|
Post by mindy on May 16, 2009 1:57:01 GMT
Poll indicates more Americans call themselves 'pro-life' It's the first time since Gallup began asking the question 14 years ago that more don't say they're 'pro-choice' on abortion. By Robin Abcarian 6:47 PM PDT, May 15, 2009 At a time when President Obama is trying to persuade opponents in the abortion battle that they can find middle ground -- in rhetoric, if not reality -- a new Gallup poll shows that more Americans describe themselves as "pro-life." For the first time since it began asking the question in 1995, the Gallup Poll reported Thursday, 51% of the American adults questioned for its annual Values and Beliefs survey said that when it comes to abortion, they consider themselves "pro-life." Forty-two percent consider themselves "pro-choice." (There is a 3-percentage-point margin of error.) This finding, Gallup noted, represents a significant shift from years past. As recently as last year, 50% of respondents called themselves "pro-choice" and 44% identified themselves as "pro-life." Moderate and conservative Republicans accounted for the change; Democrats' attitudes toward abortion remained constant. "It is possible," Gallup said in its analysis, that the president "has pushed the public's understanding of what it means to be 'pro-choice' slightly to the left, politically." Also, in a shift, there is a convergence in the number of Americans who hold what Gallup called "extreme views" on abortion. Those are people who say abortion should always be illegal (23%) and people who say it should never be illegal (22%). Previously, more people thought abortion should always be legal. On what Gallup calls "the middle option" -- that abortion should be legal only under certain circumstances -- the number has remained steady at 53% since 1975. "I am pretty confident that Americans really don't want Roe v. Wade overturned," said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. The larger number of Americans calling themselves "pro-life," she said, "doesn't square with what has happened in the last several elections." Keenan cited the rejection of abortion bans by voters in politically conservative South Dakota in 2006 and 2008, and the failure of five other antiabortion ballot measures in California, Oregon and Colorado since 2005. But antiabortion activists think they have more than the new poll on their side. "This isn't new," said Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life. "It tracks pretty much with what we've always known: People generally are pro-life depending on how you ask the question." The Gallup poll comes at a delicate moment for the president, who campaigned on the principle that abortion should be "safe, legal and rare." During his first three months in office, he took a number of steps that infuriated abortion foes. For example, he lifted abortion restrictions on foreign family planning groups that receive U.S. funding, and ended President George W. Bush's ban on embryonic stem cell research. But Obama has tried at times to appease opponents of abortion rights. During the campaign, he vowed to enact the Freedom of Choice Act, which would guarantee the right to legal abortion even if Roe vs. Wade were overturned. Last month, he backpedaled, saying the legislation was not a top priority. But Yoest said abortion foes were not placated. "There has been such an avalanche of pro-abortion activity that it's jaw-dropping," she said. "It's not just that his rhetoric doesn't square with reality; the gap is Grand Canyon-size. I think this administration has fundamentally miscalculated how out of step they are with the American people on the abortion issue." robin.abcarian@latimes.com www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-abortion-poll16-2009may16,0,3897855.story
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2009 6:32:29 GMT
I wonder what all those people who claim to be anti - abortion think about IVF treatment, which usually involves (as I understand it) either the destruction of at least one healthy embryo or the deliberate continuation oif a multiple pregnancy where none of the foetuses stand much chance of reaching full term.
I know that most people who believe life begins at conception and have thought things through are opposed to IVF and embryonic cell research mentioned in mindy's article. But I bet if the researchers kicked off with the question "do you agree with IVF?" a lot of the proclaimed anti's would have said yes.
As Charmaine Yoest so very rightly says, it al depends how you ask the question.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on May 16, 2009 8:59:07 GMT
I reject the terminology of this debate. I am pro-life. I think life is a great thing on the whole. Being anti-life would be like being anti-motherhood or anti-apple pie. I also believe that first trimester abortions should be freely and safely available on demand (with appropriate contraceptive advice and counselling as required.) In my experience those who claim to be 'pro-life' frequently really aren't. Frequently they're also in favour of the death penalty. The debate about time limits is unresolved . . and you'll have noted I was careful to say that my views covered the first trimester only. I do believe the debate about the principle of abortion is fundamentally different from the debate about time limits. www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/jan/29/health.publicservicesThis survey of UK women suggests that only 10% would like to see abortion outlawed completely. www.abortionrights.org.uk/content/view/171/106/This survey suggests 77% of the UK population do not want to see abortion outlawed. The USA is fairly unique among Western civilisations with its opposition to abortions per se. I wonder if it's down to the success of evangelical Christian movements over there at a time when the rest of the civilised west is increasingly secular? (Of course, there is no biblical basis to be opposed to be abortion, but it has nonetheless been taken up as a cause celebre by the American Christians. What a shame they didn't take up similarly strong stances on some of the social justice issues Christ preached on.)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2009 9:52:26 GMT
I reject the terminology of this debate. I am pro-life. I think life is a great thing on the whole. Being anti-life would be like being anti-motherhood or anti-apple pie. I also believe that first trimester abortions should be freely and safely available on demand (with appropriate contraceptive advice and counselling as required.) In my experience those who claim to be 'pro-life' frequently really aren't. Frequently they're also in favour of the death penalty. The debate about time limits is unresolved . . and you'll have noted I was careful to say that my views covered the first trimester only. I do believe the debate about the principle of abortion is fundamentally different from the debate about time limits. I agree with all of that. On the subject of terminology, it is strange that those who describe themselves as Pro Life are firmly against all abortion, yet are happy to decribe their opponents as "pro abortion", thus implying that pro-choicers wish to make termination compulsory. Of course they don't, but perhaps that is the answer to saving the planet!
