Gallup Poll says majority of Americans identify as pro-life

[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.

[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.

[nikki1920]

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!

[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.

[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).

[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.

[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?

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

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.

And as the father of an 8 1/2.-year-old girl, I think treating a 9-year-old as an adult for almost any purpose is stupid.

She is not an adult. Similar treatments may be called for and the like, but she is not an adult. She cannot make decisions like an adult. She cannot understand the consequences of her decisions like an adult (or like an adult should be able to do).

[SWTXBelle]

Interesting question raised by AOIIAngel's post - a 9 year old is not legally able to make medical decisions for herself - were she to be pregnant, would she in fact be able to make it for her child, or would it fall to the grandparents? GC lawyers? Haven't there been cases where the (grand)parents wanted a minor woman to have an abortion and she didn't want one? What happens in that case?

FWIW, just because you can have sex and get pregnant does not translate into adulthood for me. Legally speaking, we pick an arbitrary age to make children into adults - we don't base it on physical attributes. I know there was a discussion regarding the 13 year old who didn't want to undergo chemo - he is learning-disabled, and there was a great deal of debate as to how much input a child should have in making medical choices for him/herself.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

And as the father of an 8 1/2.-year-old girl, I think treating a 9-year-old as an adult for almost any purpose is stupid.

She is not an adult. Similar treatments may be called for and the like, but she is not an adult. She cannot make decisions like an adult. She cannot understand the consequences of her decisions like an adult (or like an adult should be able to do).

That may be true, but it is the reality of the situation. I think if you look at it from a medical perspective, 9 year old pregnant girls likely don't have reasonable parents to help them make decisions anyway. I didn't make the rule, but trust me...it's how it works.