Gallup Poll says majority of Americans identify as pro-life

[SydneyK]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

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 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

[SWTXBelle]

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

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. . . . I'm sorry if I did not clarify - it is the political identification that is being discussed, at least for the most part.

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.

[ISUKappa]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

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.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

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).

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

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 agree. There's not even an option for cases where the child will die either in utero or soon after birth, like in the case of anenocephaly, which is often diagnosed pretty late in the pregnancy (don't Google it, please!), or even one of the trisomies where the baby may not make it an hour after birth.

The way I see it is, and I think most people agree: like much of life itself, there are too many shades of grey. I know I'm pro-life for myself, but pro-choice for the other 6.1 billion people on this planet. Does that make me a hypocrite? I hope not!

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

I know I'm pro-life for myself, but pro-choice for the other 6.1 billion people on this planet. Does that make me a hypocrite? I hope not!

No, it doesn't. It means you recognize that while YOU may not wish to make that choice, other people should have the opportunity to do so.

I don't know if I would ever be able to have an abortion, but I definitely think I should be able to have that option if the situation arises.

What I find hypocritical is being against abortion, but in support of the death penalty.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

What I find hypocritical is being against abortion, but in support of the death penalty.

I see what you mean on the basis of human life.

The difference is that an unborn child hasn't done anything and is considered an innocent life. On the other hand, a person given the death penalty has been found by the legal system to have done something.

[starang21]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

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?

what someone else does with their body isn't my responsibility. who am i to dictate what they do?

[SWTXBelle]

It's not what you want to do to YOUR body - it's what you want to do to the unborn BABY'S that raises the question. Were it merely a case of doing something to your body - like piercing, or plastic surgery - no one, not even self-proclaimed pro-lifers, would care.

I don't like tattoos, but have no reason to prevent you from getting one. That analogy doesn't translate into a discussion about abortion, because there is a third party involved. If a woman has an abortion, her right to HER body infringes on the right of another - hence the term "right to life". As to the question of "Who am I to dictate . . .", well, you do it all the time through the laws of your country. We dictate how fast you can drive your car, when you can drink, at what age you can get a tattoo, when you can sign a contract . . . who are we to dictate? We are citizens who don't wish to live in anarchy.

[texas*princess]

article on Salon.com

Susan Hill, President of the National Women's Health Foundation, who knew Dr. Tiller for over two decades and referred girls and women to his clinic, said in a phone interview, "We always sent the really tragic cases to Tiller." Those included women diagnosed with cancer who needed abortions to qualify for chemotherapy, women who learned late in their pregnancies that their wanted babies had fatal illnesses, and rape victims so young they didn't realize they were pregnant for months. "We sent him 11-year-olds, 12-year-olds who were way too far along for anybody [else] to see," said Hill. "Eleven-year-olds don't tell anybody. Sometimes they don't even know they've had a period."

Since the news of Dr. Tiller's murder broke, personal narratives from people who used his services have been appearing around the Web. A commenter at the blog Balloon Juice told the story of finding out in the eighth month of his wife's pregnancy that she was carrying conjoined twins. "Conjoined twins alone is not what was so difficult but the way they were joined meant that at best only one child would survive the surgery to separate them and the survivor would more than likely live a brief and painful life filled with surgery and organ transplants." They chose to terminate the much-wanted pregnancy, rather than bring a child into the world only to suffer and die. "The nightmare of our decision and the aftermath was only made bearable by the warmth and compassion of Dr. Tiller and his remarkable staff." A commenter on Metafilter tells a similar story: "My wife and I spent a week in Dr. Tiller's care after we learned our 21 week fetus had a severe defect incompatible with life. The laws in our state prevented us from ending the pregnancy there, and Dr. Tiller was one of maybe three choices in the whole nation at that gestational age." He went on to share his memories of Dr. Tiller. "I remember him firmly stating that he regarded the abortion debate in the US to be about the control of women's sexuality and reproduction. I remember he spent over six hours in one-on-one care with my wife when there was concern she had an infection. We're talking about a physician here. Six hours.... The walls of the clinic reception and waiting room are literally covered with letters from patients thanking him. Some were heartbreaking -- obviously young and/or poorly educated people thanking Dr. Tiller for being there when they had no other options, explaining their family, church, etc. had abandoned them."

Links to older stories are also spreading on social media and blogs. A 2001 article originally published in Glamour relates the experience of Gloria Gonzalez, who learned that the twins she was carrying were gravely ill and threatening her own health. "As a Christian and a married woman who desperately wanted a child, I'd never given much thought to abortion. Like many others, I assumed that only women with unwanted pregnancies had the procedure." Yet after she and her husband consulted with several doctors and their pastor, "We knew what we had to do. Letting the girls die on their own didn't seem like an option, because we believed they were suffering while endangering my own health." The Web site A Heartbreaking Choice, which compiles stories from women who have chosen to terminate wanted pregnancies, has a section devoted to "Kansas Stories," from women who traveled to Wichita after receiving catastrophic diagnoses too late in their pregnancies to obtain legal abortions in their own states. The stories are painfully similar: A couple is thrilled to be expecting a baby, only to see a doctor's face turn grim during a routine ultrasound. Something is terribly wrong. And whatever the specific diagnosis is, the prognosis is essentially the same: If your baby lives, it will suffer constantly and die young.

