US Religious Groups and Abortion

[lpetrich]

Ryan Burge on Twitter: "Just two groups are clearly opposed to abortion - white evangelicals and Mormons, who combine for 17% of the population.
Several larger groups are evenly split (white Catholics/mainline).
3/4 of the nones support abortion and they are 31.3% of the pop. https://t.co/3YsvVjJNF0" / Twitter

White Evangelical . 24.6% . 75.4%
Mormon . 30.8% . 69.2%
Nonwhite Evangelical . 47.9% . 52.1%
Orthodox . 48.0% . 52.0%
Unclassified . 48.8% . 51.2%
White Catholic . 49.7% . 50.3%
Mainline . 53.6% . 46.4%
Muslim . 55.8% . 44.2%
Nonwhite Catholic . 61.8% . 38.2%
Nothing in Particular . 69.2% . 30.8%
Black Protestant . 69.8% . 30.2%
Jewish . 79.4% . 20.6%
Agnostic . 84.9% . 15.1%
Hindu . 85.2% . 14.8%
Buddhist . 86.2% . 13.8%
Atheist . 90.1% . 9.9%

Source: ryanburge, CCES 2018

 

[Half-Life]

It's interesting to note that a lot of people only support abortion for the first 3 months. The next 6 months are off the table.

So we have groups of people who claim to support a woman's right to choose....but only for the first 3 months.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I am atheist and I am one of them, though later than 3 months. The idea of it being ok to kill an unborn baby moments before birth strikes me as crazy, as does the idea of it being wrong to kill a freshly fertilized egg. That this is a binary thing that you can support or oppose regardless of stage of development rings nutso to me.

I would say that killing an infant just prior to birth is clearly homicide, and only excusable if the life of the mother is at serious risk (self defence). Thankfully most abortions happen much earlier on, so I wouldn't call most of them murder.

And no, I don't know what exact stage of development the line should be drawn at. Probably better to err on the side of caution +not murder), so I do understand why many would say as early as 3 months, though that seems too early to me.

 

[southernhybrid]

My opinion is that evangelicals were manipulated, starting in the 1980s, to make abortion an important issue, as a way to get them to vote Republican. Prior to the mid 80s, white evangelicals didn't seemed that concerned with abortion. They may have been against it personally, but they felt what other women did was none of their business. This was even true in the south. I know this because I worked in public health in both NC and SC, at a time when the states were still financing abortions for poor women. My Christian coworkers, with the exception of one who had raised a Down's syndrome child, were all supportive of women's right to control there reproductive organs.

Prior to that time, most seemed to be personally against abortion, but didn't think the government should be in charge of women's reproductive rights. By the early 90s, it was common to see demonstrators outside of abortion clinics, screaming and threatening patients. I has a coworker in Florida who experienced the wrath of such demonstrators. Shortly after, some nut job murdered a doctor who performed abortions in Pensacola, Florida.

It's one thing to be against abortion and another thing to think that your belief about abortion should be inflicted on all women.

I looked at your link, Loren, but wasn't sure if those who are against abortion are also in favor of the government denying women the right to control their own reproductive organs. In my personal experience, many black evangelicals are personally against abortion, but afaik, most don't think the government should be denying other women that right. And, even if they do think abortion should be out lawed in most situations, there are other positions that are far more important to them.

The Republicans, primarily starting in the 80s, did a great job at manipulating conservative Christians when it comes to abortion. Oddly enough many of these same people are very pro gun, which is another issue they've used to control their base. And more recently, the haters have been manipulated by the Republicans who oppose gay rights and marriage. Let's face it. Conservative Christians are often easily manipulated by certain tiggers. It's even often obvious by their responses on threads like this one.

 

[ronburgundy]

That pattern closely tracks the different degrees of actual religiosity among those who identify with each sect. By religiosity I mean degree of certainty in God, how often they read the Bible, how important their religion is to their daily life decisions, etc..

IOW, Catholics and Jews support abortion mostly b/c they aren't practicing Catholics and Jews, and many don't even believe in God. Similar with the Muslims in this sample, who are mostly Muslims who chose (or their parents chose) to immigrate to the secular US and are well left of Muslims in Muslim countries.

