Gallup Poll says majority of Americans identify as pro-life

[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)! 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.

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.

[KSig RC]

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.

[tri deezy]

The question of fathers' rights is an incredibly interesting and difficult question. Where would one even begin? Also, I think it's important to mention that "partial birth" abortions and other types of late-term abortions are extremely rarely performed and are used in cases of medical emergencies. There are diseases that can cause a fetus to be completely non-viable, meaning it could not live outside the womb. What about those? I am without a doubt pro-choice, but I would never call myself pro-abortion and I can't think of a single person who would feel comfortable with that title. This is one of my favorite debate topics.

[tri deezy]

Potter's Syndrome and Anecephaly were two of the big ones I was thinking of when I wrote my post about non-viable babies. There's another I learned about in biology class in which the embryo fails to turn into a fetus and becomes like a type of parasitic tumor that can kill the mother. What about that? Some would even argue that it would be wrong to terminate that pregnancy.

[sdeason1]

There has to be cases where a fetus needs and has to be terminated for the health of the parent and the fetus. So if the fetus goes to term and becomes a vegetable as it were, is that right? Dr. Tiller I am sure was a caring person and only did what he thought was best, not for the money. It is sad that a deminted person took it upon himself to slay him and in a church to boot. Being in the world of drugs, the options are very scary according to the ads of what can happen? Are the cures correct enough to offset the cures and cause further problems and even death.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by tri deezy

There's another I learned about in biology class in which the embryo fails to turn into a fetus and becomes like a type of parasitic tumor that can kill the mother. What about that?

Beyond gross. Is it similar or the same as this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus_in_fetu

I know of lesser reasons to terminate a pregnancy, but I definitely see nothing wrong with aborting a tumor that is "alive," but is basically nothingness.

Originally Posted by sdeason1

So if the fetus goes to term and becomes a vegetable as it were, is that right?

No, it isn't right.

However, many disagree with me. It's fine to disagree and for people to choose whatever works for them and is within legal boundaries. That's what pro-choice means to me.

[tri deezy]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Beyond gross. Is it similar or the same as this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus_in_fetu

No, not fetus in fetu. That's not necessarily fatal and that's when the fetus becomes a parasite to its living twin. The twin can survive with the non-viable twin inside them for years and years if it doesn't disrupt their vital organs or take up too much of their blood supply. There have been a few documentaries about fetus in fetu. Pretty creepy stuff.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by tri deezy

Potter's Syndrome and Anecephaly were two of the big ones I was thinking of when I wrote my post about non-viable babies. There's another I learned about in biology class in which the embryo fails to turn into a fetus and becomes like a type of parasitic tumor that can kill the mother. What about that? Some would even argue that it would be wrong to terminate that pregnancy.

You're thinking of a molar pregnancy. These can actually be cancerous. This would be caught in early pregnancy, though, since it makes the mother really sick. Another common reason for first trimester abortions is ectopic pregnancies. These are "viable" pregnancies that are routinely terminated to save the life of the mother. Would anyone say that those pregnancies should be saved?

[SWTXBelle]

Are ectopic considered viable? I've always understood them to be nonviable because the growing fetus will rupture the fallopian tube.

And while there is a small minority of pro-lifers who might argue that yes, the pregnancy should continue if the mother's life is at risk, the vast majority (including all that I know) would accept that as a legitimate reason for aborting before viability.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

Are ectopic considered viable? I've always understood them to be nonviable because the growing fetus will rupture the fallopian tube.

And while there is a small minority of pro-lifers who might argue that yes, the pregnancy should continue if the mother's life is at risk, the vast majority (including all that I know) would accept that as a legitimate reason for aborting before viability.

The vast majority of ectopic pregnancies will not survive to term. However, nothing is actually wrong with the fetus itself that we know of. There have been many ectopics that have survived to term, some within the fallopian tubes, some in the abdominal cavity. Not all ectopics are in the fallopian tubes, though, most are.

[texas*princess]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

Are ectopic considered viable? I've always understood them to be nonviable because the growing fetus will rupture the fallopian tube.

And while there is a small minority of pro-lifers who might argue that yes, the pregnancy should continue if the mother's life is at risk, the vast majority (including all that I know) would accept that as a legitimate reason for aborting before viability.

