Majority of Americans say heartbeat abortion bans are not too restrictive

Rubiks said:

Birth control isn't 100% effective.

Click to expand...

Not talking birth control, just the idea sex is an unequivocally right like they think cell phones are

I think the Marist poll shows that most Americans approve of regulated abortion

COMMENTARY By Carl Anderson
January 18, 2019

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/01/18/poll_shows_most_americans_favor_limits_on_abortion_139205.html

The annual Marist poll's protocols and questions provide a fairly clear how Americans feel about abortion

Sponsored by the Knights of Columbus, this annual survey has also highlighted the following fact: Using polling questions that measure the labels Americans choose for themselves – such as pro-choice – will not actually reveal what they want in terms of abortion policy. While the majority of those who identify as pro-life can reliably be expected to support restrictions on abortion, so can most of those who identify as pro-choice.


In some years, including this one, more Americans may identify as pro-choice than pro-life, but more than six in 10 of those who say they are pro-choice (61 percent) join the three-quarters of all Americans in wanting abortion restricted to – again, at most – the first trimester. So do about six in 10 Democrats (59 percent), eight in 10 independents (78 percent) and nine in 10 Republicans (92 percent).

By giving the American people greater choice in the questions the Marist poll asks, and by asking about policy options rather than focusing on the labels, this survey has been able to build a more accurate measure of what they really want on abortion policy.

This year, we also found that the same holds true of opinions on how the Supreme Court should rule when it revisits Roe v. Wade. Recent polls that ask whether Americans want Roe v. Wade upheld or overturned report that Americans support the 1973 decision. But when you ask Americans how they think the court should rule on abortion – and don’t use the Roe label – everything changes.


Almost two-thirds of Americans (65 percent) say they want the Supreme Court to revisit Roe in a substantial way. This includes 16 percent who want the court to rule that abortion should be illegal, and about half (49 percent) who say that restrictions should be allowed as determined by each state. Restoring a state-based system would, in fact, overturn Roe – as would a ban on abortion. So nearly two-thirds want the court to rule to allow restrictions that would de facto overturn that decision.

Fewer than a third (30 percent) want the court to allow unrestricted abortion.

Interestingly, those who identify as pro-choice divide on this issue. While 49 percent would allow unrestricted abortion, 47 percent would either allow abortion regulation to be decided by the states (44 percent) or would ban it outright (3 percent).

The fact is that the majority of the American people are not looking for a nationwide policy of unrestricted abortion. Three-quarters want to allow common-sense restrictions on abortion, and almost two-thirds want the court to allow or man

Davidnic said:

The problem with that is to be consistent that metric means you can abort for any reason even moments before birth. And that fails several logical tests. Such as, if she/he was not a person 1 second before birth what has changed biologically, morally, or theologically to justify that being the point and not conception. So although some could argue for it, it has more than some holes.

Click to expand...

I don't think anybody supports abortions near a mother's due date. If she is full-term (37 weeks) or close enough for the baby to be viable without neonatal care, her obstetrician will go ahead with the delivery. I know the Roe vs. Wade ruling prohibis third trimester abortions.

ChristianForCats said:

I don't think anybody supports abortions near a mother's due date. If she is full-term (37 weeks) or close enough for the baby to be viable without neonatal care, her obstetrician will go ahead with the delivery. I know the Roe vs. Wade ruling prohibis third trimester abortions.

Click to expand...

The point is some argue that birth is a consistent point for personhood. And it's not an arbitrary one.

But really it is because the difference between one second to the next at that point cannot be logically explained.

Of course it is not just one second. The head comes out, then the shoulders, chest, etc. so the first time a baby breathes air, he/she is not born yet.

ChristianForCats said:

OK how about this then: If a state is going to ban abortion after 6 weeks, mandatory sex education needs to be stricter and easier to enforce.

Click to expand...

I thought that sex education was already mandatory. How much stricter can you make it?

ChristianForCats said:

Of course it is not just one second. The head comes out, then the shoulders, chest, etc. so the first time a baby breathes air, he/she is not born yet.

Click to expand...

But are they a person yet? Does that happen when they are conceived or when they're fully out of the birth canal?

If it's when they are fully out of the birth canal then what is the difference while their feet are still in? Or what is the difference one second before the water breaks?

If it's three weeks in, three months in, or six months in why?

The only non arbitrary not artificially constructed logical point is conception. Before conception there is not a human being genetically there. After conception there is.

Any other point is just a comfortable fallacy, used to justify the death of a genetic human being. Withholding personhood until an arbitrary point makes no sense.

Anyone trying to say a point other than conception has the burden of proving that with logical consistency that somehow a person did not exist before that.

See? they were right way back.. take away chastity belts and the world will go to **** in a handbasket

ChristianForCats said:

I don't think anybody supports abortions near a mother's due date. If she is full-term (37 weeks) or close enough for the baby to be viable without neonatal care, her obstetrician will go ahead with the delivery. I know the Roe vs. Wade ruling prohibis third trimester abortions.

Click to expand...

If the issue is about women's rights, what does it matter if the abortion is near the mother's due date?

Davidnic said:

But are they a person yet? Does that happen when they are conceived or when they're fully out of the birth canal?

If it's when they are fully out of the birth canal then what is the difference while their feet are still in? Or what is the difference one second before the water breaks?

