American political ideology as a whole has shifted left in recent years, but women are becoming even more liberal, according to Gallup.

The survey data, released Wednesday, shows that while the country remains largely center-right, the percentage of those identifying as or leaning liberal has increased over the past three decades, and is now just 1 percent under it’s all-time high.

Roughly 36 percent of adults identify as conservative, 25 percent as liberal and the rest identify as either moderate or unsure, according to the poll.

When broken down by gender ideology, women in the youngest and oldest age groups said they were more likely to identify as liberal.

Women ages 18-29 were 40 percent more likely to be liberal in 2023, a slight decrease from 41 percent in 2022 and 44 percent in 2020, but still higher than the 30 percent in 2013. Those ages 65 and older were 25 percent more likely to identify as liberal — a slight increase from the 21 percent reported in 2013.

  • Econgrad@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    55
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Your rights end where another person’s rights begin. An unborn child is a person. And when you have to weigh a trolley problem when the mother’s health is in life-threatening risk it’s a serious thing that you have to consider. Abortion should be legal for situations where the mother’s health is in literal life-threatening risk but even then it’s a very serious choice.

    • fkn@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      Even if we grant you your invalid position, you are still wrong. So close. You claim the unborn person has rights, but so did the mother.

      In no legal jurisdiction in the United States is one person ever required to give up their bodily autonomy for another. This the mother, according to your argument, is under no legal obligation to provide the other person, according to your argument, the mothers body for any reason. If the mother wishes to discontinue the use of her body she can. If the other person dies as a result of this decision, the mother bears no responsibility.

      This is well understood case law and common law.

      GTFO with this terrible argument.

      • Econgrad@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        39
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        It doesn’t matter what the law is. Laws can and should be changed when they’re unjust.

        You’re fundamentally radical and not living on planet Earth that you think this way about pregnancy. It’s the product of a degenerate and corrupt life you’ve lived that has allowed you to justify unjustifiable immorality.

        In other words you’ve burned your conscience to a crisp through your vices.

        It’s an abominable position you put forward. You are wholly given over to vice and darkness and sin.

          • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            5 months ago

            Removed, rule 3.

            Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (perjorative, perjorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (perjorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!

          • Econgrad@lemmings.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            24
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            You should repent of your sins. And I’m not a fundamentalist in the slightest despite being Christian.

            Painting everyone that disagrees with you as a fundamentalist allows you to dismiss their arguments easily but it doesn’t change the arguments. You’re still wrong, you’ve just blinded yourself to it even further by dehumanizing and dismissing your opponents.

            By the way it’s possible I’m wrong about your character. But I was so shocked by the revoltingness and the disgustingness of your argument that I assumed only a horrible person would make such an argument. Forgive me if I’m actually wrong and you’re just erroring in judgment here. But you write as if an unborn child is a parasite on the mother with no right to survive within its mother’s body.

            As if the mother’s actions didn’t deliberately create that child. And it’s not a parasite. It’s a human being. Your argument that a child should be aborted because the mother doesn’t want to “lend her body to it anymore”, it’s so disgusting and immoral, It’s just sick. It literally stuns me. I’m not even sure how I can explain and prove to you that that’s immoral.

            • fkn@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              14
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              You don’t like being called a fundamentalist because you know they are abhorrent.

              You don’t like your own argument. You can’t even stomach the inkling that your own hypocrisy.

                • fkn@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  11
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  You know how I know you are lying? Because your first reaction to me expanding on your argument was to tell me I am a sinner.

                  If you treat any of your “friends” that way you are truly a terrible person.

              • Econgrad@lemmings.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                13
                ·
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                I will absolutely dare to tell you how to live your life. And you do the same thing. It’s the nature of having moral beliefs. Are you going to say the same thing to someone that rapes their children or murders refugees? Your entire personality as an activist is based around telling other people what they should do with their lives but only when a religious person is in the scenario does that suddenly become invalid.

                You’re a hypocrite. I am not. You should stop that. Be a better person. And quit advocating for the murder of unborn children because of inconvenience and a skewed belief on bodily autonomy that ignores literally every other factor. As if it exists in a vacuum.

                Actions have consequences and I will absolutely advocate for social justice. That includes for those alive and those yet unborn.

    • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      5 months ago

      A fetus is not a person its a collection of cells. It’s not up to you to weigh any problem. It’s up to the woman and their doctor.

      • Econgrad@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        29
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        A human is not a person it’s a collection of cells.

        See how ridiculously reductionist that sounds? And it’s absolutely up to me because I vote and I live in a society that is a democracy. I will vote on issues that matter to me. And you can do the same. So if you want to support policies that murder inconvenient children, most of which are black by the way which is very racist of you, then that’s your choice but I’m not going to support that with my vote or publically in the town square.

        • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          It is a scientific fact. Yo’re going to vote to see what my daughter’s future might be? I think not.

          • Econgrad@lemmings.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            19
            ·
            5 months ago

            Stating that a collection of cells is not a human being is not a fact.

            Human beings are indeed collections of cells.

            • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              15
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              5 months ago

              A human being is a collection of cells with self awareness. People have varr6ing degrees of self awareness as you’ve displayed

              • Econgrad@lemmings.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                16
                ·
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                So people who are in comas are no longer human beings?

                What about people who are asleep?

                What about people who are being put under for surgery?

                I think your definition of human being is bad.

                • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  9
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  Ever hear of Terri Schivo? Brain dead, but peo0le like you decided … neverind, it’s not worth it.

                  • Econgrad@lemmings.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    16
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    I’m simply making fun of your ridiculous definition of a human being. You’re arguing in bad faith so why should I try to argue back in good faith?

    • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      5 months ago

      An unborn child is a person.

      You realize this is where Democrats fundamentally disagree with you, right?