Lion of the Blogosphere

Abortion poll

I got such a big response from the last poll, and I am genuinely curious about my readers’ opinions on this topic.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

April 1, 2016 at 12:54 am

Posted in Politics

73 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. I’m antifeminist pro abortion. I think the mother should be able to get an abortion for whatever reason, the father should be able to force an abortion for whatever reason, and that the state should be able to force an abortion in certain circumstances. Maybe for married couples it should be flipped and both spouses should have to agree in order to get one.

    This is maybe the fringiest political belief I have.

    Lloyd Llewellyn

    April 1, 2016 at 1:20 am

    • The fetus doesn’t belong to the parents, it has an independent existence. You can’t just play around with human life. Process this.


      April 1, 2016 at 9:35 am

      • I sympathize with this stance, and I also find killing people, even the very young, to be disturbing, however:

        1. Some abortions are performed on embryos that don’t have brains yet, which I think is moral.
        2. A lot of the women who get abortions on embryos with developing brains, would probably be willing to get abortions earlier in pregnancy.

        So why not encourage women to get abortions earlier in pregnancy, or impose fees / penalties for later term abortions in the absence of a medical need?


        April 1, 2016 at 10:02 am

      • Yakov continues to be the most fun and most interesting commentor.


        April 1, 2016 at 10:21 am

      • Like I’ve said, Lion has to add a category: ‘Abortion is allowed when mother’ s well being is in danger’. This is a broad category and not one size fits all parameter. However, to arbitrarily get abortion just like that with no questions asked shouldn’t be allowed.


        April 1, 2016 at 10:59 am

      • Yakov’s position is how abortion was handled in many moderate-to-liberal states pro-Roe (and even to some extent after, for a while).

        Abortions were allowed in the majority of circumstances, but the woman would have to “apply” for one from a special hospital board consisting of three doctors or whatever. The panel would almost always say yes, but there was still a bit of bureaucratic hassle involved to somewhat discourage the decision from being taken too lightly. The woman would have to justify herself in a somewhat coherent way.


        April 1, 2016 at 11:25 am

      • Yakov position is the classical orthodox Jewish position of “Din Rodef” (“law of the pursuer”) which dictates that it is allowed to kill someone who is pursuing to kill someone else (after warning and when there are no other options to stop the pursuer). In this case when the baby endanger the life of the mother he is considered to be the “pursuer” and therefore it is ok to kill him even though the baby is considered to be a human being.


        April 1, 2016 at 5:04 pm

      • @Hashed

        True, but it includes mental and emotional well-being as well, not just physical. Lion, Judaism again proves itself to be the best religion, take notice. Just done respond that you can’t eat a cheeseburger. We already know that.


        April 2, 2016 at 8:36 pm

  2. Shouldn’t there be a distinction between early and late term abortions.

    I favor full access to 1st trimester abortions and a complete ban on 3rd trimester abortions.

    The middle part is a gray area; I lean toward strong restrictions.


    April 1, 2016 at 1:23 am

    • Agree; Pretty much unlimited in the first trimester, some regulation in the second and a complete or near complete ban in the third.


      April 1, 2016 at 9:55 am

    • I think the old rule about “quickening”, i.e. before the baby starts moving around, is a good compromise. My understanding is that many premodern societies in Europe allowed herbal abortions before this. At least they did in a historical fiction novel I read years ago about New Amsterdam…


      April 1, 2016 at 11:51 am

      • Pre-modern societies allowed babies to be killed after they were born, if they were born with obvious birth defects. Yet that would be considered “murder” in the United States.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        April 1, 2016 at 1:00 pm

      • Yes, I guess it depends how premodern we’re talking. I was thinking 1300-1800. Pre Christian European societies certain practiced infanticide and various times and contexts.


        April 1, 2016 at 1:13 pm

      • @Lion

        ‘Pre-modern societies allowed babies to be killed after they were born, if they were born with obvious birth defects.’

        Jews never did.


        April 1, 2016 at 7:06 pm

    • WAPO had a great article about polling results on that issue. Short conclusion – the position with the highest level of public support would be unrestricted to 24 weeks, and illegal after that, with the usual life of the mother exception. Also, men are more pro – choice than women.


      April 1, 2016 at 12:43 pm

  3. Promote it, balls to wall among NAMs and any other dysfunctional groups. Give them a sail foam or whatever bling is trending in the inner city and barrios.

