Gallup Poll says majority of Americans identify as pro-life
 

I just wondered - what would the results for GC be?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/Mo...irst-Time.aspx

I don't know what the results for GC would be.

I'm pro-choice.

Pssst . . .vote in the poll!

I'm Pro:
teaching people about their bodies
giving equal access to affordable and effective birth control for men and women
stopping sexual violence against women

I'm totally "Pro-life" I respect the life of the mother and what she chooses to do with her body.

Yeah, that...especially the last part! So I guess you can call me pro choice

Personally, I think the "pro-life" and "pro-choice" tags aren't the most accurate way to tag either side. I prefer "anti-abortion" or "pro-abortion" because they get rid of a great deal of the posturing and get right to the heart of the discussion. (And spare me the "I want abortion to be legal but I'm not pro-abortion " statements- when the discussion is whether or not abortion should be legal, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you support the legality of abortion, you are pro. If you don't, you are anti.)

I would expect GC to scew heavier towards the "pro-choice" side of the Gallup poll question just based on past discussions.

I think this is oversimplifying things. If Ann thinks a woman should have a right to choose abortion, that doesn't mean that Ann is pro-abortion. It could just mean that Ann thinks the government shouldn't get to decide what she does or doesn't do with her body. If you're looking for different terms for the debate, perhaps anti-abortion vs. anti-government would be more appropriate (solely in regards to the abortion debate).

I just think there are two very different arguments in play. There's the moral debate and there's the political debate. I think it's fair to say that some people who are pro-choice have that opinion because of the political/governmental concerns involved. Some of those same people might be pro-life from a moral perspective (meaning that if they were ever the one making the choice, they would always choose life).

/end soapbox

I agree.

(Which is why I didn't vote in the poll. ;))

No, no, no, no, no, NO! Sorry, but I won't spare you. :p

It's pretty simple: pro-anything means that in favor of that thing -- that you think that thing is good in and of itself.

Are you pro-cigarettes or anti-cigarettes? If you think that cigarettes are disgusting and dangerous -- deadly even -- but you still think they should be legal and that people can choose for themselves, then are you going to describe yourself as "pro-cigarettes"? Probably not, since it is not cigarettes themselves that you are in favor of.

As Sydney says, it possible for someone to be anti-abortion (morally, ethically or religiously) and pro-choice (politically -- believing that the government should have a limited voice in the question). I know plenty of people who fit that description.

That's just it - I am addressing the legal question (that's why it is in News & Politics). You can get distracted in all kinds of philosophical or moral debates, but the question at hand is geared towards the political. Of course, there is a moral issue, just as there is one when discussing murder. or marriage, or a variety of other subjects that have both a moral and legal aspect. Society enforces a certain morality through the laws they pass and enforce. I don't know that smoking is a good analogy - it certainly doesn't approach the moral import of a human life and whether that life should continue or not. I think most anti-smoking legislation has been approached through the idea that the rights of non-smokers should not be enfringed upon by smokers. Different animal, I think. The closest you get with the abortion debate is juggling the rights of the mother vs. the rights of the unborn - and then you get into the slippery slope of when does a fetus become a baby (much less clear-cut now thanks to modern medical technology).

Either you support the legality of abortion, or you don't. You can be "pro" legislation (like, oh, abortion) and not necessarily want one yourself (think of all those men voting for it!) The whys and wherefores can cloud the issue - but what states and ultimately the federal courts have to decide is whether or not abortion should be legal, AND if it is legal, should there be restrictions or limits? Read the whole Gallup Poll report - it is very interesting. Many who support the idea of legal abortion do so with some reservations - in other words, they believe there should be some restrictions. I'm sorry if I did not clarify - it is the political identification that is being discussed, at least for the most part.

eta - and upon reflection, I'm curious. For those of you who say you are anti-abortion in the sense that you would never have one, or feel it is immoral, but say you are pro-legal abortion, what is the rationale? I would assume (although you can correct me if I'm wrong) that if you are anti-abortion on a moral or personal level it is because you believe a human life is being ended and you believe that is wrong. If that is indeed the case, why would you support the right for others to have an abortion? And do you think that right should be unlimited (abortion up to the time the baby's head crowns) or are there limits you think the government should impose?

I am quite sincere when I say that I can't understand having one morality concerning human life for yourself, but another for society as a whole. I come from a very "pro-choice" family that has marched for PP - I myself at one time identified as pro-choice, but once I saw gypsyboot's picture at 6 weeks, that was it. That little peanut was my daughter, and could be nothing else. I understand those who say that a fetus does not exist as a human being until ________ (fill in the blank - viability is popular; others have other yardsticks) and thus can be aborted until that time, but I don't understand those who say yes, it is a human life, but the mother has the right to decide whether it lives or dies.

