A couple of years ago, Gallup released a poll that found 51% of Americans calling themselves "pro-life" and 42% "pro-choice." It was the first time a majority of U.S. adults had identified themselves as pro-life since Gallup began asking the question, and the nine-point margin was easily the largest lead opponents of abortion rights have seen.
The ensuing fuss was considerable -- right up until the numbers switched back soon after, and "pro-choice" outnumbered "pro-life" again.
The volatility apparently continues, with a new Gallup poll out today showing results that largely mirror the figures we saw in 2009.
If recent history is any guide, this will once again generate big headlines -- when "pro-choice" is in ascendance, it's assumed to be the status quo, which apparently makes it less newsworthy -- but I'd recommend caution before either side of the fight overreacts to today's data.
Yes, there's some interest in self-imposed labels -- though relying on one volatile Gallup poll may not be the best metric -- but how one describes himself or herself on reproductive rights isn't necessarily indicative of one's larger policy perspective.
Indeed, the same Gallup poll found that the number of Americans who support banning abortion altogether is just 20% and falling, while the overall rates for those who support abortion rights in some or all instances has been fairly steady for the last decade.
In other words, "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are labels that lack nuance, and the details make all the difference. Gallup's own report added, "[I]t is notable that while Americans' labeling of their position has changed, their fundamental views on the issue have not."
The fundamental views matter more the vague buzzwords.
Leave a Comment:
Words matter ~
Please read my top 3 comments on page 2.
//In short, the most accurate AND fair terminology is:
pro-abortion VS anti-abortion
...everything else is misleading by both opposing groups!
#32 - Thu May 24, 2012 9:17 AM EDT// - me
No it's not. No one is pro-abortion.
If no one is pro-abortion, then no one would have an abortion.
No TJ. People who have abortion have it for various reasons. Pro-abortion would mean that people believe it's a good thing. You are oversimplifying the issue and dumbing it down. This doesn't do you any favors and makes your argument fallacious and disingenuous at best.
TM, I disagree with your first, fourth, and fifth sentences.
I agree with your second and third sentences.
tj - you try getting your head out. The FACT is that given the necessity, a WOMAN makes a CHOICE to terminate a pregnancy - not an EASY CHOICE by any means.
IF you don't want to make that CHOICE, then DON'T - that's YOUR right. HOWEVER, YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE CHOICES FOR OTHERS. (and NO bulls hit from YOU will ever make that POSSIBLE)
Have a nice evening
My mom was refused the choice regarding myself, and her backup plan thankfully failed.
so now we have YOU to contend with, eh?
Do you hold it against your mother that she wanted to abort you? is that the source of your angst to deny every woman the ability to CHOOSE for HERSELF?
Piss poor decision on your part - all that you will manage to do is to drive the wealthier women overseas. You DO understand that it is not restricted to the same degree in EUROPE, don't you - or are you that ill-informed?
I gather you would somehow try to control "spontaneous abortions" as well, eh?
I forgave her.
Why must one be motivated for justice based only on hate?
Yes, I strongly hate injustice, but I also deeply love justice.
Do you hate your own life so much that you try to prevent others from continuing theirs?
And regarding the wealthier women being driven overseas:
- good riddance, though they were already leaving with offshore banking
Too bad Gallup doesn't ask the question "Are you Pro-Life, but anti- making a woman endure a pregnancy that she does not want or that may endanger her own life?" My point is this: I would prefer that there are no unwanted pregnancies, but that's not realistic. In lieu of that, I would be happy if every woman who finds herself pregnant would choose to bear the child and give it the best life she can, whether that means adoption or not. That's not very realistic either; every woman who has an unwanted pregnancy is in her own unique circumstance, good or bad. Despite right-wing portrayals, I do not believe there are women - at least not very many - who casually get abortions without any thought of the human life that may result from the pregnancy. I'm not the first to say it, but it is such a personal decision, it cannot rightfully be mandated by a bunch of old white men who never have to do so themselves.
I'm an old white man and I agree with you!! Just because you are pro-choice doesn't necessarily mean you are pro-abortion!!
I'm pro-choice when it comes to schools, sports and chewing gum. To allow anyone to choose whether a child lives or dies means pro-abortion.
@littleboyblue...
So you would make no exception in the case of rape or incest, right?
