Doesn't matter. If you take those numbers, let's say 4 out of 10 men are against abortion, so you put them in a pile.
Then you take 3 out of 10 women against abortion and you put them in the same pile.
So now you have a pile with 4 men and 3 women who are against abortion. Which would mean 4/7 people who are against abortion are men. Which is 57%. Not 79% at all.
Either way. What's the source. Should always source your statistics.
Your point is probably still generally correct because the percentage of men and women in the population is close to 50% each but in general the argument doesn't work unless you have equal numbers of both in the population.
It does matter, you’re assuming that they surveyed equal number of men and women, but I don’t see anywhere on that site that indicates that. Example in which op could be correct along with the statistics from (or close enough because I am on my phone and can’t get too complicated). Let’s create our dataset that could fit both results, let’s say they surveyed 100 people, 74 men and 26 women. From that 36 people are against abortion, 28 men and 8 women. So 36% of people surveyed are against abortion( This part matches the overall %s from the survey). Those 28men make up 78% of the people against abortion (this part matches OP). If we calculate them within each gender, 38% of the men are against abortion and 29% of women are against abortion (numbers got a little different here, but it’s close to the survey results). I am assuming that they didn’t have equal number of men and women, that’s why they stayed away from that calculation.
Ok, my first thought was "no way" but different areas of the country are different, so I was open to digging in. Looks like my gut was right, it's just more "alternative facts."
Honestly it's absolutely shocking that there are anti-abortion women at all tbh but it's also in the same country where half the country wants to elect an inept treasonous convict
A lot of working class men and enbies are taught to think that way too when it comes to questioning Capital or the government. Most people want to avoid pain and effort. If society tells them that taking responsibility for their own lives is painful, they won't do it. Look at how many people "hate talking about politics". It's learned helplessness. They don't want to be involved in making the decisions that affect their lives. They want a strong person to do it for them. That's why fascism is able to fester.
Even as a personal belief it can be problematic when it causes harm to children you have while your own life circumstances don't really make that a good idea (e.g. being gravely ill and dying soon after the birth, leaving the child a predictable orphan; having genetic diseases that will kill any children you have after significant suffering with no chance of a cure;...). There are always at least two people to consider in any decision not to abort, even if one is only a future potential person (but unlike the decision to abort, where that person does not exist in that future, when they are born they actually can suffer).
It isn't really shocking if you look at it objectively and see from their perspective for a moment.
A genuine pro-lifer, by definition, believes that abortion is morally equivalent to murdering a newborn, because the unborn is equivalent to a baby, to them.
So imagine how such a person would read what you just said:
It is perfectly fine being against murder for personal beliefs, but to be against giving others the choice to murder is shocking.
It's understandable that the above sentiment would come off like the words of a madman.
Because there is truly no 'debate' to actually be had about whether or not one believes the unborn 'count' as babies, it's completely futile to argue with pro-lifers on that axis.
Nor should one be surprised that they are 'anti choice for others' when it comes to this, as I am sure you are against others having the choice to murder at will, regardless of whether you wish to murder anyone.
It's like saying that it's shocking that a hypothetical group of people who believe theft is the worst possible crime you can commit, believe in capital punishment for thieves. Sure, it sounds bizarre to everyone else, but it shouldn't be surprising at all that they feel that way, given that they believe.
Majorities of both men (61%) and women (64%) express support for legal abortion.
Abortion isn't a 'battle of the sexes' topic, and you should be wary of anyone perpetuating this myth. In my experience, those most likely to do so, are those who see men in general as 'the enemy', and use this narrative as a tool to confirm and spread their bias.
It isn't really absurd though, I don't think. If one genuinely believes abortion is murder, it makes perfect sense for that person to not be pro-choice, the same way the rest of us are against people being allowed to legally kill newborns. Whether that individual person is capable of being pregnant does not actually factor into it at all, it's just a matter of what one believes about how the unborn should be 'considered' (i.e. baby vs. 'clump of cells').
I have no problem with abortion, so I don't agree with pro-lifers, but I am not at all confused by it. The opposition to abortion directly follows from their beliefs about the unborn.
That said, though the two are often conflated, just because someone is pro-choice doesn't necessarily mean they're okay with abortion, they could very well be someone who believes more strongly in the individual's right to choose, than in everyone copying them. I've met a large number of women who are fiercely pro-choice but have said they couldn't bear to abort their own pregnancy, even if it was unwanted.
Before Roe v. Wade were overturned I was critical about abortion, then we started hearing about all the trouble women go through and it shows how essential abortion is for reducing birth complications, even if it sounds illogical.
My main issue were when abortion was used as contraceptive, because at the time of abortion the body is increasing hormone production and then it's tough on the woman emotionally when the fetus is removed, but then I learn that in those states sex-ed is very limited and contraceptives can be hard to get hold of. And without sex-ed and contraceptives abortion is the only option left.