If it's three weeks in, three months in, or six months in why?

The only non arbitrary not artificially constructed logical point is conception. Before conception there is not a human being genetically there. After conception there is.

Any other point is just a comfortable fallacy, used to justify the death of a genetic human being. Withholding personhood until an arbitrary point makes no sense.

Anyone trying to say a point other than conception has the burden of proving that with logical consistency that somehow a person did not exist before that.

Click to expand...

Apparently location defines humanity?

I think what the majority believe doesn't impact either side, except in so far as it it allows them to achieve their goals.

Pro-lifers will continue to believe it wrong to kill children in the womb even if the entire world is against them.

The Pro-abortion crowd will continue to believe it morally acceptable to kill an infant in the womb up to the moment before birth on the basis of the woman's decision alone for any reason whatsoever.

No Username Found said:

I thought that sex education was already mandatory. How much stricter can you make it?

Click to expand...

That does not mean all schools teach it. In Alabama, there is a problem with enforcement and the lessons are not taught everywhere. CNN also reported sex education in the state is not sufficient where kids learn what is required by law. IOW, just having a state mandate does not mean all kids will learn enough about puberty, reproductive systems, STDs, sexual intercourse, pregnancy, and contracpetion.

No Username Found said:

If the issue is about women's rights, what does it matter if the abortion is near the mother's due date?

Click to expand...

Women want abortions long before the 37th week. If you know you don't want to have a baby, why wait?

ChristianForCats said:

Women want abortions long before the 37th week. If you know you don't want to have a baby, why wait?

Click to expand...

But what's the difference? Day 40 or Day 270?

If it's all based on choice then right up to oh my water just broke but I've changed my mind...should be ok.

But I think most people innately know it isn't ok. So they defend against that cognitive dissonance by creating a point that works for them when it isn't okay.

But it's an arbitrary decision. And we also know that that can't be right. We don't each got to decide for ourselves when a human being is a person.

Some would say it's at a certain point in development. Some would say it's if that individual is desired by another individual that would give them personhood.

But the only non arbitrary point is conception. It's just people are uncomfortable with it being that early because then a whole host of obligations come into play.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

I think what the majority believe doesn't impact either side, except in so far as it it allows them to achieve their goals.

Pro-lifers will continue to believe it wrong to kill children in the womb even if the entire world is against them.

The pro-abortion crowd will continue to believe it morally acceptable to kill an infant in the womb up to the moment before birth on the basis of the woman's decision alone for any reason whatsoever.

Click to expand...

It is impossible to abort a fetus until the moment before birth. The baby has already breathed fresh air at that point. Also, being pro choice does not make anyone pro-abortion. They only support a woman's right to choose, not recommend abortions for women.

ChristianForCats said:

It is impossible to abort a fetus until the moment before birth. The baby has already breathed fresh air at that point. Also, being pro choice does not make anyone pro-abortion. They only support a woman's right to choose, not recommend abortions for women.

Click to expand...

To choose to do what? Take a life because there is some advantage. You have celebrities posting in the last few days how it would have been a hard life for the child they aborted so it was, to quote them, the best decision they've ever made. And you have many vocal pro-choice leaders praising their posts. Making them a face of the movement.

Better dead than poor. Better dead than suffering.

Better dead than suffering is actually the opposite of Christian theology.

So no there are very many pro-choice people who are very vocal who recommend abortion.

And whenever someone says pro-choice it must be asked... What is the objective act they're choosing not the subjective one.

The objective act is the ending of another life at a point in its development where it is helpless.

ChristianForCats said:

It is impossible to abort a fetus until the moment before birth. The baby has already breathed fresh air at that point. Also, being pro choice does not make anyone pro-abortion. They only support a woman's right to choose, not recommend abortions for women.

Click to expand...

A moment before birth is an exaggeration, yet I'm sure you wouldn't object to a woman wanting an abortion 7 months into the pregnancy? It's her choice after all.

Also, do you think abortion is immoral?

There are many who think if a child is going to die in a horrible way filled with suffering it is merciful to kill them early. If the right to choose exists without limit prior to birth how is that wrong?

I can explain how it's wrong. But from a pro choice view how could it be argued to be wrong

Davidnic said:

But what's the difference? Day 40 or Day 270?

If it's all based on choice then right up to oh my water just broke but I've changed my mind...should be ok.

But I think most people innately know it isn't ok. So they defend against that cognitive dissonance by creating a point that works for them when it isn't okay.

But it's an arbitrary decision. And we also know that that can't be right. We don't each got to decide for ourselves when a human being is a person.

Some would say it's at a certain point in development. Some would say it's if that individual is desired by another individual that would give them personhood.

But the only non arbitrary point is conception. It's just people are uncomfortable with it being that early because then a whole host of obligations come into play.

Click to expand...

Day 40 is earlier than women even know they are pregnant.

You think if the timing is restricted women don't have rights? Think again. You have the right to drink but you don't have the right to drink while driving. Does that limit your right to drink beer?

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

A moment before birth is an exaggeration, yet I'm sure you wouldn't object to a woman wanting an abortion 7 months into the pregnancy? It's her choice after all.

Also, do you think abortion is immoral?

Click to expand...

For me it is a matter of viability. If a 7-month old fetus can survive without being hooked up to machines, I certainly would object to aborting it that late.