Pro Life Majority
The Gallup Poll reported Friday that 51 percent of Americans now call themselves “pro-life” rather than “pro-choice” on the issue of abortion, the first time a majority gave that answer in the 15 years that Gallup has asked the question.
The findings, obtained in an annual survey on values and beliefs conducted May 7-10, marked a significant shift from a year ago. A year ago, 50 percent said they were pro-choice and 44 percent pro-life — in the new poll, 42 percent said they were pro-choice.
-
Posted by folkbum on May 15, 2009 at 2018 hrs
Yeesh, talk about messy data. I’m with folkbum on this one - I think the change is statistically insignificant.
It’s good to know roughly half of the people I see in a given day think it’s okay to arbitrarily kill our young; I mean morality and altruism are unatural, right? I wonder what the polling data for support of cannabalism would show (yeah, yeah, it’s different because we don’t actually eat the dead babies).
Posted by Mike Gallo on May 15, 2009 at 2036 hrs
Indeed, nothing will change on the issue anytime soon.
And that includes the fact that when polls say something people agree with, they’re important; but when they say something people disagree with, they’re flawed, useless, etc.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 15, 2009 at 2044 hrs
I feel this is the result of Hispanic immigration. Mexican immigrants are turning southern States from Red to Blue and helping maintain the blue state status of States like Wisconsin.
But at the same time, I think this group is profoundly more pro-family, pro-life. Statistics in USA Today yesterday noted that there is something like a 10 to 1 birth to death ratio right now among US Hispanics.
The old line Democrats like Biden, Hillary, Pelosi, etc will find the Hispanic vote to be a mixed bag in the end. I don’t think that demographic group tows the company line.
Just my two cents.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 15, 2009 at 2128 hrs
I caucus with those who believe that the law should permit something far short of abortion on demand through the 8th month but, like the vast majority of Americans, I don’t believe that a woman who has been raped should be denied either emergency contraception or the option of an abortion in the early weeks of the pregnancy. This position differentiates me from the wingnut anti-abortion groups in Wisconsin.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 15, 2009 at 2226 hrs
11 years ago, when I was involved in campus politics, I was quoted in an AP article about social issues on campus. I said that ““We have pro-choice students on our campus who still say they would never have an abortion. Even if they don’t want to push their message on others, there is less tolerance on a personal level.”
11 years later, nothing’s changed. The vast majority of Americans believes that abortion should be legal in some or all instances. At the same time, I’d bet my bottom dollar that most women answering that way would never elect to have an abortion themselves.
What does it even mean to be pro-life anyway? Does it mean you wouldn’t have an abortion? Does it mean you would choose to not have kids instead of using IVF and having a bunch of leftover embryos? Or does being pro-life mean you have to be in everyone else’s business as well?
America has, by and large, reached a very comfortable detente on this issue that I think the overwhelming majority of Americans are generally satisfied with. Even the Christian right seems to have moved on to other agenda items. When’s the last time you heard about Operation Rescue doing anything newsworthy?
How’s this to summarize the issue? Abortion: Nobody cares.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on May 15, 2009 at 2323 hrs
RS: That nobody cares is the problem. Let me ask this: If we assume death comes when there is no heartbeat and no brainwaves, isn’t it reasonable to assume life begins when there are?
Posted by Steve on May 16, 2009 at 0356 hrs
Good point, Steve, and so from your comments we can therefore deduce that you approve of embryonic stem cell research, since it occurs with fertilized eggs which have not advanced to that state of development.
Congratulations on inserting a little rational thought into the debate.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 16, 2009 at 0649 hrs
Good, RO. Glad you can answer the question. Try again.
Posted by Steve on May 16, 2009 at 0711 hrs
Steve,
That’s a rational position but it’s more complicated than that. There is no consciousness, no sense of self, and no ability to live on one’s own during the first few weeks those functions are present.
I for one, having seen both my kids on an ultrasound a few weeks after conception agree with you on this, but am still pro-choice. And that’s for the same reason I don’t think war will ever be eradicated. Both abortion and war kill, but it’s hopelessly idealistic to think we can eliminate either.