I'd like to be pro-life or to think of myself as such, being raised Catholic. I hate the idea of abortion.

However, if I were pregnant, especially as a young woman with a future, I cannot say I wouldn't get one. It's horrible, because I wish I were pro-life, but in practice, I'm pro-choice.

See, all your initial post (and your poll) asked was "are you pro-life or pro-choice." Nothing to indicate we're only talking about a legal question only. Even so, I don't think that the designation helps further any real discussion.

FWIW, my position is this:

• I think abortion should be legal with few if any restrictions in essentially the first trimester, with more restrictions as pregnancy progresses, and that it should be illegal if there is any chance of viability.
  
• I think abortion is never a "good" thing, and should be an option of last resort, but there are situations in which in may be a morally acceptable choice -- the lesser of evils.
  
• I think that only the people involved can really make the decision, which is why I think that the government's interest is very limited until such time as the pregnancy has progressed to the point of potential viability.
  
• I think, to quote the old saw, abortions should be safe, legal and rare, and that the best way to see fewer abortions is not to outlaw them (that will just lead to unsafe ones) but to do whatever can be done to avoid the need to consider them in the first place.
  
• I think that, if anyone tries to describe this position as "pro-abortion," the discussion is over. ;)

We might still want the choice for it to be available for medical reasons.

MC, you should have vote option #3!

That reminds me of Boys' State when one guy referred to himself as pro-abortion, then made campaign speeches proclaiming 'abortions for EVERYONE including dudes'.

I'm pro-choice, but I don't think abortion is something that should be a frequent occurrence. In my ideal world, we'd give all the education we could, as well as tools like a multitude of birth control options, to prevent unwanted pregnancies. As a physician, the legality of abortion is important to me because women who want to terminate the pregnancy will, it's just a matter of whether they'll do it safely or not. Talk to any really old school OB/GYN (which of course their numbers are dwindling) who practiced or was trained in the pre - Roe v. Wade, and you'll hear horror stories of entire OB/GYN floors of inner city hospitals dedicated just to women with attempted abortions and the complications that arose from those attempts. Perforated uteri, punctured internal organs, sepsis, necrosis, death...bad bad stuff.

If anything, the pro-lifers, especially the ones that don't want sex ed in schools, are the ones who want their cake and to eat it too (and if they're anti-welfare, whoo, watch out). They want to make it so no one knows anything pregnancy, can't end it, and then is burdened with a child but can't receive help from the state. Talk about setting women up for failure with no way out...

I thought about, but I don't think "neither" fits either. "Both" maybe, but not "neither."

It goes back to your earlier statement -- it's just too complicated an issue to encapsulate in "Would you identify yourself as pro-life: Yes, No, Neither yes nor no."

Hence, the margin of error in surveys and polls.

Pretty much this with the addition that not all abortions are done because little Suzy got ku and wants to "take care of the problem" which is what I personally feel most people think when they hear the term abortion.

I think using pro-abortion and anti-abortion is just a gross oversimplification.

I'm pro-choice, not pro-abortion. It's not my place to tell other people what to do with their bodies, and I firmly believe that before the viability of the fetus outside the mother's body, the fetus is more or less an extension of the mother's body and it's her right to decide what to do.

It's ok to call pro-life viewpoints anti-abortion I guess but "pro-abortion" for someone who is pro-choice insinuates that that person would like a free-for-all policy on abortion including late term abortions, encouraged abortions and unsafe practices which is just not true (for the bulk of us that are pro-choice).

For me with the point in my life that I'm at right now, should an unplanned pregnancy occur I would probably not get an abortion. However, I don't think it's right for the government to interfere in that (very private) decision.

FWIW, I do think it's odd that many conservatives want the government to more strongly regulate abortion or get rid of it all together, but there are so many aspects of their lives and finances where they want the government to GTFO, and liberals want the government to GTFO (somewhat) of abortion but are willing to allow the government to interfere in other aspects. That last sentence doesn't make much sense but I'm at a loss about how to put it.

MC - the original Gallup poll asked whether the respondents would identify themselves as pro-life or pro-choice. Yes, there is a problem with the question. I tracked the original language because I was discussing that particular poll.