    Mayor of Space

    April 1, 2016 at 1:45 am

    • You can make free contraceptive injections available as Colorado did to avoid having to do this.


      April 1, 2016 at 11:51 am

  4. Option a for non whites.

    Option b for whites.


    April 1, 2016 at 2:21 am

  5. You should specify trimesters here. Big difference between morning after pills and partial birth abortion.

    Dave Pinsen

    April 1, 2016 at 2:29 am

  6. Abortion should be illegal for white parents, but legal for non-whites.


    April 1, 2016 at 3:21 am

  7. Lion, add a category: ‘if a pregnancy threatens her well-being’.


    April 1, 2016 at 5:19 am

    • Which means she “feels a bit depressed” and any doctor will consider the profoundly grave risk to her mental sanity and gladly accept her check and give her an abortion up to 9 months. Then he’ll sell the spare parts to someone like Dick Cheney or David Rockefeller.

      What pro-life people instinctively understand is that it’s impossible to make any compromise with the left.


      April 1, 2016 at 10:06 am

      • Maybe, but this is a most reasonable compromise when the country is split on issue.


        April 1, 2016 at 11:00 am

  8. For any reason at all up to 40 days. After 10 weeks it’s closer to viable than nonviable, so it looks like murder to me at that point, but from 40-70 days there could be some exceptions. Presently allowing abortion even of viable, truly unborn children all the way up to the point of birth is the moral failure of the West that matters more than any petty argument about money.

    And it’s much harder than it looks to faithfully critique the pro-life movement without looking like one is siding with the reptiles.


    April 1, 2016 at 7:40 am

  9. the poll needs to specify when in pregnancy the abortions can take place. Are they limited to first trimester like in most european countries? Or mostly limited to second trimester like currently in the usa (with some late term abortions allowed), or are they allowed up until 10 minutes before the child is born (what most feminists, including Hildabeast endorse). If you think of the baby as a developing human who will have full human rights and protections at birth, then the timing is critical. A morning after pill that “aborts” a tiny embryo doesn’t trouble me the way a gruesome dissection of a 8 month-old fetus does.


    April 1, 2016 at 8:40 am

    • Yes I favor the European approach. Poll should have specified trimesters.

      Mrs Stitch

      April 1, 2016 at 10:22 am

  10. I believe it should be left up to the states to decide.

    Two in the Bush

    April 1, 2016 at 8:47 am

  11. Sex and cohabiting outside marriage should be heavily shamed and stigmatized. Divorce should also be shamed and extremely difficult to procure, only with evidence of severe physical or psychological abuse or abandonment. Family courts should generally favor the father. Government should have an industrial/trade policy that provides good jobs with good wages for family support. Job hiring should be able to discriminate in favor men.

    Abortions will shrink to a very minor issue.

    Andrew E.

    April 1, 2016 at 9:41 am

    • At which point, yes abortion in all cases should be illegal and the mother procuring the procedure, the doctor performing it and anyone else paying for it should be punished under the law.

      If the knowledge were available, everyone alive today wouldn’t have to go back that far in the family tree to find a pregnancy that resulted from rape/conquering/invasion. How many people alive today wouldn’t be if all rape pregnancies in history were aborted?

      Andrew E.

      April 1, 2016 at 10:26 am

      • Society would be better off if it severely curtailed the reproduction rate of people with violent tendencies.


        April 3, 2016 at 11:12 pm

    • You are no better than an anti-male feminist. You only want family courts to favor the father because you are male and want freebies. You only want it to be legal for companies to discriminate in favor of men, because you are male and want freebies.

      Divorce should be attainable with evidence of any kind of physical abuse, because mild physical abuse often later escalates into severe physical abuse. Divorce should also be attainable with evidence of adultery. Family courts should not favor the father or the mother.

      You MRAs are just fighting fire with fire, and then blaming Colored people and gays for your own dysfunction.


      April 3, 2016 at 11:11 pm

  12. I picked the first option because it’s the best fit, but I do have a more nuanced view:

    The government should use policy to try to reduce the # abortions late in pregnancy. This might even work better than a ban in practice.


    April 1, 2016 at 9:50 am

    • “The government should use policy to try to reduce the # abortions late in pregnancy. This might even work better than a ban in practice.”

