(continued...)
But think about your response. Instead of correcting a ridiculous notion, you advised that was why you voted as you did.
It's not ridiculous to consider what could happen, in legal terms, if a woman complained that she was denied her unfettered right to an abortion by a medical professional, if indeed the law conveyed such a right.
You might well argue that the courts would not infer the existence of an unfettered right, even if the words "in all circumstances" were included in the relevant statute, but there are no guarantees of how a court would decide.
It is worth noting that
Roe v. Wade in no way created an unfettered right to abortion, as I'm sure you're aware.
In every sense, women aren't aborting a day before it's due.
Yes. That's the
practice that I mentioned.
That argument is always used to muddy the waters and sets a false narrative.
I can see how an ill-informed version of the argument can be used to run a scare campaign about abortion rights, certainly. That does not mean the informed version of the argument is incorrect.
Indeed. Pollsters should recognise that some people simply prefer to deal with conspiracies that have no basis in reality or fact.
I'm sure they do.
The pollster's job is to measure public sentiment on the issue. This particular poll didn't ask for reasons for holding the view. It just asked the basic question. So, the respondents are almost inevitably going to include conspiracy theorists, religious cult members and misogynists along with well-intentioned and well-informed respondents. The poll sample is
supposed to reflect the composition of the general population. That's why random sampling is done. If it wasn't, the poll would be skewed.
The poll is also going to catch a few "ditherers" such as myself who have some difficult deciding how to choose between "legal in all circumstances" and "legal in most circumstances".
Note, also, that the
data from this poll was actually published by Gallup in two different formats. In the first, summary format, the "legal in all circumstances" and "legal in most circumstances" were combined together into one: "legal in all or most circumstances". I actually reported the data that way in my opening post, too, for the most part. Because, as I said, the different
in practice isn't great, between those two options; it might just be a matter of interpretation.
What is the end result?
Because the issue is that they want abortion banned outright.
The people who want abortion banned outright would have answered "no" to the poll. Splitting the "yes" options doesn't affect that.
And on one side we have the pro-life crowd going on and on about women aborting the day before they are due and on the other side, we have the camp that is trying to deal with the realities of abortion. One side wants to force women to remain pregnant and are using a false narrative as justification, the other sees this as horrific, as it would literally result in women being forced to remain pregnant (and currently women are being forced).
My advice? When faced with said false narrative, don't 'dither' based on the 'practicalities'. Actually address the false narrative that is being used to force women to remain pregnant.
I'm very happy to address false narratives, of course, if it becomes relevant. I was just explaining why I chose one option over another. My choice in no way depended on believing a false narrative.
I am very confident that you and I share all the same concerns about false narratives and women being denied bodily autonomy, and all of that. I'm very happy to discuss those things if you like.
And people still vote based on the belief that women are going to abort up to the day before they are due (this thread is a prime example).
Do you see why I find this so frustrating?
Yes, I understand. All I can say is that is not the reason
I voted the way I did.
On the other hand, you must recognise that if a woman is told that her third-trimester baby will be removed by caesarian section rather than being aborted, that does impact on her bodily autonomy - her right to choose unilaterally what happens to her body. She is not being forced to continue the pregnancy, but she is still being deprived of certain options about what she can do with her body.
To use a less charged example: suppose I go to a doctor and say I want one of my kidneys surgically removed. There's nothing wrong with them, let's assume - no medical reason to remove one. If I argue that it is my absolute right to choose what happens to my body, and insist that a surgeon must remove one of my kidneys, there is a very good chance that my request will be denied by the medical professionals involved. That's what would happen in practice.
Now, imagine there is a law on the books that says "Removal of bodily organs is legal in all circumstances". In those circumstances, doctors could
still refuse to remove my healthy kidney at my request, because legal does not mean obligatory. But what about a law that says "Every person has the right to decide whether their internal organs are surgically removed"? Can I then sue the surgeon who refuses to remove my kidney? Is the surgeon obliged to accede to my wishes regarding my internal organs? It would depend on a court's interpretation of the law, I think. Other legal considerations might impinge on this, of course, such as laws against forced work. But, it seems that my "right" to bodily autonomy is not absolute.