BigRedBeta, I am familiar with many programs here in Houston, supported by anti-abortion groups, which offer free medical care and other support for pregnant women facing an unwanted pregnancy. I am also a big supporter of the Edna Gladney Center, which even offers mothers -to -be the chance to finish high school or go to college. http://www.adoptionsbygladney.com/

I don't believe in the kind of blackmail my sister espouses - "Pay me to raise this child or I'll kill it" essentially. There is a choice that can be made by those who do not wish to raise or cannot support a child - adoption. Right to Life groups exist to make sure every pregnant woman is able to bring a child into this world. That doesn't mean there is a moral obligation to enable every pregnant woman to suddenly be able to raise that child - hence the emphasis on adoption. It's a right-to-life (for the child), not a right-to-lifestyle (for the mother). And I think it fair to say that most of those women considering abortion are doing so because they feel they CAN'T have a child - so it would seem the best solution for most (not all, of course) is to enable them to have the child with the least amount of disruption to their lives.

Let me interject here that I think most of us fall somewhere between the extremes of NO ABORTIONS EVER and NO LIMIT AT ALL ON ABORTIONS. That said, why do y'all think there has been the shift in self-identification seen in this poll?

Then I would have refused to answer Gallup, too. :D (Yes, I have been known to do that -- there was the one poor poll caller who kept repeating the "options" to me in a political poll, and I kept trying to tell her that none of the options fit my views, bit "none of the above" wasn't a choice. She finally said "okay, thanks," and hung up.)

As for why there has been a "shift" in self-identification in the poll, I usually want to see a number of polls before I'll say a shift is really occuring. But if I had to answer, it's because the terms offered for self-identification can mean different things to different people, making them less-than-useful for actually understanding what people think.

SWTX, that still doesn't address your choice of "pro abortion" vs "anti abortion"...there are at least a few points being made on the way you termed "pro abortion"

Whaaaaa? Who ever said that? Not everyone choosing to have an abortion is wanting a hand out from the government or anyone else.

It's also medically possible right now to have an abortion, so why can't that be a choice too? Not everyone chose to get pregnant. What about those who were sexually abused and raped? Should they have to carry the child of some monster for 9 months because the government won't give them a choice on what to do w/ their bodies?

I don't know on average how many abortions are preformed every year or their reasons for doing it, but there are already a ton of kids in foster care waiting to be adopted - some that never ever get adopted and "age out" of the system. If the government randomly said 'OK ladies, you can either carry your baby to full term and keep it, or give it to the state and we'll hopefully find a place for it to live" could you imagine the strain on those systems?

Some people can't afford the healthcare they need for their baby during pregnancy either.

I just don't think it's right for the government to be able to pick what people can do or not do w/ their bodies. And if abortion is made illegal, they are still going to exist whether we want them to or not...people WILL find a way to get it done.... but they won't be able to be regulated by the government (i.e. how far in the term, and other abortion practices) and that can just make them unsafe.

Did anyone watch Dr. Phil yesterday?

It was an excellent show about men's rights. It touched on what SWTX said about blackmail and other topics.

I'm not a regular viewer of Dr. Phil... sorry :(

Can you elaborate a little bit?

Naw. You're the only Dr. Phil I pay attention to. :D

"Forced to be a Father"

http://www.drphil.com/shows/show/1150/

If you have time, see how much the site shows you from yesterday's show.

That warms my heart. LOL. I wish I remembered why I chose this username.

I agree with that!

I am one of many opinions. I am pro-life and anti-abortion. I recently changed my opinion on the death penalty. But in saying that, I am pro-sex education in schools though I'm on the fence as to how early it should start and what all it should include exactly. I am pro birth control--shots, pills, condoms, implants, IUD, sponge, foam, lubricants, and having "tubes tied" (the actual medical term for that slips my mind right now). I also believe with the exception of having tubes tied, the rest should be available to the public for free with no questions asked (this includes dispensers in school restrooms).

Abortion is currently legal in the US. I believe despite my preference, it will stay legal for quite a bit longer. So in the meantime,I am all for restrictions being in place: parental notification for minors wishing to have an abortion and be placed on any form of birth control that includes hormones and a medical procedure (such as implants & IUD), partial birth abortion bans, and women being counseled on all of their options fully in an unbiased way on all available options--keeping and raising the child, having and placing the child up for adoption, abortion, and the resources that are available. I work with this organization here http://www.assurancecare.org/. They provide a lot of free counseling, testing, abortion information, options for women and girls who are unsure. They dont perform abortions here, but will tell you where to go to get one should that be the choice made. Women who make the choice to abort shoudl also have access to free post-procedure counseling as well, should they begin to have feelings or regret and depression. It should not shun them or belittle them.