In light of all that I now know why we need abortion and feel like a fool for opposing it.
because at the time of abortion the body is increasing hormone production and then it's tough on the woman emotionally when the fetus is removed
I applaud you changing your mind in face of new information, I just kind of want to nitpick that being forced to carry a pregnancy that you don't want to term is also going to be extremely physically and emotionally tough.
As a relative to a parent, who’s grandparents didn’t even want them but had to give birth to my parents, due to society stigma at the time, it honestly genuinely not worth it, esp with the amount of trauma my parent (dad) had to endure, due to not being loved and cared for, which has lead to further trauma extended to me too, due to unresolved pain. Abortion is a necessity. It saves lives alongside, helping people not suffer from further trauma and pain for the future for themselves and kids as well.
I suspect it is one of those things that conservatives imagine being all over the place because in their communities where they would be shamed for becoming pregnant while unmarried and where contraceptives are hard to get that is how they imagine they would handle it.
Well, sort of. In that in states that teach abstinence-only sexual education, there is a higher rate of teen pregnancy. I’m guessing you could extrapolate from that and find that teen abortion rates are higher, but I don’t have that data.
As I like to say to “pro-life” people: “Want to reduce abortion? Make contraception free and teach comprehensive sexual education.”
That's the thing though. They aren't pro life. They are anti sex that they don't approve of.
Sure, but they don’t think of themselves that way. They see themselves as trying to stop what they see as murder. Yes, they ALSO don’t want people having sex that they don’t approve of, but data clearly shows higher rates of unplanned pregnancy in states that don’t teach people how not to get pregnant. So if they truly see abortion as horrendous, they should be trying to stop unplanned pregnancies before they occur.
Pointing out that dissonance can help them see the flaw in their reasoning, if they’re introspective enough to attempt consistency in their views.
(Source: My own life story, having grown up as the sufficiently introspective “pro-lifer” shown the flaws in my thinking as part of a long journey from a conservative youth to a progressive adult. 😅)
I also applause your willingness to change your mind based on new facts learned and please don't take this as an attack because it isn't, it's just a curiosity of mine.
Did body autonomy not factor into your previous stance? I'm sure we both agree woman are perfectly capable of making their own decisions with their own body, why does anyone need to be involved in what they choose to do.
Tangentially related but I saw a state in the US basically made it so rapists could choose the mother of their children by both having abortion be illegal and making it so rapists could share parental rights with their victim. Essentially forcing the mother to be involved with their abuser. Shits crazy yo.
Regarding bodily autonomy, my previous stance were something like this: Abortion is a major decision and women should be counselled to make sure they know what they go into, and maybe try and convince them to keep it.
And that stance is probably fine if we lived in a perfect world where a few women got pregnant by accident, and it were the only reason for abortion.
But live in a world with: rapists, incest, teen pregnancy, ectopic pregnancy, failing contraceptics, and many other reasons for abortion.
So I can only agree that the only way forward is full bodily autonomy.
That's a fair enough stance even if I don't fully agree with it.
I definitely agree with the counseling so people can make the decision that's best for them but I don't believe anyone should try and convince them one way or the other.
Thanks for giving me some of your time bud. Hope you have a good rest of your week.
Yup, and I'm still critical of abortion, but because of similar stuff to what you said, my official position is essentially pro-abortion, with some caveats to discourage things I find truly awful (e.g. no abortion after learning the gender unless it's for a medical emergency).
I wish it was that few, but sadly trans people can have some really atrocious politics too. I doubt they're a significant factor on this particular scenario, though.
Is it? I mean I probably live in a different culture than most of the people here. I don't know that many people in real life who are opposed in the way I read from the news from overseas (or our more catholic neighbors). And what I've read that science has a differentiated stance on it. It's okay up to a certain point and consequences need to be factored in and weighed... What else are reasons to be strictly anti-abortion?
I dont know how big it is relative to the religious side, but there are groups who oppose abortion access because "men should be able to decide too", and 'none' is a compromise they are fine with.
There are others who think it violates the freedoms of the fetus.
I'm sure there is some religious crossover with those groups too though, but maybe not as blatant.
I suppose there are men who want an abortion, too. Right? I mean if some accident happened with the contraception and you find out a few weeks later when your partner misses their period. Or you have second thoughts. Or you need to finish your education before spending the next 15 years raising a kid and supporting a family right now... I believe there are quite some reasons for the man-side of things, to have an opinion?! I don't think going nuclear on the options is a valid compromise for anyone?
Oh sure, but those obviously aren't in the anti-camp.
Its a compromise for some, not all. Which is why I also say there is probably some religious involvement there as well, just not how they are pushing the propaganda.
Hmm, I still don't understand. I mean if men want to be able to decide, too... being anti and wanting a law that strictly prohibits it for everyone, also strips them from the ability to make a decision. And additionally it's not a compromise. Forcing someone to something regardless, e.g. bearing a child is one of the extremes, not some middle-ground in between... You'd need a proper reason to force people to do something. And that can't be I want to decide over someone else's life. So either it's religuous or backed with some reasoning that's more than an opinion, or just for the sake of it.
being anti and wanting a law that strictly prohibits it for everyone, also strips them from the ability to make a decision
Ah, here is your first issue - you expect rational thought. It isn't, they aren't.