      Such policies would tend to INCREASE the number of abortions. Sounds like good policy to me, but the pro-life people will fight them tooth and nail.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      April 1, 2016 at 9:52 am

      • I agree that policies to reduce late term abortions would both increase the total number of abortions and be good policy. Still, I would place no restrictions on first trimester, moderate restrictions on second and severe restrictions on third. People can debate timing but that’s the general idea. I’d even support government funding for low-income. I would never admit to any of this in person because I want abortion to retain some ‘taboo’ status.


        April 1, 2016 at 10:37 am

      • I’d also like policies that encourage/support marriage and discourage divorce and promiscuity. Adultery used to be a crime and still should be.


        April 1, 2016 at 10:46 am

    • Haven’t we already been trying that? The GOP has been waging a war on late-term abortions for over a decade now. Do they have much to show for it? I’m not being rhetorical here, I’m honestly curious.


      April 1, 2016 at 11:27 am

  13. Since 2 commenters out of the first 10 already have blurted out misinformation on this, let’s set the record straight. “Morning after” is (hi-dosage emergency) contraception and has NO bearing on this issue.

    Mifeprex is a totally different drug and not used the “morning after.”


    April 1, 2016 at 9:52 am

    • dear know-it-all fiddlesticks, according to webMD

      “It is also possible that this type of emergency birth control (Plan B) prevents implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus by altering its lining.”

      so you can CALL it birth control, but birth control is preventing fertilization of the egg, once the egg is fertilized it’s an abortion. i’m not against this, BTW, i think Plan B is better than waiting 6 months to abort the baby but please spare me the semantic nit-picking, the reason they call it “emergency birth control” is because that is politically better than calling it abortion.


      April 1, 2016 at 10:08 am

  14. As you yourself pointed out, pro-choice is literally the only public policy which is both supported by the dominant Leftist ideology and is NOT pro-white genocide. As far as I can tell, every other public policy supported by the dominant ideology, from education policy, to immigration policy, to civil rights policy, to housing policy, to welfare policy, is consistent with white genocide. Even the Leftist opposition to Jewish settlement in Jerusalem.

    From this perspective, it’s rather difficult to have much enthusiasm for the pro-life position even though abortion itself is morally troubling to any thoughtful person.


    April 1, 2016 at 10:44 am

    • Nah. Abortion is pro-white genocide. It is part of the reason white fertility is so low. That abortion also kills NAMs is collateral damage, not the intended effect.

      Keep in mind the USA was 87% white when abortion was legalized.


      April 1, 2016 at 11:54 am

      • The majority of abortions in the United States are by non-white women. Where did you get this “white genocide” nonsense from?

        The reality is that legal abortion is keeping the U.S. more white than it would otherwise be.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        April 1, 2016 at 1:01 pm

      • The intent of abortion was white genocide when they made it legal. At that time, America was overwhelmingly white. The only reason it has killed lots of non-whites is because this policy intersected with the other white genocide policy of mass non-white immigration.

        Abortion has killed lots more whites than non-whites in Europe (including Russia) where until recently there was not much in the way of non-white immigration.


        April 1, 2016 at 2:07 pm

      • Tarl makes a good point. You always see Planned Parenthood “offices” in the whitest of white college towns.

        For a lot of pro-abortion SWPLs and leftist college faculty members, regularly driving by these places in respectable neighborhoods is probably the closest they come to this issue. To them, it’s all about women’s sexual liberation.

        In fact, if they knew how disproportionately abortion was used by non-whites, their opinion might take a turn toward greater regulation. Don’t underestimate the outsized role of white self-hatred in positions on virtually every social issue these days.

        I suspect that only a small fraction of the general population has the slightest idea about racial patterns with respect to abortion.


        April 2, 2016 at 2:22 pm

      • Birth control has decimated the white population more than abortion, since whites tend to have better FTO. Contraceptive technological advancements and legalized abortion transpired around the same point in history.

        slithy toves

        April 2, 2016 at 3:15 pm

      • @SQ

        You either live in a different state from me or you’re completely brain dead. In my state, all but two Planned Parenthood locations are in areas where Blacks and Hispanics outnumber Whites. As for the two PP locations in majority White areas, those places are about 75% White trash and 25% Hispanic trash. There are no PP locations in my state where middle class and upper class Whites form the majority.


        April 3, 2016 at 11:15 pm

      • @KBIrd

        You definitely live in a different state.


        April 4, 2016 at 10:24 am

  15. Men need to be educated on abortion.

    Specifically, if you are dating a girl and she has had an abortion..,,RUN AWAY. She’s already shown that if she’s not in love, then she’s capable of anything.

