Skip to main content

View Diary: Open thread for night owls: Roe v. Wade at 38 (376 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  no middle ground (0+ / 0-)

    then you must hate Roe vs. Wade then.

    Candidate Obama was right: When both parties serve the same side in the class war, voters may as well cling to guns and religion. Bitter since 2010.

    by happymisanthropy on Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 01:07:36 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  There's no middle (0+ / 0-)

      ground about whether you support a roll back of the rights that already exist, that allow women to make this choice, or whether you support further restrictions that are essentially saying the state gets to have more say in what a women chooses to do with her body than the woman.

      The question isn't about whether there are complicated issues to consider. Roe considers them. They are addressed both legislatively and medically, when a woman works with her doctor. What this poll is about (and our subsequent conversation) is whether we should add restrictions. The difference between the first option in the poll and the second is the difference between Roe (#1) and a watering down of Roe (#2) which is what is happening before our eyes. And part of why that is happening, I believe, is that too many people confuse their moral squeamishness with thinking that that said squeamishness should have some role in the forming of public/health policy. It shouldn't.

      We are here to awaken from the illusion of our separateness.

      by Tookish on Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 12:40:27 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  but there's nothing in Poll Option #2 (0+ / 0-)

        that would allow for any restriction beyond what's already allowed under Roe.

        Candidate Obama was right: When both parties serve the same side in the class war, voters may as well cling to guns and religion. Bitter since 2010.

        by happymisanthropy on Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 03:50:35 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The value (0+ / 0-)

          of this poll, I think, was that it required us to use some assumptions to decide between #1 and #2. Those assumptions (the scenarios we imagined that affected whether we chose #1 or #2) are informative for how we view this whole issue of who should get an abortion, under what circumstances and, most importantly, who should decide.

          When I read the poll, I assumed that #1 was the only way that all bases could possibly be covered for whatever situation might occur (ones I could imagine and ones I couldn't b/c I haven't lived every life or heard every story). The #2 option was, I assumed for those who could imagine a situation that wasn't appropriate for an abortion and wanted to see that eventuality addressed. I'm not saying I'm right about the assumptions, I'm just naming mine. What were yours?

          We are here to awaken from the illusion of our separateness.

          by Tookish on Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 06:28:12 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think it's more (0+ / 0-)

            how we read the poll question itself than in our fundamental assumptions.

            Option #1: NO restrictions on abortions
            Option #2: NO restrictions on abortions for the first two trimesters, possibly some restrictions in the third trimester

            Candidate Obama was right: When both parties serve the same side in the class war, voters may as well cling to guns and religion. Bitter since 2010.

            by happymisanthropy on Sat Jan 22, 2011 at 11:24:28 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site