Forcing someone to something regardless, e.g. bearing a child is one of the extremes, not some middle-ground in between..
The woman's life, opinions, etc, dont matter to them. Its a middle ground for these men, nothing else. I'd also say I'd assume for them its more about controlling what a woman can do, and what they believe is the purpose of a woman. Which is why I say there are likely religious undertones behind a lot of it (or just straight up misogyny).
You'd need a proper reason to force people to do something
"I'm the guy and this is what I want" - that is their reason.
Dont expect any sort of coherent or rational thought from anyone anti-abortion. Either they are incredibly ignorant, misogynistic, or a religious zealot.
It's not about religion at the highest levels of government. It's about controlling women and birth rates, and yes, privileging men by returning them to the "head of the household"
I would encourage you to read the post more carefully. It doesn't say anything about how many men oppose abortion. It's making a claim about how many abortion opponents are men. Therefore, the 21% left over in that statement are in fact women who, most likely due to religious brainwashing, oppose abortion.
Doesn't really matter because the supermajority of Americans think abortion should be legal anyway. It's a small minority of the population that we have allowed to dictate domestic policy for their religious agenda.
It's not even religious. Their religion says all kinds of really important shit that they completely ignore. They just pick this one specific issue because they hate women and it's a lot easier to say "Uhhhh it's because of my religion, you're discriminating against me!" than it is to say "I hate women and want them to suffer".
Also not in the religion, they're specifically instructed that they're not to make judgements or enact any punishments on the behalf of god, which this is.
I think even that is reaching. Most of them don't want to punish women for extramarital sex, they just think God's will is that those women deserve what they get. Of course they still defy God's will by wearing glasses if God gave them bad eyes, but that's just more shoddy reasoning.
I think that's confusing simple ignorance and crappy reasoning with hate, which is a very misapplied word today. Another example is people who don't recycle - they don't hate the environment, they're just fucking lazy.
Reminds me of how some at the GOP was making a joke that it makes no sense for women over 50 to even care about abortion rights cause it doesn't apply to them anymore.
Yet he saw no problem with him, as a man who can never carry a child, having an opinion on abortions.
Plenty of men support abortion - it removes financial responsibility from them, after all. Protests at abortion clinics are often held by women as much as men.
The more important demographic here is that most opposed to abortion are strongly religious.
Look outside the US and you'll see that countries that do support choice are less influenced by the Church. It's not coincidence.
With all due buddy: "If cisgender men could get pregnant..., ...with a drive thru haha every five freedom units I'm dunny with the funny" would slap, contrasted to choosing to erase trans men, which catches hands.
Yeah, the percentage of the population that's trans is about 1%. The percentage of trans men that oppose reasonable abortion access is surely vanishingly small (because of largely overlapping bodily autonomy rights concerns).
I think the best thing for trans/nonbinary/intersex/etc. people, and also for changing the minds of anti-abortion people, is to discuss abortion without implicating gender stuff at all. It doesn't really do much to stick up for them, and it's likely to reduce support and increase hate for them and their issues, while decreasing the chance that the anti-choice voter listens to you.
Drag is trans and thinks there's never a time inappropriate to discuss trans issues. The statement "men can't get pregnant" is implicit transphobia. It's a microaggression and it shouldn't be ignored.
My sister in law with 8 children is "against it as a contraceptive" which I'm not convinced has been a thing for more than a handful of people that wasn't due to lack of proper contraceptive access and education, or mental disorder.
However she AND her religious husband have been "reconsidering" purely from the goodness of their hearts and surely not because the majority of their children are girls, the oldest of which is soon to be a teenager, I'm sure. Definitely not because now it affects their family directly...
And because I'm sure someone will get a giggle out of this anecdote, they forbid any sleepovers with BOYS because they don't want anyone "making purple", but) and completely dismiss the fact that their girls could decide they would rather make pinker pink.
Our, maybe try a slightly less sexist approach and look at the religion these people follow. In my experience, abortion has never been a man/woman issue, it's a religious one
Idk how to respectfully say this, but you are being so vengeful toward religion that you forgot the intersectionality of gender and sex to that equation. This is not to invalidate your feelings, but that I find your statement invalidating a large part of this topic for no reason.
This just in, most people opposed to theft/murder/crime in general haven't been direct victims but want to see a better society. These numbers go to show that numbers pulled out of thin air are meaningless.
Make your point without being anti- another group. Stop the US vs THEM bs.
I don't see what the ability to treat women as people who get control over their own bodies has to do with being a woman yourself or being able to become pregnant yourself.
Those 79% are irrelevant, what would be relevant is the opposite, which percentage of men are opposed to abortion, not how many of the people opposed to abortion are men.