I mean murder is murder, right?
Wow, he gets it... Murder is in fact murder.
St Cabbie
Yeah, I guess you are right. If a man rapes a woman, the best revenge is to murder his son or daughter.
littleboyblue - you make it sound as though a rapist deserves and wants to raise children that result from his illegal acts. First off, let's say the rape victim does give birth to the child; do you really think she's going to happily share with or give that child to the rapist? Second, my bet is that 90+% of those rapist "fathers" would disappear over the horizon as soon as they find out they impregnated their victim, never to be seen again.
But I guess in your world, rape is okay and should be rewarded. Glad I don't live in your world.
I totally agree. The decision to have an abortion should stay with the woman involved, her doctor, and her faith. The state should stay out of it. Pregnancy is a very complicated matter and involves many personal decisions by the mother. Mother's whose pregnancies do not come to term should not be afraid of criminal charges because of the still birth unless obvious unnecessary risks are taken by the mother, such as participating in extreme sports that put both the mother and unborn child's life are obviously in danger. Everyday activities which pregnant women have participated in in all parts of the world and natural and man made disasters should not result in criminal prosecution of the mother, if the child does not come to term. Medical care should be guaranteed for all pregnant women and newborns. All children should be guaranteed heath, dental, hearing, and eye care through age 18. No one should ever be denied healthcare. Society has to come up with affordable health care for all residents within every nation of the world.
Once upon white men in America were against women and blacks voting. This has changed for the most part. Although we still have challenges ahead of us where this issue is concerned.
Once upon a time rape and wife beating and violence against women were acceptable. This has changed for the most part. Although we still have challenges ahead of us where these issues are concerned.
Once upon a time selling toxic, deadly products was acceptable. This has changed for the most part. Although we still have challenges ahead of us where this issue is concerned.
Once upon a time religious zealots forced their beliefs on everyone else in this country. They lied and told people abortion is murder while they let young people die in wars, women die in domestic violence, workers die in hazardous work sites, sick people die from deadly pharmaceuticals, and on and on. This still has to change.
We will not be forced to accept the lies that religious fanatics tell and we will stand up to their sometimes violent intimidation. We will not let go of the progress we have made. Women will not be forced to give up their reproductive rights to men who hate women and who never spend a day in their lives worrying about being pregnant.
Hope,
While you are badmouthing "white men," please try and remember that it was "white men" who voted to change all of those evil things of which you spoke. It was White men who ultimately voted to give women the franchise. It was men, black and white who endured massive casualties to fight a war that ultimately freed slaves. Oh yeah...all of which happened under the aegis of the Republican Party...along with the Civil rights legislation. Fact and History are stubborn things.
You totally missed the point of my blog post about struggles that have changed with people standing up for what they believe in. Thank you for proving my point though with your attack on what I have to say.
The thing is, repeating Radical, Right-Wing Rhetoric does not making it the truth. I just makes you look like someone who votes Republican because it is easier than thinking.
Well, okey-dokey then, Mike. It was white males who denied rights to women and people of color. And then some of those white males were nice enough to help see to it that we could enjoy those rights... you know, not rights that white men GRANTED to us, but our inherent rights, the ones "endowed by our creator" or something like that.
Do you want a cookie for that?
And must we never, ever mention the current egregious sins of the GOP without noting that they weren't ALWAYS slimy bastards?
Mikey forgot that the Republican Party of Lincoln, event the Republican Party of Eisenhower, is not the same as today. It used to be conservative in the sense of reining in spending. It's now dominated by religious nuts who get all their "information" from Rush Limbaugh. The GOP is essentially a branch of Pox News.
LOL . . . love the nicknames for Fox news :
Pox News
Faux Noise
Fux Noise
Fox Blues
and on and on !
@Mike
"Fact and History are stubborn things." Yep, and the FACT is that LIBERALS have supported things like women's suffrage and freeing the slaves while CONSERVATIVES have opposed them. So basically, the FACTS show that CONSERVATIVES are (almost by definition) ALWAYS on the wrong side of history. Today there are no liberals in the Republican party, which has basically morphed into a domestic cell of Al Qaeda.
Conservatives taking credit for civil rights legislation... it doesn't really get more pathetic than that. Seek therapy.
LIBERALS? Hell, there are no MODERATES, either.
