Gallup Poll says majority of Americans identify as pro-life

[SWTXBelle]

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?

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

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.

Then I would have refused to answer Gallup, too. (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.

[texas*princess]

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"

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

I don't believe in the kind of blackmail my sister espouses - "Pay me to raise this child or I'll kill it" essentially.

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

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.

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.

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by texas*princess

Whaaaaa? Who ever said that? Not everyone choosing to have an abortion is wanting a hand out from the government or anyone else.
No, but as BigRedBeta pointed out - there are many who think that if you do not support abortion you should pay to raise the child. The one does not logically follow from the other is my point - it is possible to believe that a child should not be aborted, but perhaps should be raised by someone other than the biological mother.



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?

The question is not simply what the government will or will not allow you to do to "their" bodies - were there not another living being concerned, no one would care. Going back to MC's smoking analogy - you can legally smoke, but you cannot infringe on a non-smokers right to not smoke. So the mother can do whatever she likes with her body - the issue becomes more complicated when it becomes about what she wants to do with the body of her child. As to sexually abused and raped - I don't know that an innocent child should have to pay for the crime of his/her father. I don't think that one act of violence should beget another.
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? Most children in foster care did NOT enter the system as babies - the majority are older children who are in the system as a result of the state stepping in and taking them out of a bad situation.

Some people can't afford the healthcare they need for their baby during pregnancy either. There are groups whose sole focus is prenatal care for those who can't afford it - some of which I referenced above.

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.

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.

[SWTXBelle]

. . . 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.

[SydneyK]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

The question is not simply what the government will or will not allow you to do to "their" bodies - were there not another living being concerned, no one would care. Going back to MC's smoking analogy - you can legally smoke, but you cannot infringe on a non-smokers right to not smoke. So the mother can do whatever she likes with her body - the issue becomes more complicated when it becomes about what she wants to do with the body of her child. As to sexually abused and raped - I don't know that an innocent child should have to pay for the crime of his/her father. I don't think that one act of violence should beget another.

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.

[SWTXBelle]

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?

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by ThetaPrincess24

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),

Originally Posted by PhoenixAzul

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."

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.

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

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)!

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

Any other thoughts or insights?

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

Originally Posted by SydneyK

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.

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:

Originally Posted by agzg

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.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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!"

I've gotta tell you...once an underage girl becomes pregnant, for all purposes of her medical care, she is an ADULT. It doesn't matter if she is 9 years old. I think then saying you're an adult and have to make your own medical decisions as a mother, but if you want an abortion you are now a minor and have to ask permission of your parent is stupid.

The problem with a lot of this debate is that it is not completely about abortion rights. The debate includes social and religious views about contraception, pre-marital sex, sex education and a plethora of other topics.
I think at some point we all will have to decide that to reach a goal of decreasing the number of abortions in this country, we have to accept that contraception and sex education should be readily available with NO impediment put on teenagers because of their parents personal moral or religious ideology. A recent study showed that pre-marital sex rates have not changed since the 20's. The polled people from their teens to their 80s and 95% of people reported that they engaged in pre-marital sex. This whole "abstinence" ideal is a myth. People LIE. Do we want to pretend we all were virgins until marriage and leave our children to sneak out and get pregnant because giving contraception "sends the wrong message?" Or do we accept that the VAST MAJORITY of Americans don't practice what they preach and that we'd do our children a favor by being realistic and giving them the tools to protect themselves from unwanted pregnancies and deadly diseases?

[SydneyK]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

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.

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).