America turning more “pro-life.”

Well, it’s one poll. I’m curious to see how it matches up with other polls and what might be causing this shift.

I don’t trust these results. There has been nothing in the last year that would move this number this much. I would quess this is an ” outlier” and not very accurate. Nothing to get too excited about.

Here’s a more in depth look at the data:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/05/more-about-unbearable-lightness-of.html

For my part, I have always refused to accept others’ contention that I was not “pro-life.”

I am.

I also reject the label “pro-abortion.”

I’m not.

I also don’t believe it when anti-abortion people say they’re not “pro-choice.”

Because deep down — depending on the circumstances and the people involved — most of them are.

Obviously young Mr. Powers quotes only one “survey”, and it may or may not have been run by somebody else’s version of Sibby.

So to bring this home: I’m Pro-Choice…meaning no government or church interference in this kind of stuff. Don’t be telling my granddaughter’s husband if he can allow smoking or not in his business, no sirree!

Oh right, the Gallup Organization. I think I heard they are the polling arm of the Farmily Research Council.

(sighhhh…..)

The poll is just more evidence that efforts by some in the national Republican leadership to distance themselves from Pro-Life (sorry Bill) Social Conservatives are misguided.

bf, you say you’re difficult to label, but your position is easy to explain: you want abortion, as we know it, to be legal.

so, maybe we could say you’re “pro-legal-abortion,” if we have to attach a label. am i right?

calling you “pro-abortion” may not be completely accurate, but having your opponents — people who believe abortion is the immoral taking of an innocent life — shorthand your label is a risk you take.
you’re right, though, about how some “pro-life” people quickly become “pro-choice” when they put on the shoes of crisis pregnancy. i was one of those hypocrites.

that’s a problem of people not living out their faith. they allow themselves to get entangled in the weeds of our culture.

lexrex,

Then pro-choice Christians are not ‘living out their faith’?

lexrex,

So those who want to reduce abortion would still be “pro-abortion” to you?

It all comes down to exceptions.

Of the 49% that say they are prolife, how many believe there should be some exceptions for rape or health of the mother.

If you ask the same question except without any exceptions I bet there would be a different outcome.

Those Christians who support abortion in all or most circumstances are either confused or deceived.

Why not support both a legal ban and/or legal restrictions, and using (effective) policy to reduce abortions as well?

Many pro-choicers want to “reduce the number of abortions,” which typically means both poo-pooing the idea of a legal ban, and uncritical support of byzantine social programs that show no evidence of achieving the so-called desired goal.

The poll certainly represents a significant shift from last year. It is one of the biggest single year shifts since the inception of the poll in 1995. The poll doesn’t tell why people have shifted but asserts that the new administration may have something to do with it.

What hasn’t been reported from the poll is that the number of people supporting abortion in some form is at 76% (53% under certain circumstances + 23% under all circumstances.) While the shift is dramatic, I don’t think America is ready to embrace the extremes.

lexrex. Thank you for all the time you’ve spent with me on this issue. Our discussions have come a long way since the “old days,” don’t you think?

That said, your characterization of my position is slightly off the mark.

Abortion IS legal under certain circumstances right now. Not all forms of abortion as we know them are legal (back alley, etc.)

The way you phrase it could be construed as though I’m trying to make something that is currently illegal, legal. Like legalizing marijuana, for example. I’m not.

I am not advocating for any change in the abortion laws at this time.

I am a christian who supports abortion and am neither confused nor deceived.

did not mean to characterize you that way, bf. and yes, we’ve come a long way. thanks for being patient with me. but what this comes down to is that one side wants either some or all abortion to be illegal, and one side wants either some or all abortion to be legal. my characterization may not be perfect, but i think it’s in the right ballpark.

john, you’re not reading my answer carefully enough. i just said that some people may shorthand your stance on abortion. labels are an easy way for people to identify one another. problem is that they’re not always precise.

elais, i would answer, essentially, how justin did. except i would add that some Christians are ignorant or nescient — not in the derogatory sense, but in the sense that they ignore the facts — or are unaware — that the fetus is a living, distinct member of the human species. and they may not fully realize the Biblical truth that the intentional taking of a human life, even a fetus’, is actually murder.

now, how that translates to the public policy arena is a lot more involved, but that’s my answer to your question about “living out” one’s faith.

anonymous 3:58, That is quite a broad statement. Am I to take from that, you do not feel any need to help conform or reform society to the point that few abortions are necessary? The part of your statement that says I am neither confused nor deceived actually has a basis for question to me as it seems that was one of the main statements in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.