Irrelevant to what? It's fair to say she is clearly Pro-Choice, so understanding the demographics of those who are anti-choice is very relevant. Especially if your point is that "since 4 out of 5 people opposed to abortion rights are men, who will not be directly affected by these laws, their opinion is functionally irrelevant".
Or are you just upset that this fails to acknowledge that just because men are more likely to be anti-abortion then women, that does not mean that men are likely to be anti-abortion in general? Because I would argue the latter is irrelevant to the fact that the majority of people who are against abortion rights will never be directly affected by it.
It is irrelevant because it would also be true if there were millions of anti-abortion people and just 100 pro-abortion people from some tiny sect that happens to be anti-abortion. Or, if the number was 80% instead of 79% it could also just be 5 people, 4 of which were men. The relevant number is how most men and how most women feel about this, not if the people who feel a certain way about it are mostly men or mostly women.
Oh, wait a minute, no it's not! Knowing the demographics of a group is extremely relevant.
Would you say it's irrelevant if 79% of people who got a specific disease were men, just because less than 0.01% of the population ever got the disease?
What about if 79% of a prison population was of a certain ethnicity, even though only 1 out of 100 people were incarcerated?
What about if 98% of school shooters were men, even if they are only a tiny fraction of the population?
Obviously not, these are key data sets to understanding the underlying causes. Sure, it helps to know how those stats compare to the general makeup of the population, and understanding what percentage of a population is effected is another useful piece of data depending on the questions you want answered. But to write off the makeup of a group as irrelevant is... dumb.
I don't think that is the root cause here, if that was true the people opposed to abortion wouldn't feel so strongly about it because they aren't really affected by other people having abortions (no, not even in their religious world view).
In fact, the percentage of the population directly affected by abortion legislation one way or the other is likely relatively small (not tiny, but probably not more than 20%) due to age and other life circumstances that make it unlikely for them to need one. The vast majority of the rest are people who "merely" have empathy with those who do and that includes men and women alike.
Where did she get that number? Where's the source?
38% of men are against abortion, and 33% of women are against.
The numbers are pretty similar.
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/
Thanks, the story she was telling was counter-intuitive and without source. Hence, doubt!
Those are different numbers, percentage of men who are against abortion and percentage of people against abortion who are men are not the same.
Doesn't matter. If you take those numbers, let's say 4 out of 10 men are against abortion, so you put them in a pile.
Then you take 3 out of 10 women against abortion and you put them in the same pile.
So now you have a pile with 4 men and 3 women who are against abortion. Which would mean 4/7 people who are against abortion are men. Which is 57%. Not 79% at all.
Either way. What's the source. Should always source your statistics.
82% of statistics are made up on the spot. Everyone knows that.
69% of the time, it works every time
nice
Your point is probably still generally correct because the percentage of men and women in the population is close to 50% each but in general the argument doesn't work unless you have equal numbers of both in the population.
It does matter, you’re assuming that they surveyed equal number of men and women, but I don’t see anywhere on that site that indicates that. Example in which op could be correct along with the statistics from (or close enough because I am on my phone and can’t get too complicated). Let’s create our dataset that could fit both results, let’s say they surveyed 100 people, 74 men and 26 women. From that 36 people are against abortion, 28 men and 8 women. So 36% of people surveyed are against abortion( This part matches the overall %s from the survey). Those 28men make up 78% of the people against abortion (this part matches OP). If we calculate them within each gender, 38% of the men are against abortion and 29% of women are against abortion (numbers got a little different here, but it’s close to the survey results). I am assuming that they didn’t have equal number of men and women, that’s why they stayed away from that calculation.
Ok, my first thought was "no way" but different areas of the country are different, so I was open to digging in. Looks like my gut was right, it's just more "alternative facts."
"the country" which country is that?
My home country, assuming the average wouldn't be far off
Honestly it's absolutely shocking that there are anti-abortion women at all tbh but it's also in the same country where half the country wants to elect an inept treasonous convict
A lot of working class men and enbies are taught to think that way too when it comes to questioning Capital or the government. Most people want to avoid pain and effort. If society tells them that taking responsibility for their own lives is painful, they won't do it. Look at how many people "hate talking about politics". It's learned helplessness. They don't want to be involved in making the decisions that affect their lives. They want a strong person to do it for them. That's why fascism is able to fester.
Rich people know that they are exempt to most rules and sometimes they just want to impose them on others.
Need babies for war
It is perfectly fine being anti-abortion for personal beliefs, but to be anti-choice for others is shocking.
Even as a personal belief it can be problematic when it causes harm to children you have while your own life circumstances don't really make that a good idea (e.g. being gravely ill and dying soon after the birth, leaving the child a predictable orphan; having genetic diseases that will kill any children you have after significant suffering with no chance of a cure;...). There are always at least two people to consider in any decision not to abort, even if one is only a future potential person (but unlike the decision to abort, where that person does not exist in that future, when they are born they actually can suffer).