I know it’s changing the subject a little, but I cannot help notice that most people who claim to care about the sanctity of life are pro war, pro death penalty (and I’m all for both when warranted), and pro torture.
To summarize, you’re right, but making that position reality in terms of policy is hopelessly idealistic. RS is right, society has made its decision and it’s not likely to change. Accept it and move on.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 16, 2009 at 0827 hrs
Why should I accept something that, at my core, I believe is wrong? Oh, I forgot, you guys don’t know what that’s like, because you have no core values. That’s ok. Whichever way the wind blows.
“...society (isn’t)...likely to change”. That’s never a reason to not object to the objectionable.
Posted by Steve on May 16, 2009 at 0857 hrs
To say 51% are pro-life off of a Gallup poll is a bit of a sweeping generalization.
I prefer to see a poll addressing questions like this:
“If you or someone has been raped and impregnated, should you or that person be required by law to give birth to the resulting child? Abortion is forbidden.”
“If you or someone has been impregnated through incest, should you or that person be required by law to give birth to the resulting child? Abortion is forbidden.”
“If you or someone has been impregnated and the carrying/birth of the child threatens yours or said person’s life, should you or that person be required by law to give birth to the resulting child? Abortion is forbidden.”
“If you or someone has been impregnated after a tawdry one-night stand, should you or that person be required by law to give birth to the resulting child? Abortion is forbidden.”
“If abortion was made illegal, and if a person is known to have been impregnated outside incest or rape and she has an abortion, how many years should she be imprisoned at $24-34,000 per year?”
“If abortion was made illegal, and if a person is known to have been impregnated outside incest or rape and she has an abortion provided by a doctor, how many years should the doctor be imprisoned at $24-34,000 per year?”Throw 3-4 pro-life leaning questions in the mix and let’s have us a poll!
Frankly, I wish to have as little legal power over what someone else does to his or her body and spores/children as possible. Can’t the pro-lifers just be satisfied that their all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful god(s) will take care of the issue for free!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 16, 2009 at 1001 hrs
Bob, the legal power over what someone else does to his or her body only becomes a necessity when someone decides to kill someone else who cannot rightfully defend themselves.
By the way, should a child really be sentenced to death because of the crime commited by one of his/her parents? THAT is the real question, Bob. Unfortunate though it may be. Crime/promiscuity/illegal behaviors = consequences.
Posted by GAMazy on May 16, 2009 at 1015 hrs
Why should I accept something that, at my core, I believe is wrong? Oh, I forgot, you guys don’t know what that’s like, because you have no core values. That’s ok. Whichever way the wind blows.
Having once been adamantly Pro-Life I gotta say I agree with Steve here. While I now subscribe to two wishy washy pro-choice theories, (the “who am I to tell someone else when life begins and that they therefore have to have a life altering pregancy carried to term” and the “you can’t stop it, so keep it legal so at least it is done safely”) I remember what it was like to once be in the die hard belief camp.
It is unrealistic to expect people to give up their position on this issue because it is unlikely nothing will ever change. This is a core value, and I would never expect anything less than a vigorous defense of you position from someone on either side of the issue.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 16, 2009 at 1511 hrs
Thanks, Lefty (I think). BTW, I never said I was in the “no abortion, any time, any reason” camp.
Posted by Steve on May 16, 2009 at 1600 hrs
Does being pro-life mean being against the war in Iraq? I would think if you’re pro-life it means what it says: PRO-LIFE!!!
What does evrybody else here think?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 16, 2009 at 1628 hrs
geeman, killing in war and killing an unborn child are two entirely different things. And I turn the tables: Why is it ok to kill the unb orn, but those who have committed heinous crimes deserve to live?