Regarding the welfare/government assistance debate. Sometimes this is necessary in order to help the mother/family get back on their feet. What I have a problem with are those who are on government assistance, know about how pregnancy is achieved, have access to freebie birth control methods, dont care, and continue having more children in order to get a bigger check from the government, and encourage their teen girls to continue the cycle and do the same. I encountered this scenario more times than I could count on a weekly basis in my last job. I wont continue to go on about this because I can write novels, but know atleast in my area the abuse of this system far outweighs those who are on it legitimately, and reform is needed.

I think this would be counterproductive. I'm thinking back to how I was at 16, and even though my parents are great people and we have an open relationship, I would have been HORRIFIED to ask them, "Hey mom/dad, I really want pills so I can have sex with my boyfriend, but I need you to sign this paper and take time off of work to take me to the clinic so I can get them."

I'm completely there with you on the education and counseling front. That's great. But requiring women to obtain permission to make health care decisions is not going to prevent unwanted pregnancies. If anything, I think it would create more. ("I'm too embarassed/my parents have religious objections to birth control/my parents don't understand/my parent(s) are the ones sexually abusing me.....So I'll just go without birth control".)

By this line of reasoning, any illegal act which continues should simply be legalized and then the government can regulate it. There are all kinds of illegal activities that people continue to do - hmmm, probably all of them - but I don't know that people continuing to do an action is a good argument for legalizing it.

If I had written the original poll . . .
 

. . . here would be my choices.

I believe abortion should be

1.) totally illegal.
2.) totally illegal except in cases of rape, incest, and endangering the life of the mother.
3.) totally illegal except when it endangers the life of the mother.
4.) totally legal though the first trimester.
5.) totally legal through the second trimester.
6.) totally legal, no exceptions.
7.) legal through the first trimester with some restrictions.
8.) legal through the second trimester with some restrictions.
9.) legal through the third trimester with some restrictions.


That would cover more of the subtle nuances alluded to, I think.

This is essentially my position, and agree heartily with each of these points. I would personally be very uncomfortable with a loved one having an abortion, but I don't think the State has an absolute right to ban them either. I think, in the end, it takes a weighing of interests (i.e. how close the fetus is to viability).

Also, for what it's worth, I hate most discussions about the abortion issue, and I don't think there's a chance in hell that Roe gets reversed (which, for me, means people spend far too much time basing their votes on it).

But even that, which is more thorough, misses some of the issues. There are people who think it should be legal through the third trimester with heavy restrictions, or legal with heavy restrictions (beyond rape, incest and saving the mother's life). It's just such a complex issue that it's impossible to break it down into any sort of accurate poll.

I didn't read the article yet.

I believe abortion should be legal up to the second trimester. Some opponents of abortion would have people think that a woman gets pregnant, decides in a few seconds to have an abortion, has the procedure done, and goes on with her life. It's not that simple.

I am pro choice: don't tell me what I can do with my body, and I won't tell you what you can do with yours. <--my personal definition of pro choice.

I see too many parents in my office with too many kids who are too lazy to: stop having unprotected sex, take up the offer for free or low cost contraception or just don't want to utilitze the family planning (up to and including sterilization for men and women). If the government (or whoever) would support a fact-based sex education program, then I believe the number of unintended pregnancies would be reduced.

eta: I am really impressed that this discussion has remained civil and thought provoking. :) Yay, GC!! lol!

I would hope that as educated, articulate and involved members of GLOS we would of course be civil. Except when it comes to AI (ducks)! :rolleyes: eta - Maybe it's because we are all fair-minded enough to realize that those who wish abortion to remain legal aren't all crazed baby-killers, and those who want abortion to be illegal aren't all bible-thumping ,women-hating neanderthals. One would hope. Obama is certainly reaching out to both sides, which is a welcome change. YES I agree we need to cut down on the need for abortion at ALL. I do feel I should interject that it is well and good to educate in terms of contraception, but it often fails. I have four children whom I love more than life itself - half of them are the result of contraceptive failure. :eek:

I knew the thread would be hijacked in terms of the discussion of abortion itself, but I am really interested in what the meaning of the Gallup poll is. Some possible theories I have heard in the media:

1.) That people tend to argue against the position of the party in power. Therefore, since Obama is president and Democrats are the majority party, more voters will identify themselves as pro-life. http://www.slate.com/id/2218697/ http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/...oll/index.html

2.) That we are seeing the first generation of those whose first baby pictures were in utereo coming into adulthood - and they are more likely to identify with the pro-life tag.