It isn't really shocking if you look at it objectively and see from their perspective for a moment.
A genuine pro-lifer, by definition, believes that abortion is morally equivalent to murdering a newborn, because the unborn is equivalent to a baby, to them.
So imagine how such a person would read what you just said:
It's understandable that the above sentiment would come off like the words of a madman.
Because there is truly no 'debate' to actually be had about whether or not one believes the unborn 'count' as babies, it's completely futile to argue with pro-lifers on that axis.
Nor should one be surprised that they are 'anti choice for others' when it comes to this, as I am sure you are against others having the choice to murder at will, regardless of whether you wish to murder anyone.
It's like saying that it's shocking that a hypothetical group of people who believe theft is the worst possible crime you can commit, believe in capital punishment for thieves. Sure, it sounds bizarre to everyone else, but it shouldn't be surprising at all that they feel that way, given that they believe.
And if these women had an ectopic pregnancy they’d be the first in line to abort it while denying that right to other women.
Those numbers are horseshit though, lol. There is no significant difference between the sexes on this topic:
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/
Abortion isn't a 'battle of the sexes' topic, and you should be wary of anyone perpetuating this myth. In my experience, those most likely to do so, are those who see men in general as 'the enemy', and use this narrative as a tool to confirm and spread their bias.
I was only saying it was just absurd there are women who are not pro-choice. Thanks for linking this correcting OP, though.
It isn't really absurd though, I don't think. If one genuinely believes abortion is murder, it makes perfect sense for that person to not be pro-choice, the same way the rest of us are against people being allowed to legally kill newborns. Whether that individual person is capable of being pregnant does not actually factor into it at all, it's just a matter of what one believes about how the unborn should be 'considered' (i.e. baby vs. 'clump of cells').
I have no problem with abortion, so I don't agree with pro-lifers, but I am not at all confused by it. The opposition to abortion directly follows from their beliefs about the unborn.
That said, though the two are often conflated, just because someone is pro-choice doesn't necessarily mean they're okay with abortion, they could very well be someone who believes more strongly in the individual's right to choose, than in everyone copying them. I've met a large number of women who are fiercely pro-choice but have said they couldn't bear to abort their own pregnancy, even if it was unwanted.
Well, a lot of women think life begins at conception, not at birth. And yeah, complications happen, but that's life.
Before Roe v. Wade were overturned I was critical about abortion, then we started hearing about all the trouble women go through and it shows how essential abortion is for reducing birth complications, even if it sounds illogical.
My main issue were when abortion was used as contraceptive, because at the time of abortion the body is increasing hormone production and then it's tough on the woman emotionally when the fetus is removed, but then I learn that in those states sex-ed is very limited and contraceptives can be hard to get hold of. And without sex-ed and contraceptives abortion is the only option left.
In light of all that I now know why we need abortion and feel like a fool for opposing it.
I applaud you changing your mind in face of new information, I just kind of want to nitpick that being forced to carry a pregnancy that you don't want to term is also going to be extremely physically and emotionally tough.
As a relative to a parent, who’s grandparents didn’t even want them but had to give birth to my parents, due to society stigma at the time, it honestly genuinely not worth it, esp with the amount of trauma my parent (dad) had to endure, due to not being loved and cared for, which has lead to further trauma extended to me too, due to unresolved pain. Abortion is a necessity. It saves lives alongside, helping people not suffer from further trauma and pain for the future for themselves and kids as well.
I’m curious, is there ANY evidence of ‘abortion as contraceptive’ happening?
I suspect it is one of those things that conservatives imagine being all over the place because in their communities where they would be shamed for becoming pregnant while unmarried and where contraceptives are hard to get that is how they imagine they would handle it.
Yeah, that’s what I thought.
Well, sort of. In that in states that teach abstinence-only sexual education, there is a higher rate of teen pregnancy. I’m guessing you could extrapolate from that and find that teen abortion rates are higher, but I don’t have that data.
As I like to say to “pro-life” people: “Want to reduce abortion? Make contraception free and teach comprehensive sexual education.”
That's the thing though. They aren't pro life. They are anti sex that they don't approve of.
Pregnancy is punishment for you having sex outside of marriage.
Which....tells you exactly what they think of women.
Sure, but they don’t think of themselves that way. They see themselves as trying to stop what they see as murder. Yes, they ALSO don’t want people having sex that they don’t approve of, but data clearly shows higher rates of unplanned pregnancy in states that don’t teach people how not to get pregnant. So if they truly see abortion as horrendous, they should be trying to stop unplanned pregnancies before they occur.
Pointing out that dissonance can help them see the flaw in their reasoning, if they’re introspective enough to attempt consistency in their views.