Posted by Steve on May 16, 2009 at 1642 hrs
Nor is it fair to automatically assume that if a person is pro-life they are anti-birth control. A good start perhaps is to put some reasonable restrictions on abortion on demand. Like after viability (in which case there is no reason to kill the baby, even if there is a medical condition with the mother). Personally, Plan B is as far as I am comfortable with, but would be thrilled with a 12 week gestation cutoff with exceptions for extreme fetal deformities.
My guess is that a lot in the pro-choice camp would be sickened by the realities of 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions if the knew the details and would be pretty favorable for a suggestion like mine. But the Planned Parenthood lobby would never go for it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 16, 2009 at 1645 hrs
I am deeply “pro-life”. Recently I’ve heard several pro-life advocates talk about starting to refer to themselves as “pro-choice” and then add “I choose life”. It’s so simple, hits them right between the eyes.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 17, 2009 at 1054 hrs
A friend of mine had an abortion to avoid raising the child of an alcoholic and wife beater. It was an arranged marriage at 18 for her. Divorce and good friends kept him from coming back to visit. The police were useless. If she had kept the child, there would have been no financial support, and he would have had the means to get close to her again, and beat her again, and again.
Crime/promiscuity/illegal behaviors = consequences.
A former neighbor’s wife had an abortion. The fetus, as it grew, posed a serious threat to the life of the mother, so the doctor recommended termination. The father wallowed in guilt for a decade before he forgave himself. Interesting: guilt over the ending of the unborn and unknown and the considering of the idea that his wife could of, should of, died so that child could possibly have been born, without a mother.
I do not understand how one can judge these situations in black and white.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 17, 2009 at 2001 hrs
I am deeply “pro-life”. Recently I’ve heard several pro-life advocates talk about starting to refer to themselves as “pro-choice” and then add “I choose life”. It’s so simple, hits them right between the eyes.
I know we don’t always agree but you have nailed it on this one.
If the effort was put forth educating people to “Choose Life” then all of this malicious debate would subside. Looking at reality, they basically legalized abortion because they could not stop it and wanted it to be safe. If it we illegal again we would go back to the same situation. We can try to educate as many as possible of the ramifications of abortion and the guilt involved so as to limit the percieved need for one. Making it easier to obtain an adoption would be a big step as well.
I believe that the majority of people are “Pro-Life” but would not want to go back to the way it was before Roe vs. Wade.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 18, 2009 at 1710 hrs
MoveForward I think you’re right. Which is why I find it so perplexing that people who claim to be “pro-life” stand in the way of so many things that could reduce abortion.
I look at Europe. Most western European nations have abortion rates we could only dream of. They have comprehensive sex education programs we could only dream of. They have far less puritan and hypocritical sexual attitudes. Yet you suggest following their examples to a typical pro-lifer and they shut down immediately. Hell no, it has to be abstinence, abstinence, abstinence. You know, even though it’s never shown to work.
A previous commenter said abortion, war, and the death penalty are different issues. I agree. A fetus is innocent, a death row inmate is (presumably) guilty of some awful crime. But the principle behind the issues is the same, or at least it seems like it ought to be: the sanctity of life, or at least human life. The death penalty has been shown to have taken the lives of innnocent people on occasion. And any war sure as hell takes the lives of innocents. Yet I rarely, if ever, hear any lamentations from the pro-life right about the innocent lives lost under those two policies. It’s rah rah, barbecue those criminal fuckers and rah rah, bomb those fuckers back to the stone age. Innocent kids got barbecued by our cluster bombs? It’s their parents’ fault, and weren’t those explosions awesome?
I’m sorry, if the sanctity of human life is truly guiding principle. I just don’t see how you equate a militaristic attitude with a pro-life stance. Given the unrealistic idealism of the two, it seems strict pro-life and pacifism ought to be linked. I on the other hand certainly wish we didn’t need war, nor abortion, but I’m not naive enough to think either are going away anytime before the sun goes red giant and roasts us all.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 19, 2009 at 0622 hrs
Total Entries: 20000
Total Comments: 134049
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 06:26 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 09:31 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 118
Total anonymous users: 1
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 09:54 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).