    If you date a girl for a while, then there will be ups and downs. Bad things will happen with this girl.


    April 1, 2016 at 10:58 am

    • It seems highly unlikely that a woman would disclose the fact of a prior abortion until she and the man have been dating quite a while and have a serious relationship. If she discloses it at all, even after marriage.



      April 1, 2016 at 1:09 pm

  16. Lion, your poll does not address the gestation period. I am in favor of a woman being able to have an abortion for any reason, but only within the first four months. Once there are brain waves and a heartbeat it should only be allowed if the woman’s life is in danger.

    And late term/partial birth abortion is simply barbaric.


    April 1, 2016 at 11:22 am

  17. To be honest, I think abortion should allowed at any point during pregnancy. Maybe even young children under a certain age should be euthanized if they have very serious problems (psychological/physical).

    Although maybe I haven’t considered this from every angle…


    April 1, 2016 at 11:32 am

  18. The vast majority of abortions take place in the first trimester. Even stupid women do not wait six, seven, eight months to have an abortion (unless they have a serious mental-health problem, in which case, they probably SHOULD have an abortion).

    Much of the opposition to basic reproductive freedom is silly. Abortion should be banned except in cases of rape and incest?? Leaving aside the contradiction about the “innocent life,” all this would do is increase the number of false rape accusations, but of course establishment Republican politicians have no interest in actually making abortion illegal. Democrats know this as well. It’s politics as professional wrestling — pretend.


    April 1, 2016 at 2:08 pm

    • “Ok, your boyfriend knocked you up; what’s done is done, and that’s water under the bridge now. Your brother has volunteered to take one for the team and say it’s his….”


      April 1, 2016 at 9:20 pm

  19. Let’s say a white woman got pregnant by a black guy and wanted an abortion so she wouldn’t give birth to a mixed kid. Nobody can think that’s a good enough reason.


    April 1, 2016 at 3:02 pm

  20. Is there any bigger vermin than pro-lifers? They are such fucking scum.

    Otis the Sweaty

    April 1, 2016 at 3:45 pm

  21. I’m pro-choice because I empathize with the woman’s situation. But if a majority of women want abortion outlawed, then I’d have to go along with that, even though I’d think they were operating under a false consciousness or religious superstition.

    The same goes for biological men using women’s showers and bathrooms. I’m against it out of empathy for women, but if a majority of women are happy to shower and pee and powder their noses in the presence of strange men, that I’d defer to their judgment.

    Mark Caplan

    April 1, 2016 at 3:59 pm

  22. Democrats should be getting all of the abortions they want. Hell, you should pay them to get abortions. There are too many stupid, ugly Democrats producing too many stupid, ugly children.

    Good people should have their abortions heavily restricted. We need more of those.


    April 1, 2016 at 5:21 pm

    • I’m not a woman, so I don’t know how they feel, but I doubt most of them want to share facilities with guys who wear dresses.


      April 1, 2016 at 9:18 pm

  23. Abortion is the only hope for America.


    April 1, 2016 at 5:23 pm

  24. Make it legal, but bureaucratically harrowing.


    April 1, 2016 at 5:40 pm

  25. Not enough choices, Lion. My choice is:

    A black woman should be able to obtain an abortion for any reason, at taxpayer (White) expense, but under no circumstances whatsoever should a White woman be able to obtain an abortion if the father is also White.


    April 1, 2016 at 6:26 pm

  26. Militant pro-lifers are the political right’s equivalent of SJWs. They need a cause to justify their existence and get that blissful feeling of moral superiority. There are also a lot of people in this part of the country (the South) that don’t seem to realize that Southern states typically had more liberal abortion laws than Midwestern and heavily Catholic states because the elites here saw it as a way of controlling the black population. Roe v Wade made that policy go national and added a socioeconomic element to it. If a woman cannot afford to have an abortion, she sure as hell cannot afford to raise a child for 18 years without government assistance. For this reason alone, Republicans ought to be doubling or trippling Planned Parenthood funding. But alas, the GOP is the Stupid Party.

    Bilbo Baggins

    April 1, 2016 at 7:40 pm

  27. I will cut and paste what I wrote at polldaddy:

    These options leave much to be desired. I think most people (as do I) have a problem with later abortions. If I were drafting abortion law, I would allow an abortion for any reason for one month after the woman became aware she was pregnant OR if the woman was a dependent minor, in which case she would have one month after her parents became aware of it. This would be for any reason. After that month, I would allow abortions only if 1) the woman’s life became endangered, 2) it became obvious that the baby was going to be retarded or physically deformed.