(Source: My own life story, having grown up as the sufficiently introspective “pro-lifer” shown the flaws in my thinking as part of a long journey from a conservative youth to a progressive adult. 😅)
I also applause your willingness to change your mind based on new facts learned and please don't take this as an attack because it isn't, it's just a curiosity of mine. Did body autonomy not factor into your previous stance? I'm sure we both agree woman are perfectly capable of making their own decisions with their own body, why does anyone need to be involved in what they choose to do.
Tangentially related but I saw a state in the US basically made it so rapists could choose the mother of their children by both having abortion be illegal and making it so rapists could share parental rights with their victim. Essentially forcing the mother to be involved with their abuser. Shits crazy yo.
Regarding bodily autonomy, my previous stance were something like this: Abortion is a major decision and women should be counselled to make sure they know what they go into, and maybe try and convince them to keep it.
And that stance is probably fine if we lived in a perfect world where a few women got pregnant by accident, and it were the only reason for abortion.
But live in a world with: rapists, incest, teen pregnancy, ectopic pregnancy, failing contraceptics, and many other reasons for abortion.
So I can only agree that the only way forward is full bodily autonomy.
That's a fair enough stance even if I don't fully agree with it. I definitely agree with the counseling so people can make the decision that's best for them but I don't believe anyone should try and convince them one way or the other.
Thanks for giving me some of your time bud. Hope you have a good rest of your week.
Yup, and I'm still critical of abortion, but because of similar stuff to what you said, my official position is essentially pro-abortion, with some caveats to discourage things I find truly awful (e.g. no abortion after learning the gender unless it's for a medical emergency).
What does this even mean? That's literally all abortions?
From what I gather contraceptives ensures that the egg is not fertilized or not produced.
Whereas abortions is done after implantation.
Good point, in which case no abortion could ever be conctraceptive
68% of people believe in made-up numbers. 71% even, if the numbers sound random enough.
This is erasure of the like, 1 maybe 2, trans men that are anti-abortion
I wish it was that few, but sadly trans people can have some really atrocious politics too. I doubt they're a significant factor on this particular scenario, though.
Turns out that assholes are roughly evenly distributed through the population, unfortunately.
Co-worker once told me managers are like assholes, everybody has at least one.
Well, allow me to be inclusive and say that both cis- and trans men who oppose aborion deserve a very equal kick to the face.
Yeah I kind of thought the statement was somehow obliquely anti-trans, but I didn't want to open that can of arsenic.
Though abortion isn't about men vs. women... It's more like everyone against some religuous bigots.
It is far, far from only religious bigots who oppose abortion.
Is it? I mean I probably live in a different culture than most of the people here. I don't know that many people in real life who are opposed in the way I read from the news from overseas (or our more catholic neighbors). And what I've read that science has a differentiated stance on it. It's okay up to a certain point and consequences need to be factored in and weighed... What else are reasons to be strictly anti-abortion?
I dont know how big it is relative to the religious side, but there are groups who oppose abortion access because "men should be able to decide too", and 'none' is a compromise they are fine with.
There are others who think it violates the freedoms of the fetus.
I'm sure there is some religious crossover with those groups too though, but maybe not as blatant.
I suppose there are men who want an abortion, too. Right? I mean if some accident happened with the contraception and you find out a few weeks later when your partner misses their period. Or you have second thoughts. Or you need to finish your education before spending the next 15 years raising a kid and supporting a family right now... I believe there are quite some reasons for the man-side of things, to have an opinion?! I don't think going nuclear on the options is a valid compromise for anyone?
Oh sure, but those obviously aren't in the anti-camp.
Its a compromise for some, not all. Which is why I also say there is probably some religious involvement there as well, just not how they are pushing the propaganda.
Hmm, I still don't understand. I mean if men want to be able to decide, too... being anti and wanting a law that strictly prohibits it for everyone, also strips them from the ability to make a decision. And additionally it's not a compromise. Forcing someone to something regardless, e.g. bearing a child is one of the extremes, not some middle-ground in between... You'd need a proper reason to force people to do something. And that can't be I want to decide over someone else's life. So either it's religuous or backed with some reasoning that's more than an opinion, or just for the sake of it.
Ah, here is your first issue - you expect rational thought. It isn't, they aren't.
The woman's life, opinions, etc, dont matter to them. Its a middle ground for these men, nothing else. I'd also say I'd assume for them its more about controlling what a woman can do, and what they believe is the purpose of a woman. Which is why I say there are likely religious undertones behind a lot of it (or just straight up misogyny).
"I'm the guy and this is what I want" - that is their reason.
Dont expect any sort of coherent or rational thought from anyone anti-abortion. Either they are incredibly ignorant, misogynistic, or a religious zealot.
Or, more likely, a combination of the three.
It's not about religion at the highest levels of government. It's about controlling women and birth rates, and yes, privileging men by returning them to the "head of the household"
Imagine being such a big strong man that you need that title to make it through your day.
Typical behaviour to compensate for a small wee-wee. And personality issues.
No they don't. They only tell half the story.
