Gallup Poll says majority of Americans identify as pro-life

[BigRedBeta]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

I prefer "anti-abortion" or "pro-abortion"

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...

[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.

[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).

[ThetaPrincess24]

Originally Posted by BigRedBeta

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 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.

[PhoenixAzul]

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),

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".)

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

I agree with most of this. I would add a caveat to #1 to say "unless the life of the mother is at risk due to the pregnancy, in which case, the life of the mother would take precedence"

Originally Posted by ThetaPrincess24

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).

... 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),

I agree with the first paragraph of yours, which I quoted.

I don't necessarily agree with your second paragraph. My view is greatly slanted because of working on adolescent psych units for 13 years. In a "good" family, all that would work. But, when daughter is being molested by mom's boyfriend and mom won't leave the guy and there isn't enough evidence to have the guy removed from the home, I think *that* kid should be able to get whatever they need to avoid having a baby. When parents are so unrealistic that the girl will be exiled from the family if she does any of those things (because her boyfriend is not of the same religion as them), but she IS going to have sex anyway, she should be able to get those things. (Yes, worked with a 17 year old girl whose family held a funeral for her, refused to speak to her, but allowed her to live in their home and fed her, because they legally had to, because she was dating a boy outside their religion.. she was understandably suicidal). In a "normal" family, they should be able to talk about these things. The problem is, there are far too many families that are totally insane and dysfunctional. While there are currently court processes to get around these kinds of situations, kids don't know how to access that system.

Parents walk a very fine line between trying to teach their kids morality AND responsibility at the same time. You don't want to condone promiscuous sex yet you realize that they will NOT wait until they're married, especially in this day and age when people are getting married later and later, but puberty is happening earlier and earlier. You can talk about what an intimate act it is and how it should only occur when you're really in love and mature enough to handle the consequences, but they THINK they're really in love and mature enough long before they really are. All that said, I have told my daughter that when she is at the point of needing to be on birth control, that I will support her in that. I'm lucky though that she's a kid with pretty good self esteem and strong future goals and she doesn't want to do things that will mess up her future. I have considered, when she or my son starts dating, putting a box of condoms in the linen closet to make them available if they need them, no questions asked, but, like I said, it also kind of feels like I'm condoning it. My hope is that neither of them date someone that seriously for a while so I don't have to deal with it yet.

ETA: I don't think the father should be able to force a woman to have a child, because there are so many complications with carrying a child for 9 months and going through labor. Conversely, I don't think a woman who wants the child should be able to force a man who wants her to have an abortion to support that child forever either. I think men should have some sort of "waiver" they could sign to say they will not accept parental rights or responsibilities if the woman chooses to have the child. Women should not be able to "trap" a man in this way and it's too easy for us to do so at this point in time.

[squirrely girl]

Originally Posted by AGDee

My view is greatly slanted because of working on adolescent psych units for 13 years.

exactly! i worked with kids in state's custody for about five years and my views are forever slanted now. i think morals and lofty ideals work out fine for most people until they end up in situations like the ones you described. life isn't as black and white as people want to make it out to be.

even in my own recent pregnancy and birth of my son, i found myself in a weird gray area. i was RELIGIOUS about taking my birth control and using alternate methods during the "off week". so who has two thumbs and was part of the 1% who got pregnant on birth control? this girl!

i'm pro-choice politically (i'm the only one who should be making decisions about my vagina and uterus and i feel the same about everybody else's reproductive organs as well), but i don't personally believe in abortion (i guess i'll blame my catholic upbringing).

now here i was, a recently divorced, third year ph.d. student, living in a one bedroom apartment with my bf, getting by on the pittance that the university pays me as a grad student and whatever adjunct positions i can pick up each semester. really not the ideal for having a child. however, with family help we were able to pull it off and we're doing as well as we can in this economy and our situation.

can i sit here and pretend that abortion was never a thought? hell no. of course it went through my mind. i'm glad i made the decision that i made, but i feel like i had (and still do) a lot of support. not every person has that. i won't judge other people's lives that i don't live on daily basis. that's just ignorant.

so i guess i consider myself pro-choice. i chose to have my child.

- m

[UGAalum94]

At some point, though, rhetoric about having control of your body falls apart unless you don't believe that at any point in pregnancy the fetus becomes a person. I think people who believe that fetuses shouldn't have any legal protections as people until they are actually born are pretty rare. Are you just controlling your body if you abort a healthy fetus in the 38th week? It seems to me that you wouldn't just be controlling your body; you're terminating the life of another.

I'm also perplexed by why rape or incest (or fetal disability) make a difference in cases carried beyond whatever limits you would otherwise impose. We don't go around killing the products of rape or incest (or the disabled) after they are born, so why would we make exceptions in the cases that for whatever reasons we'd otherwise legal restrict? (I understand why people who want no abortions at all make allowances because it seems too cruel not to, but it makes less sense to permit these exceptions in a system that would allow early abortions for any reasons.)

And for those of us who would restrict abortions after viability, what standard are you using? The lowest age a fetus has survived at? The age at which 50% of more fetuses would likely survive? What do you do as this age is pushed lower because of neo-natal technology? Why does the standard of inducing birth and seeing if the fetus survives seems so barbaric but allowing abortions at the same age doesn't?