It is also worth noting that these #s are for allowing women to choose "always", which includes right up to birth. However, I suspect some people didn't interpret the "always" to mean that. So, it's likely a bit of a mix, with the #s being lower than if you just specified first or second trimester, but higher than if you explicitly said "including third trimester right up to the moments before birth." But the pattern would the same.

 

[Half-Life]

But there's a bit of hypocrisy going on. If a woman is 1 month pregnant and someone kicks her in the stomach and the baby dies, the woman would want to press charges against them for murder.

But, if its just a fetus barely 1 month old, how can it be murder? Women fought to say abortion is not murder.

 

[Patooka]

But there's a bit of hypocrisy going on. If a woman is 1 month pregnant and someone kicks her in the stomach and the baby dies, the woman would want to press charges against them for murder.

But, if its just a fetus barely 1 month old, how can it be murder? Women fought to say abortion is not murder.

For fuck's sake, do you think people who get the death penalty are murdered? If you can't understand the importance of intent, culpability and choice when applied to the consequence of an action, you should refrain from the conversation.

 

[Keith&Co.]

But there's a bit of hypocrisy going on. If a woman is 1 month pregnant and someone kicks her in the stomach and the baby dies, the woman would want to press charges against them for murder.

so, if a woman chose to carry the fetus to term, and that choice was taken away from her, she would get upset that some dickhead took the choice away....

But, if its just a fetus barely 1 month old, how can it be murder? Women fought to say abortion is not murder.

?..Then, if she chooses NOT to carty the baby to term, she gets upset if some elected dickhead takes the choice away from her.
So, in both cases, women think the choice should be hers, not some dickhead's. Where is the hypocrisy, Halfie?

 

[Rhea]

But there's a bit of hypocrisy going on. If a woman is 1 month pregnant and someone kicks her in the stomach and the baby dies, the woman would want to press charges against them for murder.

Says who?
This is inflammatory rhetoric with no supporting data of any kind.
So are you just trying to stir up controversy and conflict with this statement?

Unless you have several reputable and agreeing studies that show women who support abortion rights ALSO in large numbers want murder charges against assaults that cause miscarriages, then you are just goading and trying to stir up fake controversy.

Having been IN those marches of women supporting abortion rights, I can tell you that what you've fabricated as a charge of hypocrisy is flat out not true.

Unless you are TRYING to stir up disruption, you will need to support your statement or apologize.

But, if its just a fetus barely 1 month old, how can it be murder? Women fought to say abortion is not murder.

It's not murder. Women who fought to say abortion is not murder never say that.

 

[Half-Life]

But there's a bit of hypocrisy going on. If a woman is 1 month pregnant and someone kicks her in the stomach and the baby dies, the woman would want to press charges against them for murder.

Says who?
This is inflammatory rhetoric with no supporting data of any kind.
So are you just trying to stir up controversy and conflict with this statement?

Unless you have several reputable and agreeing studies that show women who support abortion rights ALSO in large numbers want murder charges against assaults that cause miscarriages, then you are just goading and trying to stir up fake controversy.

Having been IN those marches of women supporting abortion rights, I can tell you that what you've fabricated as a charge of hypocrisy is flat out not true.

Unless you are TRYING to stir up disruption, you will need to support your statement or apologize.

But, if its just a fetus barely 1 month old, how can it be murder? Women fought to say abortion is not murder.

It's not murder. Women who fought to say abortion is not murder never say that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."[1]

Funny how it's not a victim when the woman murders it.

And then you have Dave Chappelle's point that, "If a woman can murder the child, why can't the father decide to abandon it?" This is a great point. If the father says, "I don't want to be a father" and the woman says, "too bad, I want to be a mother" and she has the kid, the man shold have the right to abandon the child. Let the woman deal with it, then. By forcing the man to pay child support, you are not respecting the man's rights. Pretty sticky mess this whole topic is, isn't it?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Says who?
This is inflammatory rhetoric with no supporting data of any kind.
So are you just trying to stir up controversy and conflict with this statement?

Unless you have several reputable and agreeing studies that show women who support abortion rights ALSO in large numbers want murder charges against assaults that cause miscarriages, then you are just goading and trying to stir up fake controversy.

