‘The Pro-Life Generation’: Young Women Fight Against Abortion Rights

[Captdon]

I don't get that sense from them, but who knows.

At any rate, my view of the anti-abortion movement is accurate when I say it's an evangelical movement.

These charts are NOT from the 90's. The first one is four years old and the second one is less than a month old.

Attachment 50313





Attachment 50314

Atheist and agnostic are included in the first chart. Religiously unaffiliated are included in the second.

The interesting thing is that not even Catholics follow a strict anti-abortion position anymore.

Most Catholics certainly do. But, Hindus, Buddhists, and Church of God in Cleveland Tennessee?

[FindersKeepers]

Most Catholics certainly do. But, Hindus, Buddhists, and Church of God in Cleveland Tennessee?

Read better.

[FindersKeepers]

OK, if we push people to abstract extremes then a slim majority are fundamentalist evangelical but when we take a more nuanced realistic view then not as your own data shows:

What it shows -- like the half-dozen other polls and surveys I posted show -- is that the anti-abortion movement is pushed mostly by evangelicals.

The polls like to separate them out by "white evangelicals," but they're all the same really.

The polls also show the VAST majority of atheists/agnostics support a woman's right to choose (within limitations).

No one's accusing you of being an evangelical--we all know where you stand. I get it that you don't want to be associated with religious people. I don't want people doing that to me, either. But, I'm not saying that about you--I'm saying you're an exception to the rule.

But, that doesn't change who's pushing the movement, and it doesn't change who's behind the restrictions at the state level.

Realistically, the 6-week ban is too restrictive. When it comes to pregnancy, 6 weeks is really just 4 weeks, because they count from the first day of the woman's last menstrual cycle. Women ovulate approximately 2 weeks after their cycle starts, which means that's the first chance they have to get pregnant.

While I agree women should (and usually do) abort within a couple of weeks of finding out they're pregnant, there are things that push the date back. Anti-abortion activists could help if they truly wanted the abortions to take place earlier.

Needing to save up the money for an abortion is one of the things that pushes the date back. Do you realize how many abortions could make the 6-week cut if they were subsidized? But, no one wants to do that, so we need to give them a bit more time. Six more weeks, to be exact. Remember, that's really only 10 weeks of actual pregnancy.

Now, we have a few redneck states with bans. That, too, will push the date back for some women as they need to save not only for the abortion, but also for the travel, food, gas (sheesh, that one's gone way up), lodging, etc.

Getting in the way of women aborting isn't saving any babies--it's just ensuring that abortions take place a few weeks later.

Is that what you really want?

[Chris]

What it shows -- like the half-dozen other polls and surveys I posted show -- is that the anti-abortion movement is pushed mostly by evangelicals.

The polls like to separate them out by "white evangelicals," but they're all the same really.

The polls also show the VAST majority of atheists/agnostics support a woman's right to choose (within limitations).

No one's accusing you of being an evangelical--we all know where you stand. I get it that you don't want to be associated with religious people. I don't want people doing that to me, either. But, I'm not saying that about you--I'm saying you're an exception to the rule.

But, that doesn't change who's pushing the movement, and it doesn't change who's behind the restrictions at the state level.

Realistically, the 6-week ban is too restrictive. When it comes to pregnancy, 6 weeks is really just 4 weeks, because they count from the first day of the woman's last menstrual cycle. Women ovulate approximately 2 weeks after their cycle starts, which means that's the first chance they have to get pregnant.

While I agree women should (and usually do) abort within a couple of weeks of finding out they're pregnant, there are things that push the date back. Anti-abortion activists could help if they truly wanted the abortions to take place earlier.

Needing to save up the money for an abortion is one of the things that pushes the date back. Do you realize how many abortions could make the 6-week cut if they were subsidized? But, no one wants to do that, so we need to give them a bit more time. Six more weeks, to be exact. Remember, that's really only 10 weeks of actual pregnancy.

Now, we have a few redneck states with bans. That, too, will push the date back for some women as they need to save not only for the abortion, but also for the travel, food, gas (sheesh, that one's gone way up), lodging, etc.

Getting in the way of women aborting isn't saving any babies--it's just ensuring that abortions take place a few weeks later.

Is that what you really want?

I just don't see it that way. I see people from all walks of life expressing opinions--that is all you can get out of polls. Pushing it? No, that's a legal matter.

I'm not all that concerned about anyone's opinion of me.

You and I have tried to compromise. I'm willing to say 6 weeks is too extreme but you're unwilling to budge from unrestricted.

Rednecks, lol.



Never realized just how redneck America is!

WHat I want is equal rights. I've said that many times.