>> I'm tired of having the minority religious and bigoted views dominate politics and starve us of progress.
Is it minority views? Surely, when it comes down to states legislating this, people can make their opinion heard at the ballet box. And if a majority of people in a state vote conservative and abortion is restricted then we are legislating based on the wants of the majority. It will be interesting to see if this is an important enough issue for some conservative voters to swing them (and states) to the democrats.
Yes, unquestionably, the vast majority of Americans support the right to abortion. That said you can do a lot with gerrymandering, suppressing voters, and our archaic electoral college that gives people more/less voting power based on the state they live in.
Define "pro-life" as "no abortions ever" and it's a minority opinion. Define "pro-choice" as "abortions at any stage of pregnancy for any reason" and it's a minority opinion. Saying your side is the clear majority on this issue proves nothing other than you are in an echo chamber.
Am I misreading this? Your link seems to verify the claim of the person you are responding to. Only 19% support legal abortion in all cases without exceptions.
Pro-choice is the clear majority. There's no argument of "it depends on how you cut it". It's natural for people to disagree within a movement but 69% of Americans oppose Roe V. Wade being overturned.
Ok but the original comment from andrewclunn was clearly correct and your response incorrect. His point was that when nuance is added, the majority belief is less clear. This seems pretty important when there is no definitive understanding of exactly what "pro-choice" means.
You've now retreated to an argument that no one was making.
His argument was negating a true claim by playing a game of definitions. Regardless of how you cut it, pro-life is a minority view. Attempting to use shades of pro-choice to diminish that is not arguing in good faith. It's the argument equivalent of going "I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you!" while holding your finger in front of someone's face.
Ultimately though, what matters is how many approve of Roe being overturned, which is a binary, and those who oppose Roe V. Wade are in a very clear cut minority.
There's no possible reading of the original comment where it is "objectively incorrect." Clarifying what is meant by extremely vague labels like "Pro-choice" and "Pro-life" is far from a definition game.
> what matters is how many approve of Roe being overturned
Exceptionally few people understand exactly what the implications of Roe are so this framing is useless.
Only 27% think Roe should be overturned. Roe only protected first 3 months (first trimester) except in extreme cases. Your statistics do not support Roe being overturned.
It's hugely minority. 60-73% support abortion access the question is where the limits/timelines should be and that number is only growing especially now that there is a spotlight on the issue. You will now see some 18 mostly small population red states pass extreme laws restricting abortion access while a majority of voters even in those states are against such laws.
> Is it minority views? Surely, when it comes down to states legislating this, people can make their opinion heard at the ballet box
How about instead of deferring this to states rights, we defer directly to individual rights and let individual people decide what to do? You know.. like in some sort of 'free' country.
The child is not a child nor a person. Not even the Catholic church considers a fetus a person, nor the government (as you can't get a tax deduction for your fetus). I used to be fairly religious and godfathered a couple of kids. Neither of them were baptized in the womb though. Or maybe I had the 'wrong' religion?
If you think the fetus is a person, then don't get an abortion. It's super easy. And if your fetus is killing you, then feel free to die for your beliefs.
There is a filibuster at the Federal level that prevents a majority of elected officials from passing laws. The electoral college can prevent the candidate with the most votes from being elected. These are both tools that allow a minority to block what a majority of voters want. Three of the SC justices were appointed during a president's term who did not win the popular vote.
At the state level there is no filibuster meaning that a dissenting minority has no way to protect themselves. Re-districting (gerrymandering) also neuters the voting power of minority groups.
There is a bias for majority rule at the state level, and minority rule at the federal level. So yes, it's minority views. This is why issues like Slavery and segregation were argued as "states rights". The way conservatives prefer our government to be set up is with a weak federal government and strong state governments so that a localized majority can enforce moral legislation on a disenfranchised minority without Federal intervention. It has always been about power and any arguments about "returning the decision to the people" is no different that someone in 1964 saying it should be up to the states whether or not minorities can use the same bathroom as white people.
Is it minority views? Surely, when it comes down to states legislating this, people can make their opinion heard at the ballet box. And if a majority of people in a state vote conservative and abortion is restricted then we are legislating based on the wants of the majority. It will be interesting to see if this is an important enough issue for some conservative voters to swing them (and states) to the democrats.