Having been IN those marches of women supporting abortion rights, I can tell you that what you've fabricated as a charge of hypocrisy is flat out not true.

Unless you are TRYING to stir up disruption, you will need to support your statement or apologize.




It's not murder. Women who fought to say abortion is not murder never say that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."[1]

Funny how it's not a victim when the woman murders it.

So, you can find where THE LAW says it is murder.... can you support your claim that the same women who say abortion is not murder are saying that it is murder in that case?
Or are you making illogical leaps and conflating disparate views, as usual?

 

[Patooka]

Says who?
This is inflammatory rhetoric with no supporting data of any kind.
So are you just trying to stir up controversy and conflict with this statement?

Unless you have several reputable and agreeing studies that show women who support abortion rights ALSO in large numbers want murder charges against assaults that cause miscarriages, then you are just goading and trying to stir up fake controversy.

Having been IN those marches of women supporting abortion rights, I can tell you that what you've fabricated as a charge of hypocrisy is flat out not true.

Unless you are TRYING to stir up disruption, you will need to support your statement or apologize.




It's not murder. Women who fought to say abortion is not murder never say that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."[1]

Funny how it's not a victim when the woman murders it.

And then you have Dave Chappelle's point that, "If a woman can murder the child, why can't the father decide to abandon it?" This is a great point. If the father says, "I don't want to be a father" and the woman says, "too bad, I want to be a mother" and she has the kid, the man shold have the right to abandon the child. Let the woman deal with it, then. By forcing the man to pay child support, you are not respecting the man's rights. Pretty sticky mess this whole topic is, isn't it?

Not really. Ask your partner what their opinion is on it all. Start off with "who gets to choose what happens to a woman's body" and work your way from there. Let us know how it goes.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I am atheist and I am one of them, though later than 3 months. The idea of it being ok to kill an unborn baby moments before birth strikes me as crazy, as does the idea of it being wrong to kill a freshly fertilized egg. That this is a binary thing that you can support or oppose regardless of stage of development rings nutso to me.

I would say that killing an infant just prior to birth is clearly homicide, and only excusable if the life of the mother is at serious risk (self defence). Thankfully most abortions happen much earlier on, so I wouldn't call most of them murder.

And no, I don't know what exact stage of development the line should be drawn at. Probably better to err on the side of caution +not murder), so I do understand why many would say as early as 3 months, though that seems too early to me.

The only reasonable dividing line between those states is when the brain starts to function. By our best estimates that's no earlier than the 7th month.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Says who?
This is inflammatory rhetoric with no supporting data of any kind.
So are you just trying to stir up controversy and conflict with this statement?

Unless you have several reputable and agreeing studies that show women who support abortion rights ALSO in large numbers want murder charges against assaults that cause miscarriages, then you are just goading and trying to stir up fake controversy.

Having been IN those marches of women supporting abortion rights, I can tell you that what you've fabricated as a charge of hypocrisy is flat out not true.

Unless you are TRYING to stir up disruption, you will need to support your statement or apologize.




It's not murder. Women who fought to say abortion is not murder never say that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."[1]

Funny how it's not a victim when the woman murders it.

And then you have Dave Chappelle's point that, "If a woman can murder the child, why can't the father decide to abandon it?" This is a great point. If the father says, "I don't want to be a father" and the woman says, "too bad, I want to be a mother" and she has the kid, the man shold have the right to abandon the child. Let the woman deal with it, then. By forcing the man to pay child support, you are not respecting the man's rights. Pretty sticky mess this whole topic is, isn't it?

That law exists for political reasons, not scientific ones. Part of the reasoning behind Roe vs Wade was there was no such laws. This was Republican crap to try to undermine Roe vs Wade.

 

[Half-Life]

Says who?
This is inflammatory rhetoric with no supporting data of any kind.
So are you just trying to stir up controversy and conflict with this statement?

Unless you have several reputable and agreeing studies that show women who support abortion rights ALSO in large numbers want murder charges against assaults that cause miscarriages, then you are just goading and trying to stir up fake controversy.

Having been IN those marches of women supporting abortion rights, I can tell you that what you've fabricated as a charge of hypocrisy is flat out not true.

Unless you are TRYING to stir up disruption, you will need to support your statement or apologize.