If the goal of the poll is to determine how many people subscribe to the rhetoric of the pro-life position, the question should be "are you anti-choice". We are all pro-life. Even those who believe in the freedom to choose when one wishes to die are pro-life.
Actually, a better phrasing would be, "Are you for or against abortion".
The expressions 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice' are misleading because they can involve other things.
@ littleboyblue
Elfpix has it right. The thin red line between 'lifers and 'choicers is whether or not the government has the authority to regulate this issue. 'Lifers believe it's the same as murder and as such should be illegal, just as murder is currently. 'Choicers look at the wider picture including the impact an unwanted baby has on the mother, as well as the impact that being unwanted has on the baby, and further. Each instance is so complex as to preclude general regulation.
Pat
Interesting perspective. I'll stick with my own, though.
If I may put it another way: it isn't about choice, it isn't about life: it is about abortion.
I used to think of myself as pro-life, but I heard a convincing argument that people who except abortion as a choice in any circumstance makes one pro-choice. Although luckily I was never raped nor had the prediction of carrying a severely deformed fetus, I always thought that I would bare the child. However, that being said, I cannot make those choices for other women. Thus, I am in favor of letting women make these choices for themselves.
this is exactly what we mean by pro-choice. you make the choices that are right for you, your health, your doctor, your partner, and so does everyone else.
So very well said both of you !!
Being pro-choice does NOT mean you are for abortion. It means you are PRO CHOICE, that you are for the constitution, that you are for women having reproductive rights and for leaving the decision to end a pregnancy between a woman and the God of her own understanding and/or her own conscience.
And what part of the constitution pertains to abortion?
Hahaha! Please oh please glean this one out for me!
The US Constitution grants you the right to privacy which extends to medical privacy and that then extends to abortion. Abortion is a medical procedure, therefore it is covered under medical privacy laws. What you would be advocating for would be that you do not have the right to medical privacy in which case it would be completely OK for me to ask personal questions about what goes on between you and your doctor. Like, for instance, how much Viagra do you use and how often? And where do you fill out your prescriptions? And for how much? And how can I market my penis enhancement product to you directly since you use Viagra and this may indicate you're uncomfortable w/ your sexual performance? Really you don't want to go down the we-should-be-eliminating-as-many-privacy-laws-as-possible road.
I am Pro-Choice and consider myself also a Pro-Better Lifer. In other words, instead of nuance and headlines, let's make life better for the children we already have.
Define ''better''.
And while you're at it, define ''life''.
The reason I ''ask'' these things is because the definitions of both words have become diluted.
I want to see if yours are as well.
In case you're wondering, my birthmom was going to abort me but her aunts refused, so she intentionally tried to miscarry me, with the result of my being born early and put into an incubator.
Thankfully I have lived, but she has hated it.
She is a hardcore feminist, refusing to have me open doors for her due to her being a ''strong independent woman'' but hypocritically having no issue with her opening doors for me (probably because I am a strong independent man, lol).
She also refused to have me be adopted out, so I have had ALL my relatives on her side raise me, which means at least 9 ''families'' have done so, with her only raising me for about 4.5 years (plus the 8 months on top of that, so a total of 5 years). That means I have lived in over 20 buildings, all within my first 9 years, but thankfully an aunt and uncle took me in for my last 9 years without ever moving, so I finally had stability.
Do I wish I was aborted?
No, I am now glad I was not murdered, but she still wishes I was.
I told her that I forgive her for creating me during premarital sex and because I met my conceiving dad after becoming an adult, I'm glad the two never married cuz she'd have been a bully to his relationally wussy arse. Besides, at least I didn't have the extra emotional pain of them divorcing, so that was another reason I was glad the two never married each other. He instead married a different bullying woman.
Why do people have to be bullies or be bullied?
Why aren't people genuinely for equal rights?
Bunch of hypocrites on both opposing extremes...
I guess I would be in the pro-choice group (still), but I am grateful for your aunts, especially the one who took you in and gave you stability. It is wonderful that you have found a way to accept this part of your life and are able to share your views with others who only theorize. That you can talk about it and care to is a good thing for the rest of us. It gives us more to think about. Thank you.
BP, even though we disagree on the topic of abortion, I more than appreciate the rest of your response.
Thank you for your encouraging words!
And despite our differences, may all that's good & godly go well with you!!!
(yeah, I know the wording is lame, but that's just me, lol)
Call it "forced pregnancy" and see where the numbers go.
Ummm, other than rape, there is no such thing as forced initial pregnancy :P
I doubt that very males and females go up to each other and say at the same time, " Let's have unprotected sex and risk pregnancy." Most sexual encounters are initiated by one person or the other. Where one person is the leader and the other person the follower. This relationship can just get to the point where unprotected sex happens, and pregnancy results. Getting pregnant may never have been the intended result of the relationship and one partner if they had not been seduced by the other may never have consented. Sex relationships which result in pregnancy can be very complicated relationships and many times while both partners may be adults they may not be equals in the powers of their personalities and sexual experiences. The emotional reasons a woman may even consider having an abortion may be complicated and her final decision should be among herself, her doctor, and her faith, with the states only involvement being that if she has an abortion it is a medically safe one. The state should not be involved deciding rather she has an abortion or not.
don't try LOGIC michelle - tj will have no part of that. it's a thing about being angry that the mother didn't want tj in the first place.
Michelle is against logic.
She has her settings preventing me from replying to her.
And again, why must anger be my main driving force.
Do you see yourself in everyone who disagrees with you?
There's only really two labels and they're both very accurate. There's people who are "pro old white men and douchebags named Bubba staying out of my uterus" and "pro putting sluts in their place, especially if they're women of color."
that about nails it, thanks.
Or, pro "make a decision and stand by the consequences" or "I reserve my right to be irresponsible and have unprotected sex with anyone I want and I'm not mature enough to live with with the consequences."
Man, that whole personal responsibility thing sure does fly over the heads of liberals....
Yes sam because someone who doesn't want to put a child through poverty, having that child starve and potentially be faced w/ other horrors, is the irresponsible one
Interestingly enough why aren't you out making sure that people have condoms and birth control? If you really honestly believe that abortion is murder that means you are being complicit in allowing it to happen by not attempting to stop it. And that would make you equally irresponsible. Sighs.
so are you in favor of abortion as "fail safe birth control"? I AM NOT. That indicates abrogation of responsibility of the pair dancing the bedspring boogie.
Now we can talk about a "funny" (NOT HA-HA FUNNY) thing in that the RETHUGs and certain religionazis are totally opposed to BIRTH CONTROL (but for some reason, when birth control IS utilized, pregnancy rates DECLINE and there should be LESS abortions - and yet in their infinite lack of LOGIC, THEY OPPOSE BIRTH CONTROL)
PROTECTION? You don't NEED no steenking PROTECTION. We will FORCE you to carry the fetus to term. IF you do not or you miscarry, we will attempt to bring murder charges against you. Remember though, that after the BIRTH, you and your baby are on your own...
Put a child through poverty? Oh, so this is a benevolent act. I had no idea... Exactly how many children starve in the USA nowadays? And thanks for the strawman followup. Some things never change.
Gallup does these longitudinal things all the time for a wide range of issues. I do not believe that Gallup was tendentious in their polling or their analysis.
However, we must recognize that the margin of error (+/- 2 standard deviations about the mean value) is a little more than three percentage points (as would be expected for a sample size of 1024 individuals, Gallup's sample size). The difference is, therefore, still significant but barely so.
A little rule of thumb is that you get a 2% margin of error for a sample size of 2,401, a 3% margin of error for a sample size of 1067, and a 4% margin of error for a sample size of 600 - for binary polling.
Cheers
One problem I saw was that the poll asked people if they supported legal abortion under "all/most/few/no" circumstances. It's the "few" that's the problem. "Few" could mean anything from "only in the first 2 trimesters, unless something goes horribly wrong in the 3rd" to "only in cases of rape/incest." So it really doesn't tell us much. Also, I thought it was interesting that the overall numbers really didn't change much since the very first poll Gallup did on the subject. There was probably <4 percentage points' difference in any of the numbers.
I also consider myself pro-choice, but being pro-choice doesn't necessarily mean being pro-abortion. I just happen to think that the best way to reduce the number of abortions is through access to birth control, education and addressing the underlying factors like poverty and lack of opportunity that seem to go hand-in-hand with high rates of unwanted pregnancy. And really, I don't need some man who doesn't know me and doesn't care about me to tell me what's best for me.
exactly. abortion is a choice of last resort for most who choose it, because other options were not available, or because of medical circumstances only their doctors should be weighing in on.
Some abortions happen because the girls aren't EDUCATED in all of their options. I believe pro-Choice can work if all of the details on all available options are given to the woman and then she be allowed to choose either or. That was not given to me back in the 80's. The 'nurse' at the clinic basically told me that it was a blob of tissue (I kid you not) and that it wasn't even a baby yet. I even had to sign a paper releasing the doctor in case anything went wrong. I am in medicine today and I can tell you, if you go in for a simple procedure like an appendectomy, you are going to be told EVERYTHING (options, what could go wrong, blah blah blah), then you sign a paper stating you understand and are willing to go through with it. NEVER do you sign a paper that clears the doctor if he was to botch it.
I do believe in choice, but there is so much that needs to be done to make abortion an honest medical option. I do hope those changes happen. If they did, the radicals would have less of a leg to stand on.
I get such a kick out of poll results. For one, like one poster essentially said, it's not as simple as those two choices for many people. For two, who did they survey for this? I never get call, emails, etc. to take polls of any kind...and I know most of my friends don't either.
One of the emerging problems they are finding w/ polls that never gets repeated on television is the fact that more and more people are only using cellphones. There's a variety of reasons for this: cellphones don't require bundle plans, they don't die when the power goes out, they operate now a days like computers (referring to smart phones), they are portable, they are often times cheaper on a month-to-month basis or as a pre-paid phone than a landline, etc. Pollsters do not call cellphones when doing polls. This means that increasingly only those who have money enough for landlines and/or those who are elderly (or rather technologically not as inclined to favor cell phones as landlines) will be the only people receiving pollster phone calls. This means it's increasingly likely that said calls are skewed from that of the general population and don't accurately reflect what the general population actually thinks. This becomes even more complicated when we talk about it in terms of age. Younger people are not as likely to be reflected accurately in polling as older people because younger people are more apt to use cellphones and only cellphone than older people.
I hate to agree with any pro-abortionist, but when they are correct, I would be a hypocrite if I did not do so.
So yes, The Mouzer makes an extremely valid point here about age demographics vs cell-phone usages.
Thanks for sharing that, TM.
My wife and I have been, for a long time, "pro-choice", and our choice is "life". We accept the fact that there are often extenuating circumstances, yet we always urge women to try to choose an alternative that will bring the child into the world if adoption is available. We have a wonderful granddaughter who came into our lives because of this (11th-hour) choice by her birth mother.
And while we're at it, we can never understand what some people are thinking, who claim to be "pro-life" when it comes to abortion, yet support the death penalty when it comes to criminal justice. Just don't get it! Pro-life means ALL life!
some criminals can NEVER be released back into society without a pre-frontal lobotomy. Their crimes are usually for wanton killing of others. The ONLY reason to keep them alive is because it cost MORE to execute them than to allow them to remain alive.
I can think of an illustrative example - he was a major at Ft Hood - NO DOUBT that he did it. Enough witnesses that there is ZERO DOUBT OF HIS GUILT. Of course, he is paralyzed as a result of being shot by law enforcement during the arrest... Too bad their aim wasn't better - it will wind up costing millions to maintain this worthless person alive until he finally dies.
the polls are unreliable at best
Labels matter and this is just one more indication that Republicans are winning, Democrats are losing. Incredible that Democrats are so nauseatingly politically incompetent that they continue to lose on issues that are naturals: guns, tax rates, ...
If Gallop were to ask me "Are you Pro-life" and leave it at that, my answer would register as a yes, I am pro-life. HOWEVER! My ACTUAL belief is that for myself PERSONALLY...I am pro-life, but when it comes to the choice of another woman, I believe they have the right to choose one or the other the same way I made that choice. I do not have the right to tell someone they HAVE to believe the way I do, instead, I would rather tell them what I am and why and let them make their own minds up. I mean hell, that's what was allowed of me....shouldn't everyone have that right too? I HATE polls....they are so cut and dry, yes or no...but not every question can be FULLY answered with a yes or no.
Nobody's fooled by those choices. Democrats are losing and it's time to face that.
I hope you are not assuming just because of my answer that I am a Democrat. And how can you honestly lump ALL people who believe in choice as Democrats? Thats pretty damned narrow-minded if you are.
It's my contention that if someone's a Republican after seeing what's gone on the last several years then that person is either stupid, ignorant, or a selfish, mean-spirited basturd. Or some combination of those. I couldn't care less if you like it or not..
I think it is unfair to classify someone who is registered with either party as supporting the party and their ideology 100%. Just because someone is a Republican does not mean they HAVE to be pro-life just like a Democrat does not HAVE to be for gun control.
I choose to be unaffiliated so that I can exercise my right to believe in what I want without the stigma of what a party represents being held over my head. I am intelligent enough to make up my own mind when it comes to issues. I know what is right and what is wrong. I know what this country was founded on and what it stands for. And for anyone in EITHER party to say you have to believe this or that to be considered American, has forgotten the essence of what it means to be American, and I choose not to be party to that ignorance :)
I agree with your first sentence.
I disagree with you being deceptive with your second sentence.
You would have been fair if you had instead said:
''Just because someone is a Republican does not mean they HAVE to be pro-life, just like a Democrat does not HAVE to be pro-choice/of/death.''
so tj - remember YOU are attempting to make choices for OTHERS - not yourself. you would have made a perfect German Geheimstatspolitzei. that's what they did - enforced the choices someone made on others who didn't agree with the decision.
Germans forced their people to have abortions.
So, what were you saying again?
"Pro-life" and "pro-choice" are not antonyms; they would be if we had the terms "pro-life" and "pro-death". Polls that use mottoes, cheapen the discussion, reducing it to something akin to two children accusing each other of breaking mommy's best vase.
I am anti-life! I am Darkseid!
Just out of curiosity does anyone know how many abortions there are each year? I'm have always thought that the numbers were much lower then those on the right would have us to believe, but I honestly do not know the figures.
http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/Abortion.htm
Thank you
I would love to hear from medical coders on the subject of what classifies as an "abortion". After a miscarriage, my doctor told me that 1 of 5 pregnancies end in miscarriage, or "spontaneous abortion", many before the woman even knows she is pregnant. If you go to the emergency room because you are in the process of miscarrying in the first trimester (first 13 weeks), and a D&C is performed, is that counted, or CODED as an "abortion"? Something tells me it IS, even though it was not the desired outcome. That would radically skew the statistics to reflect a far larger number of "abortions" than actually occured. No one wants to miscarry a child, but tragically it happens. That should not count as a voluntary "abortion", and I wonder if something as simple as medical coding, which insurance companies require, could be the real problem in the statistics.
In case you are wondering about how I know this....a decade ago I was having eye surgery, and my insurance company at the time fought payment for no apparent reason. Then I found out a coding error was made in my record, and an eye procedure was mistakenly coded as an "ultrasound", and thus was denied as "inappropriate". It took more than a year, and a lawyer to get the insurance company to pay up, even after they acknowledged the coding error. This is why I really want to know what medical coders know.....is there any difference in the code for "miscarriage/spontaneous abortion" and voluntary "abortion"?
For the record, I am FOR a woman's right to choose what happens to her own body. Anything else is an invasion of privacy.
The question should be "Who do you believe should have the ultimate decision over their medical care, the individual or the government?"
You'd probably see about 99% of Americans admitting they are pro-choice.
The baby gets zero choice, so until the baby is able to choose, allow him/her to live as long as possible.
FETUS is only a "baby" in development. it's not VIABLE - it would be NICE if you would get the terminology correct instead of resorting to distortions.
I was straightening out your distortions.
It's funny how those who are against the death penalty for child rapists, terrorists, murderers and serial killers.. are for MURDERING INNOCENT UNBORN CHILDREN WHO NEVER HURT ANY ONE OR ANYTHING..
UHUMMMMMM.......DID SOME ONE SAY HYPOCRITES ?
Actually, Bober, nobody's "for MURDERING INNOCENT UNBORN CHILDREN WHO NEVER HURT ANYONE OR ANYTHING..." NOBODY. We would far prefer NOT TO CONCEIVE THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE! BUT....the Catholic Church is AGAINST BIRTH CONTROL, and many women work in their offices, so.....
UHUMMMMMM.......DID SOME ONE SAY "HYPOCRITES!?"
....I don't think hypocrite means what you think it means @Bober
Someone who is against murdering someone regardless of the circumstance would still be against murdering a fetus if they were pro-choice. Whether someone is a murderer, a terrorist, etc. is completely irrelevant. The same goes w/ whether or not a fetus is or isn't innocent. The fact that you fixate on this says a lot more about you and your position than you realize. You aren't actually concerned about murder you are concerned about assigning guilt, blame, and punishment. And that latter element is what pro-choicers have a problem with. Someone who is pro-choice does not believe it is their prerogative to be the moral decider of the universe. You obviously believe you should be the moral decider of the universe. If that's your personal position OK- you're allowed to have your opinion. But incorrectly identifying the opposition argument and incorrectly throwing out labels weakens your argument and brings a rational person to the conclusion that you are not superior enough of a person to be making moral decisions for other people.
Since when is a baby/fetus/embryo NOT a person?
That depends on your definition of personhood. If you believe a non-conscious being that cannot survive w/o living off of another entity is a person then this means you consider fetus' to be equal to that of leeches and ticks.
Based on your implication of personhood, TM,
infants, toddlers, and even preteens are not yet people.
You are the one wanting to define a fetus as a person TJ, not me. You are making a fetus akin to a leech in terms of the law. That is a piss poor way of arguing and doesn't do justice to the fetus which you seem to want to be advocating for.
''Based on your implication of personhood, TM,
infants, toddlers, and even preteens are not yet people.''
- me
so evidence taken during gestation indicates that the fetus is severely deformed and has essentially zero chance of survival beyond, say, 10 to 15 minutes. Do you abort or carry the non-viable fetus to term? How many similar indications do you want? let's go a different direction - during development, it is determined that the fetus will kill the woman carrying that fetus before delivery? is abortion permissible under your "rules"? How about where the fetus is actually DEAD but still drawing sustenance from the mother's body? Abort or carry to term?
YOU HAVE TO DRAW THE LINE SOMEWHERE! And what if a woman goes somewhere abortion is not so restricted - they abort the fetus and return - would you try to try them for murder?
Get this into your head - there is a difference between "before viability" and "delivered". Once that fetus draws the first breath, it's considered a "baby" and the rules for dealing with a "child" (because it IS at that point a LIVING CHILD) are significantly DIFFERENT from a developing fetus. Until the point of viability, that fetus is the same as a parasite. Sometimes that parasite is WELCOME, others it is UNWELCOME. That decision is made by the production facility (because in the end, that is ALL that a woman is to a FETUS - a LIVING PRODUCTION FACILITY - REMEMBER THAT!)
Why use examples from less than 1% of the sample instead of focusing on the 99%?
Interesting. The CDC might have those figures. But I think that it varies every year. Of course when you--as the Catholic Church--remove easily accessible BIRTH CONTROL from the equation that their female employees face, each and every day, I would hazard that any years THAT happens, there are, necessarily, big increases in this practice.
Imagine being told how to live your life as a woman---from a bunch of low-life 'celibate' pederasts, at that! Has society utterly gone CRAZY? I say this because nobody up to now, seems to have put Catholic priestly recreational preferences, up next to their unctuous preaching the voice of their Great Leader The Pope of Rome.
The shock to me is that there seems to be quiet among the Catholic laity. I think that perhaps, a (hopefully, temporary) withholding of alms, from all women who go to Church on Sunday, might convince those fools (priests) better.
They should just change the question to "Do you honestly think women genuinely enjoy having abortions performed on them? Yes/No".. Of course that's really been the root question all along since abortion has been fecking legal in the United States since Roe Vs Wade!!!!
I've wanted to use the term "Pro-The Living" to emphasize the need to care for those already alive (though not to the exclusion of the unborn). Too many people who claim to be "pro-life" don't seem to be concerned about the living. Is this a consequence of the notion of "original sin"? Incidentally, Judaism considers the life of the mother paramount if there is a question of danger to a pregnant woman.
The problem with the label "pro-life" is that it implies that the opposite is "anti-life". No one would call himself/herself that.
Ever noticed that the people who always say "get gubmint outta my life" want to control what women do with their bodies?