The trauma of receiving such a diagnosis is only compounded by the difficulty of obtaining a late-term abortion. Writes one woman, "The reality is that finding a doctor to do this procedure in the late second or third trimester is almost impossible. For me, the reality was that at the most painful time of my life I had to travel out of state, stay in a hotel room and face hostile protesters in order to carry out this most personal of choices." Another writes, "I had to fly to Kansas to have the procedure done. It was a five-day out patient procedure that cost us almost $9,000 after all was said and done. I am hurt and angry at the state of Maryland for taking away my right to allow my daughter to die in peace ... I was appalled that Maryland did not have a quality-of-life addendum to the late-term termination law." Susan Hill says enduring the expense and stress of travel is the only option for most women who need late abortions in the U.S. "The restrictions under the Bush administration made it impossible for most states to allow abortions past 16 weeks. All the southern states are restricted tremendously. A few places in New York, if it was medically necessary, could possibly do it, but the paperwork was unbelievable, and there was no time left. That's why they referred people to Tiller. And for that he lost his life. "

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

It's not what you want to do to YOUR body - it's what you want to do to the unborn BABY'S that raises the question. Were it merely a case of doing something to your body - like piercing, or plastic surgery - no one, not even self-proclaimed pro-lifers, would care.

I don't like tattoos, but have no reason to prevent you from getting one. That analogy doesn't translate into a discussion about abortion, because there is a third party involved. If a woman has an abortion, her right to HER body infringes on the right of another - hence the term "right to life". As to the question of "Who am I to dictate . . .", well, you do it all the time through the laws of your country. We dictate how fast you can drive your car, when you can drink, at what age you can get a tattoo, when you can sign a contract . . . who are we to dictate? We are citizens who don't wish to live in anarchy.

But at the same time, we do not legislate what pregnant women can or cannot do to their bodies when pregnant. They can drink, smoke, do drugs, etc. This clearly will have an effect on the fetus, including death, birth defects, addiction, but we don't outlaw those either. Fetuses only have rights up to a certain extent.

My personal opinion about abortion is this:

First trimester abortions should be completely unrestricted.
Second and Third trimester abortions should be allowed ONLY for severe birth defects (completely up to patient/doctor discretion, so yes, if a woman wants to abort her Down Syndrome fetus, that is her choice!), non-viability of the fetus, rape or incest victims and severe risk to the mother's life, up to 27 weeks.
-Neonatologist can routinely save 27 week premies. The results at this point for any fetus younger than that age are so variable across the country that it is NONVIABLE in many areas. This week should change as our technology changes.
-Many severe defects are only fully evaluated beyond the point where the fetus is still first trimester.
-The life of the mother should ALWAYS come first. If the pregnancy is beyond 27 weeks, then labor should be induced rather than abortion performed to save the life of the mother.

My rationale for this opinion is that first trimester fetuses have not fully developed any organ systems and are essentially a ball of cells. This gives mothers of unwanted pregnancies a chance to decide what is best for themselves.

Second and third trimester fetuses have developed all of their organ systems and can be easily identified as babies. Termination should be a last resort at this point. If a woman can't get it together to have an abortion before this point, she's S.O.L!

[DSTRen13]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

But at the same time, we do not legislate what pregnant women can or cannot do to their bodies when pregnant. They can drink, smoke, do drugs, etc. This clearly will have an effect on the fetus, including death, birth defects, addiction, but we don't outlaw those either. Fetuses only have rights up to a certain extent.

My personal opinion about abortion is this:

First trimester abortions should be completely unrestricted.
Second and Third trimester abortions should be allowed ONLY for severe birth defects (completely up to patient/doctor discretion, so yes, if a woman wants to abort her Down Syndrome fetus, that is her choice!), non-viability of the fetus, rape or incest victims and severe risk to the mother's life, up to 27 weeks.
-Neonatologist can routinely save 27 week premies. The results at this point for any fetus younger than that age are so variable across the country that it is NONVIABLE in many areas. This week should change as our technology changes.
-Many severe defects are only fully evaluated beyond the point where the fetus is still first trimester.
-The life of the mother should ALWAYS come first. If the pregnancy is beyond 27 weeks, then labor should be induced rather than abortion performed to save the life of the mother.

My rationale for this opinion is that first trimester fetuses have not fully developed any organ systems and are essentially a ball of cells. This gives mothers of unwanted pregnancies a chance to decide what is best for themselves.

Second and third trimester fetuses have developed all of their organ systems and can be easily identified as babies. Termination should be a last resort at this point. If a woman can't get it together to have an abortion before this point, she's S.O.L!

^^^ I pretty much second all of this!

[SWTXBelle]

Actually, pregnant women have been charged with abuse based on their behaviors before the child was born (drugs, for example http://www.wspa.com/spa/news/local/a...charged/16838/ ) - and, for example, Conor Peterson's father was charged with his murder, even though he was still in utereo. There oughta be a law - and there is .http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_...f_Violence_Act. So as a society we do believe some actions which impact an unborn baby are not only morally wrong, but legally.

As to TP's comment - as has been pointed out before, most of those who are pro-legal abortion aren't 100%, at all times, no exceptions, in support of abortion on demand, and most pro-lifers are not 100%, at all times, no exceptions, no abortions ever. Making an exception for a pregnancy which will result in the death of the mother is still pro-life - it just makes an exception for a situation in which both lives cannot be preserved. A life is still being saved - and weighing the two lives, the rights of the mother would seem to me to logically outweigh the rights of the unborn - but it is an exceptional situation. If it makes you feel better, call me anti-legalized abortion on demand. It is a logical fallacy to call it an either/or situation.

[SydneyK]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Second and third trimester fetuses have developed all of their organ systems and can be easily identified as babies. Termination should be a last resort at this point. If a woman can't get it together to have an abortion before this point, she's S.O.L!

For most unplanned/unwanted pregnancies, I would agree with this statement. In the case of pregnancies where birth defects aren't detected until the second or third trimester, however, I can't really blame the woman for not "getting it together" enough to have had an abortion earlier.

It's easy, in conversations like this, to forget that it isn't just unwed young women who are having abortions. (General observation - not directed at you, AOII Angel.)