The fact that the remaining 21% regularly go to abortion clinics anyway and tell the doctors that they will go to hell for giving them an abortion even as they demand one tells the other half.
I would encourage you to read the post more carefully. It doesn't say anything about how many men oppose abortion. It's making a claim about how many abortion opponents are men. Therefore, the 21% left over in that statement are in fact women who, most likely due to religious brainwashing, oppose abortion.
Correct.
And you'll note that the article I linked to was about women who oppose abortion, who, in fact, seem fine with getting one themselves.
I'm somewhat confused as to what you thought I was talking about.
Oof. Looks like I'm the one who looks silly now.
Wow... I'm in the 21% who don't oppose abortion and I also don't go to clinics to harass the doctors, so apparently the story has at least 3 halves.
if you don't oppose abortion then you're not in that 21%
Doesn't really matter because the supermajority of Americans think abortion should be legal anyway. It's a small minority of the population that we have allowed to dictate domestic policy for their religious agenda.
It's not even religious. Their religion says all kinds of really important shit that they completely ignore. They just pick this one specific issue because they hate women and it's a lot easier to say "Uhhhh it's because of my religion, you're discriminating against me!" than it is to say "I hate women and want them to suffer".
Oh come now. They don't hate women, they just want to punish women for having sex outside of marriage because it's against...their... religion...
...hm.
Also not in the religion, they're specifically instructed that they're not to make judgements or enact any punishments on the behalf of god, which this is.
I think even that is reaching. Most of them don't want to punish women for extramarital sex, they just think God's will is that those women deserve what they get. Of course they still defy God's will by wearing glasses if God gave them bad eyes, but that's just more shoddy reasoning.
Their motivations are still religious. Scripture and belief/practice often do not coincide or outright contradict each other.
It's religious leaders saying this stuff. It isn't in scripture. Not Christian scripture, at any rate.
I think that's confusing simple ignorance and crappy reasoning with hate, which is a very misapplied word today. Another example is people who don't recycle - they don't hate the environment, they're just fucking lazy.
Reminds me of how some at the GOP was making a joke that it makes no sense for women over 50 to even care about abortion rights cause it doesn't apply to them anymore.
Yet he saw no problem with him, as a man who can never carry a child, having an opinion on abortions.
Plenty of men support abortion - it removes financial responsibility from them, after all. Protests at abortion clinics are often held by women as much as men.
The more important demographic here is that most opposed to abortion are strongly religious.
Look outside the US and you'll see that countries that do support choice are less influenced by the Church. It's not coincidence.
And many of the men who oppose abortions, are massive fucking hypocrits who will gladly have their mistress get an abortion somewhere else.
Almost as if claiming a simple statistic tells the whole story doesn't tell the whole story.
And of the women, probably 1/3rd of them are post-menopausal and won't have any more kids either
Men can get pregnant.
They need female parts for that buddy.
Men can have female parts. About 1% of men are born with a vagina and uterus. Drag personally knows several men like this.
With all due buddy: "If cisgender men could get pregnant..., ...with a drive thru haha every five freedom units I'm dunny with the funny" would slap, contrasted to choosing to erase trans men, which catches hands.
i'm stealing this
In any significant quantity, i guess.
It was root to leave out the slugs
I totally understand the point and I’m not trying to undermine, but I’m curious is this close to the actual ratio for 79%?
And to be pedantic, some men have uteri.
The percentage of trans men opposed to abortion is, if not precisely zero, a minuscule rounding error from it.
Yeah, the percentage of the population that's trans is about 1%. The percentage of trans men that oppose reasonable abortion access is surely vanishingly small (because of largely overlapping bodily autonomy rights concerns).
While this is true, it seems to me like a bad idea to bring this up in a political conversation with an anti-choice voter...
Depends on your goal. If you genuinely think you can change their mind then... Maybe. Otherwise, why not stick up for trans & intersex folks?
I think the best thing for trans/nonbinary/intersex/etc. people, and also for changing the minds of anti-abortion people, is to discuss abortion without implicating gender stuff at all. It doesn't really do much to stick up for them, and it's likely to reduce support and increase hate for them and their issues, while decreasing the chance that the anti-choice voter listens to you.
Drag is trans and thinks there's never a time inappropriate to discuss trans issues. The statement "men can't get pregnant" is implicit transphobia. It's a microaggression and it shouldn't be ignored.
Your dogma prevents you from making effective progress, unfortunately.
There are definitely women with kids who are against abortion. Source: I know some of them.
My sister in law with 8 children is "against it as a contraceptive" which I'm not convinced has been a thing for more than a handful of people that wasn't due to lack of proper contraceptive access and education, or mental disorder.
However she AND her religious husband have been "reconsidering" purely from the goodness of their hearts and surely not because the majority of their children are girls, the oldest of which is soon to be a teenager, I'm sure. Definitely not because now it affects their family directly...
And because I'm sure someone will get a giggle out of this anecdote, they forbid any sleepovers with BOYS because they don't want anyone "making purple", but) and completely dismiss the fact that their girls could decide they would rather make pinker pink.