It's not murder. Women who fought to say abortion is not murder never say that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."[1]

Funny how it's not a victim when the woman murders it.

And then you have Dave Chappelle's point that, "If a woman can murder the child, why can't the father decide to abandon it?" This is a great point. If the father says, "I don't want to be a father" and the woman says, "too bad, I want to be a mother" and she has the kid, the man shold have the right to abandon the child. Let the woman deal with it, then. By forcing the man to pay child support, you are not respecting the man's rights. Pretty sticky mess this whole topic is, isn't it?

Not really. Ask your partner what their opinion is on it all. Start off with "who gets to choose what happens to a woman's body" and work your way from there. Let us know how it goes.

Are you saying the father has no say about whether he wants the child or not, despite being 50% of the cause of pregnancy?

Father: I don't want to have the baby.
Mother: Tough. I'm having it.
Father: Then, I don't want anything to do with it.
Mother: Not fair!

Father: I want to have this baby.
Mother: Too bad, I'm aborting it.
Father: Not fair!

How do we resolve this fairly?

 

[marc]

My opinion is that evangelicals were manipulated, starting in the 1980s, to make abortion an important issue, as a way to get them to vote Republican. Prior to the mid 80s, white evangelicals didn't seemed that concerned with abortion.

Samantha Bee covered this some years ago. When it was becoming a negative to use segregation as a defining political platform, someone suggested abortion

[YOUTUBE] https://youtu.be/pPsderlzd6c[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Keith&Co.]

Father: I don't want to have the baby.
Mother: Tough. I'm having it.
Father: Then, I don't want anything to do with it.
Mother: Not fair!

Father: I want to have this baby.
Mother: Too bad, I'm aborting it.
Father: Not fair!

How do we resolve this fairly?

You use "fair" quite a lot, but your definition seems rather self-serving.
You're only concerned when other races and genders are 'getting away' with something denied to you.

So, how can this be based on fairness? You don't have a uterus. So you cannot fairly decide for or against abortion.
You don't own her uterus. So you cannt fairly dictate her body's use.
And the courts prioritize the kid's welfare over your and hers, so you start off in a tie for second place no matter what your desires are.
Why would you expect this to be fair (in the Halfie me-first version of 'fair' you hew to)?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I am atheist and I am one of them, though later than 3 months. The idea of it being ok to kill an unborn baby moments before birth strikes me as crazy, as does the idea of it being wrong to kill a freshly fertilized egg. That this is a binary thing that you can support or oppose regardless of stage of development rings nutso to me.

I would say that killing an infant just prior to birth is clearly homicide, and only excusable if the life of the mother is at serious risk (self defence). Thankfully most abortions happen much earlier on, so I wouldn't call most of them murder.

And no, I don't know what exact stage of development the line should be drawn at. Probably better to err on the side of caution +not murder), so I do understand why many would say as early as 3 months, though that seems too early to me.

The only reasonable dividing line between those states is when the brain starts to function. By our best estimates that's no earlier than the 7th month.

That sounds reasonable. My point is that that's still ahead of birth, and long after fertilization. I find those at either binary take of this as rather daft.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Are you saying the father has no say about whether he wants the child or not, despite being 50% of the cause of pregnancy?

Father: I don't want to have the baby.
Mother: Tough. I'm having it.
Father: Then, I don't want anything to do with it.
Mother: Not fair!

Father: I want to have this baby.
Mother: Too bad, I'm aborting it.
Father: Not fair!

How do we resolve this fairly?

By providing state funding. I agree with you and Chapelle that the if the man doesnt want to raise the kid, he should be allowed to renounce his rights to guardianship / access to the child and not be required to pay child support. I think that would be best for all involved, including the child who may end up with a resentful biological father.

Where I think we differ, is that I think the state should then step in and provide child support. I don't understand why everyone thinks biological parents should shoulder the full and exclusive burden of raising the next generation. They benefit us all, so we should all contribute via taxes.

 

[Tigers!]

Where I think we differ, is that I think the state should then step in and provide child support. I don't understand why everyone thinks biological parents should shoulder the full and exclusive burden of raising the next generation. They benefit us all, so we should all contribute via taxes.

Careful there Jolly, introducing some uncommon sense into this discussion. It could lead anywhere.