    April 1, 2016 at 8:36 pm

  28. I’m torn about abortion, but here’s what the selfish side of me believes:

    I think abortion should be permitted for any reason during the first few weeks of the pregnancy. After that, certain criteria should be met before an abortion could be lawfully performed. If there exists a good reason to terminate a pregnancy at a later stage, the abortion should be carried out in such a way as to minimize pain to the unborn.

    To be quite honest, in some cases, abortion could probably be considered mercy killing. If you knew your child was going to be born into a short life of torment and sorrow, which fate is better?


    April 1, 2016 at 9:16 pm

  29. Trump now says he thinks the abortion status quo should be respected while simultaneously saying it is murder. Campaign immediately “clarifies” once again and says he will outlaw abortion as president… or something.


    April 2, 2016 at 12:12 am

    • Campaign immediately “clarifies” once again and says he will outlaw abortion as president… or something.

      I admire the splendid Trumpian stream of consciousness as much as anyone but can his advisers sit down with him a few times a week to go over a quick bullet-point list of what his policy positions are so that when he’s asked a question he doesn’t contradict himself?

      We know he doesn’t give a damn about social-con issues in private and won’t base his campaign on them. But when he gets tripped up on something this simple it distracts from positions where he is fighting his campaign on – “say you oppose abortion to keep social cons happy but evade saying what you’ll do about it because, whenever abortion is brought up, you want to divert the discussion as soon as possible back to immigration, the economy, and security”.

      The Undiscovered Jew

      April 2, 2016 at 12:34 pm

    • Everyone is out to get Trump. And they’re going to use controversial issues like this as a tar baby to trap him. Trump needs to come out and say, “I have personal opinions like everyone else. But I don’t intend to impose my views by micromanaging other people’s personal lives. That’s just not the role of president. Those issues should be left up to the states and the Supreme Court. Speaking of which, I don’t intend to nominate justices based on their position either for or against any single issue. My only consideration will be their knowledge of and commitment to constitutional law.”


      April 2, 2016 at 5:58 pm

  30. He should just say he wants straight constitutionalists for the Supre Court and leave it at that. Whenever anybody asks him anything about abortion–strict constitutionalists! Strict constitutionalists! Strict constitutionalists! Nah, nah, nah, nah, nah.


    April 2, 2016 at 1:00 am

    • We need to get past this strict constitutionalist BS. The Left has fully politicized the court and so should Republicans. We need to put people on the court who fully support gun rights and oppose illegal immigration and birthright citizenship.


      April 2, 2016 at 7:05 pm

  31. Nothing of any importance has changed about abortion laws in more than forty years, but it’s a handy issue for people on both sides who want to distract us from pressing social crises like mass immigration.

    Consider the last few days. We have collectively spent more time talking (and thinking) about a reporter being moved aside at a press conference than about the murderous bombings in Brussels. It’s almost unbelievable how easily our political discourse is manipulated from day to day and year to year. The abortion issue has been used this way for more than a generation.


    April 2, 2016 at 2:36 pm

  32. I think it should be allowed in the first trimester. After that it should be allowed for medical reasons (fetal anomalies, which often aren’t detected until the 2nd trimester anyway) or if there is a health or grave psychological threat to the mother. This is my opinion as a pragmatist, as women will have abortions whether it’s legal or not. If two lives are at risk you are obligated to protect one of them if she’s going to abort anyway.

    However, it’s always going to be a grave undertaking and it grieves me how the pro-choicers view the fetus as not human trash.

    But my choice wasn’t in the poll so I couldn’t vote.

    slithy toves

    April 2, 2016 at 3:12 pm

  33. Pro-choice seems to contribute to a general anti-natalist culture and environment that also includes female independence, sterile promiscuity, employment, and delaying or foregoing of marriage and children. Traditional Catholics who tend to be the most fervent anti-abortion people, tend to have a very pro-natalist culture and have many children.


    April 2, 2016 at 6:14 pm

  34. Well, you did not include infanticide. I actually would support that. I know that is way outside the current Overton window, but I take a rather utilitarian perspective on reproductive choices (of parents). I also support legal abortion (as in no parental obligation) for men for an agreed upon period after being informed of possible or actual parenthood.


    April 2, 2016 at 11:02 pm

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: