American Public Equally Split About Abortion
The Pew Poll has published its latest results, dealing with gun control--beyond our scope here--and abortion. Given the politics of our rulers in Washington DC--which can only be described as pro-choice absolutists--I was surprised to note that the country appears evenly divided on the legality of abortion. From the poll:
The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted March 31-April 21 among 1,521 adults reached on landlines and cell phones, also finds public opinion about abortion more closely divided than it has been in several years. Currently, 46% say abortion should be legal in most cases (28%) or all cases (18%); 44% believe that abortion should be illegal in most (28%) or all cases (16%). Since the mid-1990s, majorities have consistently favored legal abortion, with the exception of an August 2001 survey by ABC News/Washington Post.If these polls are true, it seems to me that pro life people don't vote based on their beliefs, or perhaps better stated, for many, the issue has a low priority as a deciding factor in their voting decisions.The proportion saying that abortion should be legal in all or most cases has declined to 46% from 54% last August. The decline in support for legal abortion has come entirely in the share saying abortion should be legal in most cases (from 37% to 28%); 18% say abortion should be legal in all cases, which is virtually unchanged from last August (17%). Currently, 44% say abortion should be illegal in most (28%) or all cases (16%), up slightly since last August (41%).
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 4:07 PM
23 Comments
23 Comments:
Unfortuantely, I know many pro life people who voted for Obama because they believed him when he said he was dedicated to decreasing the number of abortions and also felt that his social programs would have have that impact. I thought about that, too, as I liked some of Obama's other ideas about disability rights and various social programs, but once I learned about IBAPA and couldn't get any clarification on what he planned to do to prevent medical rationing in a national health care system, I decided I just couldn't swallow that and voted for McCain, who I also felt was a great potential leader with good ideas.
Unfortunately, many people might profess a given belief but don't seem to translate statements of belief into daily life or action. I know no shortage of people that would claim a pro-life position yet had no qualms about—rather enthusiasm for—voting in favor of the most pro-abortion man ever to be seriously considered for president.
Wesley, I hope you find "IT" in your heart to allow me this comment but for whatever reason if you can't, I'll try to understand.
Here's a little good news from Canada which should be of encouragement for pro-life.
The 12th National March for Life will take place on Thursday, May 14, 2009 in Ottawa our Capital City. This yearly event for respect for life and family is one of the most important demonstration held on Parliament Hill. Last year more than eight thousand people, 80% of which were youth who participated in the march throughout downtown Ottawa.
The March will also be held in other places but this area is very important because that's where a lot of our politicians hang out.
God Bless all His Innocent aborted Children and may Our Heavenly Father grant them Eternal peaceful rest.
The figures are hardly conclusive; in fact they’re downright ambiguous since they combine categories (those opposed to abortion under "some" circumstances and those who oppose it under "all" circumstances). So, we can also interpret the survey results as: "only 16% of respondents believe that abortion should be completely illegal, while 84% do not.” Now, for consistency’s sake, as an ethical matter, one either opposes abortion or condones it. To say one “opposes it under some circumstances” is like saying someone’s “a little bit pregnant.”
I agree with HW about ambiguity, and polls on abortion are some of the most difficult to read.
One problem is the difference between "opposed" (if *I* were to be pregnant) as compared to opposed to everybody's and voting to make it illegal.
I suspect that many people like to be against abortion, but are uncomfortable with eliminating the option entirely.
Not that this means that abortion is just, or good, or even an acceptable way for society to solve its problems. It's just a recognition that there is often a gap between our various ideals and desires for avoiding difficulty.
I too agree with HistoryWriter. It's so difficult to come up with a good set of questions that will adequately reflect what people truly think about abortion. This is a good line from HW too
"To say one “opposes it under some circumstances” is like saying someone’s “a little bit pregnant.”"
Agreed.
I disagree with History Writer. What makes this story notable is the same questions have elicited dramatically different percentages of answers.
And one can be mostly pro life or mostly pro choice. If someone wishes to make an exception to save the life of the mother, for example, that is not making abortion illegal in all circumstances. Many people accept the life, rape, and incest exceptions, which would also have them "mostly" pro life. Having that as the standard would probably eliminate more than 1 million abortions per year.
Similarly, one can be "mostly" pro choice if they want parental notification or oppose partial birth abortion.
The current, based on this poll, is toward pro life belief. But that did not translate into votes this cycle.
Mostly? But this is an opinion based on absolutes, like the absolute right to life or the absolute right to bodily autonomy. Anyone not in either camp is a hipocrite to some degree, whether they recognize it or not.
P.S. I don't think anyone would consider losing the baby in an attempt to save the mother an abortion.
I agree with Wesley.
I don't believe that this issue belongs in politics or should be a matter of law. It's caused more trouble than Carter's has pills. It's no one's business but that of those involved in the situation, if you ask me, but then I like to see the government stay out of as much as possible. The whole when does it become a life thing is a red herring. Should a woman who would do such a thing, or the man who wants her to, be reproduced? That's how I look at it. I know, I know, life is sacred, and I think women are nuts to think that the "right" to abortion is good for them. Life isn't simple, not every potential being in nature comes into being, and some things just aren't the government's business and don't belong in politics. The Christian Right has destroyed the Republican party, and they didn't win; instead, we've got Obama as president now.
I agree HW is off base. Polls are showing that majorities of American's would oppose abortion in almost 95 percent of all abortions-abortions not for rape incest or the threat to the life of the mother. It's been this way for a long time now. The more detailed the questioning, the more pro-life the survey comes out. Hack push poll surveys will show the opposite-should abortion be legal or not. In those instances even GWB would have to vote yes because he supports abortion for rape, incest and the life of the mother. They are phony and useless. We are an increasingly pro-life country and it generally benefits politicians when they say they are pro-life. Hence we talk about the pro-life advantage.
Lanthe, no way the Christian right has destroyed the republicans. McCain got his back side kicked in FL and CA but marriage initiatives won there, which cowardly Perez Hilton took out on a young lady. (His cowardice is shocking and the feminists who didn't stand up for her when he called her a dumb B with an itch show they are frauds. The republicans have destroyed themselves. This election was lost due to the spending habits of the last republicans, GWB's unwillingness to stand up for himself and etc. I saw it coming in 2007 at a pretty libertarian conservative convention in Nevada where a well known conservative interest group leader admonished everyone to starve the party til it came to its senses and that they were willing to sit out an election, even if it meant Hillary getting two terms. They didn't want to elect the wrong candidate to further screw up conservatism. They were willing to sit it out for 10 years to put their cause on a more firm foundation. So we social conservatives didn't lose voters. Obama had his people playing pro-life and pro-family conservatives and making them think he wasn't so bad after all. He was pushing us hard. Anyone who didn't see that, was not in the game. The fiscal conservatives deserted McCain and rightly so. They've had 12 years with those guys and what did they get? They can blame themselves.
This has no place in politics. The law should protect all human life and there would be no debate.
Jacque: What you just said makes sense to me. Whatever anyone's opinions on abortion are, a simple approach like that would work best, and society would be healthier for it.
Don: I agree that the Republicans have destroyed themselves. Here in New York State they've done a good job of it, and you should see the mess they are in this county, where the way they were led me to change registration to Independent and then Conservative years ago. Only a couple of weeks ago someone at the county Republican headquarters "explained" to me that they don't want to push a Republican candidate for mayor because then more Democrats in the city would come out to vote against him or her, and while in the polling booth would vote Democrat against the Republican candidates in the suburban towns, and they're already worried about not holding the county; it's all "strategy," I was told. On the state level it started getting messed up in the 60s when the state Republicans started being "liberal Republicans" and behaving like Democrats and then we started having candidates (Giuliani is an example, the mayor of this city is another, Mayor Bloomberg of New York is another) switching parties back and forth; New York has done a lot to destroy the whole party nationally. Our recently-late county chairman was also state chairman for a while, and he started out with a Stop Hillary campaign that mysteriously vanished into thin air and which, when it continued to appear online, the state Republican organization in Albany ended up saying had nothing to do with them. He ran a Republican who had been set up for the job by being turned to a Democrat in 1993 for mayor as a Democrat in 2005, the D.A. is a former Republican who became a Democrat, as county chairman he lost the district literally in his own back yard that had never gone Democrat before, and the county organization here now is afraid of losing even more of the county and has the "strategy" of not running a Republican for mayor lest Democrats come out and vote. Very civic-minded.
But I saw it coming with the religious right right after Goldwater, when I was a kid, and the Reagan juggernaut was just getting started. A friend who's a serious Christian in the midwest and is also a Democrat who opposes tort reform (I oppose tort reform too) says that people at her church are always telling her that if she's Christian, she has to be a Republican. Between the New York influence and that, plus the Skull and Bones Bush dynasty, we've got a real mess on our hands now. When I talked to the national party headquarters on the phone several times about what's going on here in New York in 2006, it was obvious that the national organization was in a state of one hand didn't know what the other one was doing right in their own headquarters, and that their focus was on Bush and the religious right. In this last presidential election, they just wrote off New York, and the county organization here couldn't even get lawn signs and other campaign materials for McCain from them; those from here who wanted to do anything ended up going to Pennsylvania to try to fight the fight there. It's a total disgrace. Yes they can blame themselves, but they don't even seem to be bright enough to do that.
I did see what Obama was doing, and how hard he was pushing. I just don't understand how anyone didn't see through him. He's a Democrat; that was enough.
I should add: The S&B Bush dynasty, the Clintons, and Obama look to me to be all part of the same game.
If we don't protect all human life, then it'll be open season on some people.
"Justice For All" visited the U of Houston main campus one year at the same time our campus was having a feminist rally. They came over and made fun of the fact that we were wearing pro-Female ribbons that they'd been handing out all day. One of the guys there pointed out the anti-female abortions happening in India and China and how such abortions were showing that females were considered second-class citizens, if that, and that they were commodities to be treated however the males there determined was right.
I don't know what ultimately came of that conversation as I had to head to class and didn't return until later on, but I do remember that everyone was talking in an open, honest way and there was no mockery on either side during that conversation. That's the kind of dialogue we need. We don't see enough of that....
Lanthe I agree it's hard to understand how anyone didn't see through Obama. I would float this idea, Bush Cheney 04 fatigue. It's a long story, but that election was very intense and it was hard to get the base up for the next one after his performance from 2005-2008 and for a guy like McCain.
Don: I, Ianthe, was never very enthusiastic about McCain from the beginning. But he's a Republican. That's all Republicans needed to know. Despite all his failings, I still like W. It's the whole Skull&Bones thing I don't like.
I wanted to mention that there is actually a term for those who don't fall completely on one side or the other in the pro choice, pro life debate, and that is "mixed choice." This is a term sometimes used to describe people who favor abortion rights with certain limitations. For instance, during his time as a Senator, VP Biden fit this description because he voted for the Patial Birth Abortion Ban and the Hyde Amendment, both of which place restrictions on abortion, but had an otherwise pro choice voting record.
SAFEpres-
Penn Jilette made this comment on his Showtime series, BS (which I can't spell out, natch):
We're *all* pro-life, and we're *all* pro-choice! It's *abortion* that we've got different opinions on.
Paraphrased, natch, since I don't own the series, but he's got a point.
Plenty of hypocrisy to be found on this issue. Check this out:
"The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion"
When the Anti-Choice Choose
http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html
Hi K-man. All that the article shows, at best, is that some pro-lifers are hypocritical. It does nothing to address any arguments we put forth nor does it refute any arguments we put forth. The arguments we put forth must be critiqued on their own merit, not on the merit or behavior of individual pro-lifers.
also, that comes from a very radical pro choice website, www.rhrealitycheck.org, which rejoices in picking on "anti choicers." Now, of course, such an action would be hypocritical. As Bobby cites, it doesn't do anything to address pro life arguments...and, in the end, we're all, or have been at some point, hypcrites, even when we strive to live by our convictions.
Actually, if I may make an astrological observation here, it wouldn't matter which candidate had been elected, it wasn't going to be a good term for them and the country was in for rough times and radical change (more likely not in a good way)no matter who was elected, and no one could have stopped the dark days and years that are coming. In that regard, and that regard only, I'm glad it was Obama -- once again, a reason to say "damned fools and Democrats," which doesn't get said often enough or by enough people. But with McCain, we wouldn't have this death stuff. Anyone who voted for Obama deserves what's coming, as far as I'm concerned. The thing is, the rest of us, and the innocent victims, don't.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home