As a Catholic with friends doing Rachel’s Vineyard, I question them as to what is being done to help alleviate the need for abortions. When are we going to put as much effort into bringing back the family structure and not just making what we do not agree with illegal. I find it confusing, so many people vehemently argue pro choice or pro life and do not lift a finger from either side to help educate or check the tide with prenatal care facilities and on to adoptive parents. Everyone wants control and nobody wants to help the little red hen make the bread. It is so much easier to just suck the problem out than to actually deal with the results of babies carrying babies.

Les, well something is working to bring the rate down:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1705604,00.html

I got a survey in the mail today from the GOP. They said they were soliciting input to change not the core values but something else. I read it. It was a rigged stupid “did you stop beating your wife yet” survey.

Made me feel shitty about being a Republican…that was terrible, terrible stuff. I didn’t send money, but I sent the paperwork back to them in the pre-paid envelope.

And people like PP wonder why the GOP is tanking so bad…

Fleming…my party is out of touch!

Anon 3:58, feel free to restate your comment. That can’t possibly be what you mean.

Justin, there are Christians of good faith on both sides of the issue whether you want to believe so or not.

Grud, I’m guessing my dear ol Dad, a died in the wool Dem is rockin in his grave watching our party pissing down it’s leg.
John, what you are trying to say to Justin is, “as Christians we will continue to sin until we die”?? “Even while we are of good faith”! Of good faith is another questionable comment for me, sounds like more static from the Cucko’s Nest. What instrument are you using to determine good faith in a Christian John?
Bill, as a person who hopes for responsible actions from all, I feel good the numbers have come down in the last few years, but approximately 20% of all pregnancies ending in abortion, is very irresponsible to me.

I hear you grudz and Les.

Well I think Obama just did another decent job of looking rational at ND’s graduation. That is his greatest gift.

He speaks reasonable but his radical actions do not reflect the words. Sooner or later people will become aware.

Poll findings:

Abortion should be legal under any circumstances: 22%
Abortion should be legal under most circumstances: 15%
Abortion should be legal only in a few circumstances: 37%
Abortion should be legal under no circumstances: 23%

Anon 11:52 chooses to read this as 76% believe abortion should be legal (actually 74%). I would read it as 75% (15% + 37% + 23%)of people believe the current laws allowing abortion on demand are too loose, and would support restricting abortion in certain circumstances. Also, a solid majority (37% + 23%) of 60% believe abortion should be legal either never, or only in a few circumstances (probably most closely related to the classic rape, incest or health of the mother).

I also wouldn’t jump to hammer Gallup either. One of the more respected polling orgs out there. This is also the same poll that pro-chice people have touted for years as proof that the American people were on their side.

Jeff, no matter how you choose to read it, 75% of the people say that they want to have a legal option (choice) in the matter.

And that the vast majority of the public is “pro-abortion” in at least some circumstances.

That’s why the part of the survey that the anti-abortion people are pointing to doesn’t really make much sense. The language itself has broken down.

If anything, that’s what the survey proves.

That’s what usually happens after a strong sustained dose of Orwellian doublespeak.

Bill,

No double speak. A majority of people want women to have a choice for an abortion in certain, but not all circumstances. Therefore, couldn’t we find middle ground, define what those circumstances are (for the majority) and then restrict abortions for the other reasons (i.e. sex of the fetus, just don’t want a child, etc). I could get behind that!

Jeff, I would much prefer conversations like that to the ones we’ve been having on this issue, that’s for sure. (By “we” I mean “we the people” collectively, not necessarily just you and me.)

