     

    Perhaps, someday, you’ll decide whether you support abortion access for pregnant rape victims—once you figure out what might be more important to you than the lives of the involved fetuses.

  • truth

    Arekushieru,

     

    Your refutation to my sound and valid argument is nonsense. Your points lack clear thinking and discernment.

     

    2A. We agree. Lack of the abiltiy to BE guilty = innocence.

     

    B.   A fetus is one of the developmental stages along the logical path of becoming a baby. A human zygote will become a fetus which will become a baby. Follow the logical path to its natural end.

     

    C.   Induced abortion does in fact murder a fetus. It is deliberate. What your confusing yourself with is an ectopic pregancy whereby in the course of trying to remove the fertilized egg from the fallopial tube to its correct place in the uterus the fertilized egg is aborted. Again, you have to cosider the motivation (i.e. deliberate vs. accidental).

     

    D.  (See B)

     

    E.  I am responding to your unreasonable refutations because I want you to begin the process of critical objective thinking rather than trying to deviate from the actual truth of premise to reach a predetermined end. Logic follows the natural (true) premise to determine a conclusion. You are working backwards from conclusion and formulating premises that attempt make your conclusion viable.

     

    3.  (Induced) Abortion does in fact equate to murder. I have proven this through a logical syllogism.

     

     

    As to your last comment. I think what you are trying to say is that my logical argument denies rights to “a certain segment of scciety” – you are (of course) referring to women. Let me pose a question to you:

     

    By convicting someone who has committed murder, are we “denying” a certain segment of society a fundamental right? The answer is clearly no, and we all know this – it would be NONSENSICAL to argue otherwise.

  • bornin1984

    Oh, I don\’t disagree that reproductive sex has the nice effect of propagating the human species. This is, of course, the precise reason why the majority of the 6+ billion people the world over engage in sexual activity. And it\’s clearly not a subjective matter to bestow more importance to the underlying biological mechanism than the human motivations involved. Relationships? Love? Spirituality? Piffle! In the end, it\’s all just animal husbandry with bipeds!

    All of which are human constructs made in order to differentiate us from, for lack of a better word, lower animals/other species. At the end of the day, humans are not above nature and are bound to it just as is anything else. Also, propagating the species is not just a, as you say, nice effect. Extinction is not all that great of a thing to happen.

    Perhaps, someday, you\’ll decide whether you support abortion access for pregnant rape victims—once you figure out what might be more important to you than the lives of the involved fetuses.

    Rape victims should report being raped ASAP so they can receive emergency contraceptives, as then conception would not take place, which would mean that pregnancy would not occur.

  • prochoiceferret

    All of which are human constructs made in order to differentiate us from, for lack of a better word, lower animals/other species. At the end of the day, humans are not above nature and are bound to it just as is anything else.

     

    So your argument boils down to asserting that love/relationships/etc. are not a part of nature.

     

    Rape victims should report being raped ASAP so they can receive emergency contraceptives, as then conception would not take place, which would mean that pregnancy would not occur.

     

    Yes, when there is no pregnancy, there are no hard questions to answer. Convenient, isn’t it?

     

    Though I must have missed all your advocacy in favor of EC availability and better care for rape victims in general.

  • squirrely-girl

    At the end of the day, humans are not above nature and are bound to it just as is anything else.

     

    So are you one of those biological imperative people? Do you only have sex to reproduce? Do you support rape as an acceptable means of propagation? Why do infertile people still have sex? Oh wait, but don’t you have recreational sex with women? So are you just a hypocrite then?

     

    You demand quite a bit from women you’ll never meet but appear to have absolutely no intentions to practice those expectations in your own life. 

     

  • bornin1984

    So are you one of those biological imperative people?


    I have no idea what that means.

    Do you only have sex to reproduce?

    No.

    Do you support rape as an acceptable means of propagation?

    Rape does not occur as a way to propogate a species. Take dolphins, for example, where a pack of males will tend to surround a female, rape her and then proceed to bash her against a rock afterwards to prevent her from becoming pregnant.

    Why do infertile people still have sex?

    Because to quote myself:

    I said that the primary function of sex was the propagation of the species, not the only reason.

    Oh wait, but don\’t you have recreational sex with women? So are you just a hypocrite then?

    See my quote above.

    You demand quite a bit from women you\’ll never meet but appear to have absolutely no intentions to practice those expectations in your own life.

    While I realize that constantly trying to assert that people demand of women what they do not demand of themselves is a nice and convenient way to ignore an argument, solely because you think something is true does not mean it is true. At any rate, are you done now?

  • bornin1984

    So your argument boils down to asserting that love/relationships/etc. are not a part of nature.

    Love is a human construct. Religion is a human construct. Spirituality is a human construct. Do you not remember what you wrote out?

    Yes, when there is no pregnancy, there are no hard questions to answer. Convenient, isn\’t it?

    Indeed, it is.

  • squirrely-girl

     

    I have no idea what that means.

    Take a couple of minutes and look it up then.

    Rape does not occur as a way to propogate a species. 

    But when you argue that “primary function of sex is the propagation of the species,” a rather logical corollary is that the primary function of rape/forced sex is thus forced propagation. To use absolutist terms, the primary function of sex is either propagation or it isn’t. You don’t get to have it both ways.

    Take dolphins, for example, where a pack of males will tend to surround a female, rape her and then proceed to bash her against a rock afterwards to prevent her from becoming pregnant.

     

    But we’re not talking about dolphins are we? We’re talking about people. What other species do is inconsequential don’t you think? Reducing humans to mere “animals” by ignoring thousands of years of cognitive development and evolution and then using other species to make your point is rather illogical. 

    At any rate, are you done now?

    With you ;)