|
|
|
Post by beth on May 16, 2009 15:55:05 GMT
Nice posts, RG and Skylark. I had similar thoughts when I saw this article. Surely no one would tell a survey they were not prolife. This is double-speak created by social conservatives to try to brand prochoice as the direct opposite of prolife. Outlawing abortion would not stop abortion - just create an atmosphere in which more women would die due to unprofessional, unsanitary conditions.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on May 16, 2009 17:36:45 GMT
How cananyone who supported spraying agent orange onto another Country as well as dropping two of the biggest bombs in history, not to mention killing thousands of innocent men women and children call them selve pro life?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2009 20:17:42 GMT
Remember also that some people oppose abortion even though they don't believe that a recently-introduced egg and sperm acquire the status of a human.
I know two people - one a teenager, the other a grandmother - who believe that abortion is hugely damaging to a woman. I am unsure of the grounds for their views, but a lot of propaganda to this effect has been put out by the anti-abortion groups, and some of it has been shown to be untrue.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on May 16, 2009 21:16:03 GMT
I'm sure that for some women having an abortion is physically and/or psychologically traumatic.
So why do the 'pro-life' mob also try to stop sex education and contraception?
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on May 16, 2009 22:30:44 GMT
I can only speak for myself but I'm pro-life AND a supporter of sex education and contraception.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on May 17, 2009 0:26:04 GMT
I can only speak for myself but I'm pro-life AND a supporter of sex education and contraception. But Lin, what do you mean 'pro life'? We are all pro life as RG points out. Nobody is suggesting that abortion be made compulsory. What we are saying is that IF a woman wants an abortion, she shouldn't have to go to a back street abortionist, that is all. We are not handing out leaflets saying, kill a baby it is good for a laugh.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2009 6:13:23 GMT
Do you think that an embryo is a baby, Random Voice?
If I did, I certainly wouldn't be in favour of legalising early abortion.
RG, I'm not denying that abortion is damaging for some women, but the recent research I've seen shows that most women suffer no ill effects at all.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on May 17, 2009 13:37:33 GMT
If I did, I certainly wouldn't be in favour of legalising early abortion. Hmm, what I think is not really relevant. I cannot see why we would want to make that choice for someone else in completely different circumstances to our own. Please remember that prior to the 1967 act women who wanted rid of that embryo would go down to the back street abortionist, would have been making that choice for decades before the abortion laws. Given that women will still want to have abortions, I think it better that they have it in safe, clean conditions than a front parlour of a ‘practitioner’ of dubious training.
|
|
|
Post by mindy on May 17, 2009 13:41:13 GMT
Do you think that an embryo is a baby, Random Voice? If I did, I certainly wouldn't be in favour of legalising early abortion. RG, I'm not denying that abortion is damaging for some women, but the recent research I've seen shows that most women suffer no ill effects at all. Yes, an embryo is OBVIOUSLY a baby! What else is it? It's not a nothing, it's a life! Abortion is very close to murder, in my opinion. It's a selfish way out of an inconvenient situation. Especially when there are so many people who can't have children and would love to adopt a newborn.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on May 17, 2009 14:00:21 GMT
Yes, an embryo is OBVIOUSLY a baby! What else is it? It's not a nothing, it's a life! Abortion is very close to murder, in my opinion. It's a selfish way out to an inconvenient situation. Especially when there are so many people who can't have children and would love to adopt a newborn. Well if that is how you feel then don’t have an abortion, but what makes you feel you have the right to decide for other people how they feel? Why not simply keep your nose out of other people’s business? Surely that is fair? Those that believe that life starts at conception can choose to make that decision, but those who think differently be allowed to make their own decision. What would we rather have, benefits or abortion?
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on May 17, 2009 14:08:04 GMT
Do you think that an embryo is a baby, Random Voice? If I did, I certainly wouldn't be in favour of legalising early abortion. RG, I'm not denying that abortion is damaging for some women, but the recent research I've seen shows that most women suffer no ill effects at all. Yes, an embryo is OBVIOUSLY a baby! What else is it? It's not a nothing, it's a life! Abortion is very close to murder, in my opinion. It's a selfish way out to an inconvenient situation. Especially when there are so many people who can't have children and would love to adopt a newborn. Is a zygote a baby? Of course it isn't. An embryo is a collection of cells at an early stage of animal development , No heart, limbs, eyes, nervous or circulatory system. Is it always selfish? No, there are often circumstances when it is better that the child is not born. A glimpse into our common ancestry
|
|