3.) That, as we've seen here, there are those who are pro - legal abortion, but who personally feel that abortion is a moral wrong.
http://reason.com/news/show/133737.html


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=104429489


Any other thoughts or insights? The fact that it was a Gallup poll, and not a Planned Parenthood or Right to Life poll, makes it more interesting, I think.

I don't think MC meant for the smoking analogy to be taken this way. His analogy, as I understood it, was simply to explain why the anti-abortion/pro-abortion label was flawed.

Pro-X means you're for X, in and of itself. Because you believe someone has the right to do X doesn't mean you like X.

Maybe the right to burn an American flag is a good analogy since it doesn't involve human harm. I myself would never burn an American flag, but I think Americans should have the choice to do so (assuming it causes no harm to others). In this regard, I'm pro-flag-burning-choice, but not pro-flag-burning.

And thus the problem with arguments from analogy. Burning a flag doesn't in any way intrude on any one else's rights - you can't argue the flag has a "right" to not be burned. The central issue for abortion is whether or not there is only one person - the mother's - rights to be considered, or whether or not there is another person/potential person's rights which should also be considered. So I'm happy to say pro/anti legalization of abortion, if that makes it clearer.
BUT THEN for extra special bonus fun -what about the rights of the father? If the baby is born, he has an obligation to support the child - does that mean he should have a say in an abortion? If so, to what extent?

As a parent, I'm going with ThetaPrincess on this one. My child's school can't give my kid an aspirin without my permission, but someone can perform a surgical procedure or give my child much more potent drugs without my knowledge, much less my permission? Include safeguards where the child can bypass parental consent where truly appropriate and necessary, but if the kid's a minor, then the kid's a minor and her parents are responsible for her.

I can hear my daughter now: "Oh no you di - nt!" :D

Only what I said earlier -- that the terms are vague or fluid enough that they can mean whatever respondents want them to mean.

Exactly! Pro-abortion means you favor abortion. That is quite a different assertion from saying that you believe that the government has a more-or-less limited role in prohibiting abortions. I think agzg hit the nail on the head:

Quote:

Originally Posted by agzg (Post 1814260) It's ok to call pro-life viewpoints anti-abortion I guess but "pro-abortion" for someone who is pro-choice insinuates that that person would like a free-for-all policy on abortion including late term abortions, encouraged abortions and unsafe practices which is just not true (for the bulk of us that are pro-choice).

And frankly, I think it's an intentional insinuation -- not by SWTXBelle necessary, but by many who would ban abortions. It's a standard political tactic -- skew public opinion of those who oppose you by caricaturing their position. Don't want to outlaw abortions? Then obviously you're in favor of abortions.

I'm content to let people and groups choose for themselves what descriptor is accurate for them.

I wasn't comparing flag-burning with abortion. I was using flag-burning as an example of what is insinuated by the term pro-X (whatever X may be).

For me, abortion quickly becomes a pragmatic argument along the following lines:

Why ban abortion?
A: Because it is ending a life.

When does 'life' start?
A: Nobody can define this with any accuracy in ways that do not rely on personal views (primarily spiritual/religious, but 'personal' is much more accurate).

For that reason, the only thing that makes sense from a 'universalist' view is to generally ban abortions starting at the point of viability (since that seems to be the first "indisputable" point of no return). I'm essentially resolute in this, but am open to some exceptions to the absolute (such as a potentially non-viable fetus that endangers the mother's life).

Before the point of viability (which is still arbitrary, but so is the drinking age), I just can't see the state's compelling interest in banning abortion, because the state simply cannot have a "personal" (spiritual/religious) position on the matter. Individuals can, certainly - and if the individual feels that life begins at conception (and therefore, abortion is ending a life at any point), I would invite them to participate in legal, safe opportunities to prevent abortions through means like education and alternative programming. Past that, I see no reason to enact a specific policy on it, in a general sense. Cases such as minors and corner cases should certainly be treated just as they would in any other situation, which is why parental notification and similar don't bother me in any way.

I can't see how this kind of opinion makes me, in any way, "pro-abortion" - in reality, it's pro-individual much more than it is pro-choice or pro-abortion.

As an aside, the semantic gamesmanship behind "pro-life" and "pro-choice" is one of the most amazing pieces of spin in modern history - a tour de force of douchebaggery all the way around.