Previous Poll wrote:1. Leave As Is: 108 votes (11%)
2. Illegal without exception: 65 votes (7%)
3. Illegal with exceptions: 147 votes (15%)
4. Enact Healthcare/Welfare reforms and keep legal: 454 votes (46%)
5. Enact Healthcare/Welfare reforms and Ban without exception: 42 votes (4%)
6. Enact Healthcare/Welfare reforms and Ban with exceptions: 165 votes (17%)
Imagine the following scenario: You are in a position to decide how to address the issue of abortion in America. What options, based upon your own views of morality/logic/etc would you take?
Would you leave it as the law currently stands, with women being (ostensibly) able to get an abortion on a elective basis?
Would you make it illegal, across the board or with some degree of exceptions?
Would you implement policies geared towards reducing the probability of unwanted pregnancies and the burden of unplanned pregnancies that would render the probability of somebody getting an abortion somewhere close to zero (but never exactly zero)? Would you STILL make it illegal if so?
Keep in mind, actions may still have consequences further down the line. You would be addressing it, not necessarily resolving it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So hey. I know it's been a relative lull in overall abortion-related threads (that short thing about the Texas law requiring fetal funerals notwithstanding), but I had a surprisingly engaging discussion on the subject with one of my coworkers on the subject and came to something of a quandary.
The fellow I was speaking with was of a rather devout disposition, but through our rather lengthy discussion it seemed to result in him saying "I see your points, and they are all good ones, but it's still murder." I even laid out a way that he could get his wish for all practical purposes (free contraception, relevant training, pregnancy related health care, and even threw in the notion that such things would pay for themselves, so no burden would be extended to the public at large) and just shrugged when I commented on the lack of compromise in saying 'yeah, that all sounds great, but I'll still make it illegal!' It had a small diversion in which he said if his own daughter were to get pregnant, he'd make damn sure she carried the pregnancy to term. I asked if that would still hold true if she were older than 18 and was determined to do so, and it essentially boiled down to him not having a problem with keeping her in a cage until she went into labor.
I find such a thing to be... abhorrent. Unspeakably so. How can such a thing be justified in any faith, WHILE the same person agrees with the idea of equal treatment before the law and the idea that no person should be able to use another person's body against their will (I bring those up while trying to establish a common basis and whatnot).
I find myself at something of a loss. But it also made me curious about how the community at large would choose to address the issue had they the power to address the issue. Maybe some folks can explain that impressive example cognitive dissonance I experienced this day.
If it isn't already apparent per my explanation: I'd implement policies that could reduce unwanted pregnancies and assist those experiencing unplanned pregnancies to reduce whatever medical or financial burdens they might already experience, while keeping it legal because one never can tell.
So, big question in the poll, and lemme know what ya think.