I once got an email titled "How to be a proper Republican". It lists things that you have to believe to be a Republican nowadays. Examples:
*Drug usage is a crime and moral failure, unless you're a conservative talk show host. Then it's an illness and you need our blessing for your recovery.
*Insurance companies have the public welfare at heart.
*Women can't be trusted to make decisions about their own bodies, but corporations can be trusted to make decisions that affect the whole world.
*What Bill Clinton did in the '60s is of vital importance. What George W. Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant.
*Saddam Hussein was good when Reagan armed him, bad when Bush Sr. declared war against him, good again when Cheney did business with him as CEO of Halliburton, and bad again when Bush Jr. needed a "we can't find Osama" diversion.
The story seems to question the integrity of the Gallup Poll itself, which has been around for decades and is deemed quite reliable by anyone's standards. Let us set aside this liberal news website's mission for a moment and just soak in the poll numbers.
It will be most fascinating to see if the Gallup Poll confirms Obama's re-election this fall and Rachel and the Democrats continue to deny Gallup's findings.
The post does not deny Gallup's integrity. Where did you even get that? The post is discussing the complexities of data and polling. Gallup itself has shown to be inconsistent in these numbers which only reflects the sampling size of the population polled. Did you even read the study? Gallup openly admits this. You're calling something that's a recognition of the limitations of statistics an invalid criticism even though for Gallup to do otherwise (and subsequently Maddowblog) would be a flat out lie and non-scientific. This seems completely bizarre.
The article is about how the word choice skews the results in this particular poll, not about Gallup being unreliable in general. Read it again.
Folks....I think we all know from the scientific data that fetus' hearts are beating a couple of weeks after conception. Whether you call that "life" or not is up to you. Fact is that we have entirely too many abortions taking place when someone would gladly want to raise the child as their own if the child were taken to full term by the birth mother. And, no, it is less than 1% of the mothers whose lives are endangered by carrying their child to full term.
First off the majority of abortions take place w/in that time period, you're aware of this, yes? Secondly "life" is not determined solely by a heartbeat. That would mean that allowing someone off of life support or putting someone in hospice care would also be a form of murder. That would also mean that any person who suffers a heart attack is considered to be dead, even if it's mild. You cannot use a definition that is this broad. Doing so completely undermines a very complex issue. Furthermore there isn't a universal understanding- medically or legally- of what "life" is, so even if you can assert a heartbeat insinuates life this would not stack up w/ current science or law.
Lastly you advocate for adoption, but I do not think you realize how piss poor the current adoption system is. This is something that entirely bothers me about the anti-abortion side (although I'm not saying here that you Mike are personally anti-abortion, but am rather saying I hear this a lot from people who are anti-abortion). The adoption system in the US is absolutely horrid w/ most kids emancipating themselves out of the system as opposed to being adopted. Kids who are put up for adoption are wildly more likely to be raped or molested or beaten. They are also more likely to grow up and live in poverty and repeat the cycle (this is primarily due to the horrible adoption rates of US children). US children are also far less likely to be adopted than children from any other country in the world both here at home and abroad. Some efforts have been made to try to improve this latter element, but we're miles and miles away. Many orphanages and adoption homes do not have proper utility coverage and many children growing up in these places are left for lack of heat, water, and adequate sustenance. Adoption in the US- at least in it's current form- is not a viable option. I would have no problem w/ people bringing up the importance of considering adoption, but first we must address the horrible conditions of the adoption and foster care system. Until those issues are addressed you're basically advocating a lose-lose situation and that's completely pointless.
On a slight side note:
It should be noted that for those of you out there (and no Mike I'm not stating that this necessarily applies to you, but I know there are those who will read this comment for whom it does apply) who advocate outlawing abortion you must realize that illegalization =/= stopping the behavior. Abortions do not decrease in nations where abortion is either flat out illegal or highly restricted. In fact in most of those countries the abortion rate is higher than it is here in the US. We see the same phenomenon in states where abortion is far more restricted than in states where it's far more easy to access. The unwanted birth rate goes up when abortion is restricted. Now do not misunderstand me I'm not stating that more clinics performing abortions necessitates that the abortion rate will go down. Rather I am stating that we do not see a strong correlation between limiting access or banning access to abortions and a reduction in their number. People who sincerely want to see the rate go down must recognize this fact if we're ever going to move beyond the stalemate and actually address the issue.