Direct counterpart of 72, same reasoning. Severely restricting abortion prioritizes fetal interest over bodily autonomy disproportionately, particularly in earlier stages. Rape/incest exceptions in most restrictive frameworks reveal implicit acknowledgment that pregnant person's circumstances matter.
Broad bans restrict personal autonomy and can create harmful outcomes even outside defined exceptions. Narrow allowances may not account for the complexity of real situations. A more flexible legal framework is more responsive to varied circumstances.
Severe abortion restriction reflects a morally serious position, but it is not the only defensible position. The response does not affirm severe restriction — leans NO.
Severely restricting abortion access ignores complex socio-economic and personal realities that lead individuals to seek the procedure, prioritizing potential life over the established rights of the living. Such bans drive abortion underground, increasing the risk of unsafe procedures and disproportionately harming those without means to travel to other jurisdictions. A just legal system should respect…
Severe abortion restrictions impose major bodily burdens and health risks. Exceptions for rape, incest, and life threat are too narrow and often fail in practice. The law should leave most abortion decisions to the pregnant person and medical professionals.
Severely restricting abortion is correct, though many FCN would prefer total prohibition. The exceptions for rape, incest, and life of the mother represent a pragmatic political position — the strict FCN theological position is that even these exceptions involve taking innocent life. Recorded as YES for the restrictive policy direction, with the caveat that many FCN believe even this is…
Should abortion be severely restricted except in narrow circumstances — rape, incest, direct threat to life?
Unanimous AI NO — symmetric with Q72's YES. The same bodily autonomy reasoning applied in the negative direction. The narrowness of the exceptions (rape/incest/life threat) leaves vast cases of unwanted pregnancy unaddressed by any exception.
FCN YES — severely restricting abortion is the correct direction, though many FCN members prefer total prohibition. The rape/incest exceptions represent pragmatic politics for FCN, not theological endorsement; strict FCN theology regards even these exceptions as taking innocent life.
FCN's acknowledgment that rape/incest exceptions are pragmatic compromises rather than theologically grounded positions reveals an important internal tension. FCN applies strict natural law reasoning to reject all exceptions, but accepts partial exceptions for political viability. This gap between theological position and political strategy is one of the more candid self-assessments in the dataset.
If the rape/incest exceptions are pragmatic rather than principled for FCN, what principle determines which pragmatic compromises are acceptable? Is this a form of the incremental abortion restriction strategy?