So ... I feel like you're giving conflicting opinions here. Before, in your own words, you said you're either "pro-abortion" or "anti-abortion". Many people have disagreed with your terms, but that's not really the issue right now.

If this is really what you believe, how can you be ANTI-abortion, if you think it's OK to terminate a pregnancy at all ?

[tri deezy]

I saw an incredible documentary about a set of triplets. The incredible part was that the boy triplet was an ectopic pregnancy that they didn't know about until they delivered the other two babies. Somehow his embryo had attached to the outside of another organ below her uterus (must have been bowels, but I just can't remember). Since it wasn't in the fallopian tube, the fetus was able to survive without rupturing the tube and killing the mother. The amazing thing about his survival was that it suggested that a fetus doesn't need female organs to survive and that there is a possibility with the right technology that someday, a male could carry an implanted fetus to term. Obviously a lot of medical complexities, and we're not anywhere near that just yet, but just a little something to think about.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by tri deezy

I saw an incredible documentary about a set of triplets. The incredible part was that the boy triplet was an ectopic pregnancy that they didn't know about until they delivered the other two babies. Somehow his embryo had attached to the outside of another organ below her uterus (must have been bowels, but I just can't remember). Since it wasn't in the fallopian tube, the fetus was able to survive without rupturing the tube and killing the mother. The amazing thing about his survival was that it suggested that a fetus doesn't need female organs to survive and that there is a possibility with the right technology that someday, a male could carry an implanted fetus to term. Obviously a lot of medical complexities, and we're not anywhere near that just yet, but just a little something to think about.

The problem they can't overcome, however, is the damage done by placental attachment to intra-abdominal organs. The endometrial lining is meant to accept the placenta (though there are cases where the placenta extends to the muscle of the uterus and can't be dislodged after delivery requiring an emergency hysterectomy.) Most people who successfully deliver an intra-abdominal ectopic have to have bowel resection...sometimes they die from hemorrhage.

[Pearlove]

I have had to have two abortions in my life. For both times the reason I got pregnant despite the birth control I was taking at the time, was because I wasn't informed by my doctor or pharmacist that the antibiotic I was taking at the time, negated the effectiveness of my birth control. Both times I was with my boyfriend of five years and he supported me in whatever I would decide. I still regret having them but not as much as I would've regretted keeping them. As a biology major I also know that being in the first trimester my babies had not yet reached the point of consciousness, or found the ability to feel pain, the defining characteristics that makes us human. I also know had I not had the abortions I would never have been able go to the college of my choice, or for that matter join my sorority.
So, to the people out there that so vehemently oppose what I have done, from the standpoint of a scared 17 year old girl, you should concentrate on improving the lives of those around you and not tell me what to do with mine. It is my own decision to live with.

[SWTXBelle]

TWICE you didn't bother to read the insert in your birth control and/or in the antibiotics you were given in order to know any drug interactions? TWICE in one year (when you were 17)? Really? And you are a biology major?

For the record, you could have both gone to whatever college you wanted (maybe not when you had hoped to, but you could have) and joined a sorority had you chosen to give the babies up for adoption. One of my chapter sisters did just that - and one consideration in giving her a bid was the character she showed as a scared 17 year old.

Defining being human as having " reached the point of consciousness, or found the ability to feel pain" means that there are a great many people in comas you don't regard as human - and what of those who are born with the rare inability to register pain? Are they not human?

As to improving the lives of those around me - that's exactly what I do by supporting agencies that provide support for scared 17 year olds. I've referenced the Edna Gladney Center above. Women there can attend high school AND college, have counseling and medical care, and are able to both improve their lives and give life to their babies, and those who give them up for adoption contribute to improving the lives of infertile couples.

eta - I want to be clear that while I think you made an unfortunate choice (well, two), I am sympathetic to the plight of ANY woman who finds herself in that situation. I have 4 children - 3 of whom were "unplanned". I know what it is to feel the panic and fear of having your life turned upside down. Baby #2 came in the midst of our unemployment - no insurance, no real income - yikes! Baby #4 came a mere 15 months after baby #3 - and I was 38 at the time. But out of fear and panic can come opportunity, and often the things we fear most turn out to be blessings in disguise.