But statistically 50% of the aborted fetuses will be male! Checkmate!
The 79% statistic does not seem true,, at least if we're assuming the American context. The sentiments around legal abortion are more similar than that between men and women, with 38% of men opposed and 33% of women opposed to legal abortion in most cases.
And those 79% should never get an abortion if they do become pregnant and leave everyone else the fuck alone.
Our, maybe try a slightly less sexist approach and look at the religion these people follow. In my experience, abortion has never been a man/woman issue, it's a religious one
Idk how to respectfully say this, but you are being so vengeful toward religion that you forgot the intersectionality of gender and sex to that equation. This is not to invalidate your feelings, but that I find your statement invalidating a large part of this topic for no reason.
Seems like a classic case of if I can't have one you can't either.
Yeah but from my experience at least 33% of them have helped pay for an abortion.
As one of the 21% who support abortion I think this statement is a little cavalier. The numbers tell more than one story.
It's not saying that 79% of men are abortion opponents.
It's saying that 79% of abortion opponents are men.
Those two statements are very different.
Oh yeah I read it wrong. Nevertheless, the point is that this one statistic doesn't tell a whole story.
Here's a pew research thing finding about 61% of men supporting abortion in the US in 2024; lagging behind women at 64% but not by much
Nice. Research shows 5 out of 4 polls are misleading.
Well, one is a poll, one is a meme with no data source or explanation of what's been done to get to the possibly not very correct number
And pew research is one the the least biased sources someone could reference
They can be murdered though, unlike being pregnant, which I think is the point. The wording should better reflect that.
How many trans men are against abortion? I doubt it's any significant percent of their demographic
not with that attitude
Wouldn't 99% of people who are opposed to murder will never be a murderer the more reflective statement here?
Also pro-choice.
They all could be the victim though.
I'd say the intersection between "men who can get pregant" and "men who strongly oppose abortion" has to be almost nonexistant.
No they can't.
I believe it for sure.
This just in, most people opposed to theft/murder/crime in general haven't been direct victims but want to see a better society. These numbers go to show that numbers pulled out of thin air are meaningless.
Make your point without being anti- another group. Stop the US vs THEM bs.
i think that we should start referring to it as child sacrifice++
Weird how many pro-lifers also support the death penalty.
So if we make refusal to vacate a uterus a capital offense, we have a path to compromise
100% sounds like an exaggeration. Around half a percent of men can get pregnant. Some of those are surely anti-choice.
I don't see what the ability to treat women as people who get control over their own bodies has to do with being a woman yourself or being able to become pregnant yourself.
Well, assuming the 79% statistic is accurate, you could start from that discrepancy and extrapolate from there?
Those 79% are irrelevant, what would be relevant is the opposite, which percentage of men are opposed to abortion, not how many of the people opposed to abortion are men.
Irrelevant to what? It's fair to say she is clearly Pro-Choice, so understanding the demographics of those who are anti-choice is very relevant. Especially if your point is that "since 4 out of 5 people opposed to abortion rights are men, who will not be directly affected by these laws, their opinion is functionally irrelevant".
Or are you just upset that this fails to acknowledge that just because men are more likely to be anti-abortion then women, that does not mean that men are likely to be anti-abortion in general? Because I would argue the latter is irrelevant to the fact that the majority of people who are against abortion rights will never be directly affected by it.
It is irrelevant because it would also be true if there were millions of anti-abortion people and just 100 pro-abortion people from some tiny sect that happens to be anti-abortion. Or, if the number was 80% instead of 79% it could also just be 5 people, 4 of which were men. The relevant number is how most men and how most women feel about this, not if the people who feel a certain way about it are mostly men or mostly women.
hmmm.... that's a good point.
Oh, wait a minute, no it's not! Knowing the demographics of a group is extremely relevant.
Would you say it's irrelevant if 79% of people who got a specific disease were men, just because less than 0.01% of the population ever got the disease?
What about if 79% of a prison population was of a certain ethnicity, even though only 1 out of 100 people were incarcerated?
What about if 98% of school shooters were men, even if they are only a tiny fraction of the population?
Obviously not, these are key data sets to understanding the underlying causes. Sure, it helps to know how those stats compare to the general makeup of the population, and understanding what percentage of a population is effected is another useful piece of data depending on the questions you want answered. But to write off the makeup of a group as irrelevant is... dumb.
Some (maybe most?) people are selfish and only care about policies which directly affect them?
I don't think that is the root cause here, if that was true the people opposed to abortion wouldn't feel so strongly about it because they aren't really affected by other people having abortions (no, not even in their religious world view).
In fact, the percentage of the population directly affected by abortion legislation one way or the other is likely relatively small (not tiny, but probably not more than 20%) due to age and other life circumstances that make it unlikely for them to need one. The vast majority of the rest are people who "merely" have empathy with those who do and that includes men and women alike.
True