Here, here. And I know I’ve contributed to some of the less constructive “discussions” in the past. I’m learning all the time!

Re: Les’s 12:00 am post:

What criteria do I use to determine if someone is a “Christian of good faith”? It’s a fair question. We cannot know what is in other people’s hearts. We don’t know if someone claiming to be Christian actually is one.

Many people try to judge whether or not someone is Christian by their actions. But I’ve found that way to be faulty. Some conservatives assume that anyone who supports any form of legal abortion or gay marriage can’t be a true Christian (my faith has been questioned many times because of those issues). Some liberals, on the other hand, think it’s hypocritical that people who claim to be Christian would support an immoral act of torture like waterboarding. But since none of us are God, we have no idea what’s going on in someone’s heart.

So how do we tell? I don’t know, but I’m going to continue to have faith that those who claim to be Christian actually are even if I disagree with them their actions and opinions.

Jeff J and Bill,
Anon 11:52 here. I think eloquently addressed my point and I think Jeff J eloquently followed up. One issue with a middle ground proposal is that the 22% that support all abortions and 23% that oppose all abortions will never agree to such a solution. Both will scream and howl about how unfair the solution is.
However, prohibiting or restricting abortion does little to solve the underlying issue of unplanned or unwanted pregnancy. Other real and viable options must be available to these women.

I will agree John, that most Christians that claim to be as such, probably are as far as I am concerned. Good faith, well that is another matter as I can only judge myself, and not very well for that matter. My 5th grade grand nephew if there is such a thing, judges his actions by his peers, not my way of approving or disapproving my own actions. We all sin until we die, and should not discard a relationship based upon all these cheap words that flow at times. You sound like you have a very good heart for a liberal Commie Pinko!(Just kidding about the commie pinko)

9:40 To be sure.

There’s also this aspect as expressed by my good friend bearcreekbat on another blog:

“Hard core anti-choice advocates want the government to decide whether a woman is required to carry a fetus. They object to the position that the government should stay out of the picture and that the decision belongs alone to the woman whose body is directly involved.

They question position that a woman should have the right to choose when, where and who can use her body. They think that this complicated issue should be decided either by majority vote (provided the majority agrees to subjugate the woman and require her to permit unwanted beings to use her body) or by the fascist viewpoint that this question should be decided by only the officials who agree that a woman is merely a vessel for reproduction rather than a free individual with the right to decide who and when another being can use her body for his or her own personal needs.

Once we take the decision making power away from an individual woman and give it to the government, then what in the world makes us think the government will consistently exercise this power in the manner that we think best?”

Bill,

Earlier you talked about how you appreciated the tone of the conversation with Jeff J. which is necessary for progress on this issue whereby both sides may have to entertain some compromise as difficult it may be because of the strongly held fundamental differences. The post of your friend shows how great the challenge is because this person defines the child as “unwanted beings” and characterize our view of the mother as a “vessel” with a desire to “subjugate.” As one who believes the issue is about killing another human being deserving of life and dignity, these words are quite painful for me to read.

Despite this person’s description of it as a “complicated issue” this poster totally denigrates any aspect of those on the other side of the issue as “fascist.”

I’m sure your goal was to show that both sides present their views in offensive ways that don’t foster dialogue but you didn’t make that clear. I got your back, buddy.

Thanks Troy.

I think my friend was referencing the government when he said “facist”, not you. And also issues beyond the scope of the abortion discussion when he spoke of unwanted beings, although an unwanted pregnancy certainly fits that description, especially in the early stages.

In short, I think my friend is pointing to the 9th amendment and the rights guaranteed thereunder. And I would characterized his tone as detached and dispassionate rather than intentionally offensive. But I do understand how someone emotionally engaged could feel otherwise.

I offered the quote to demonstrate how difficult the discussion can be even when the intent is to remain completely objective, legal and rational.

Imagine a government that required women to reproduce against their will, or a government that prohibited reproduction in all but a few select circumstances and you get a feel for what my friend was describing with the term “facist.” The government, not the people.

Bill,

You are laboring to defend your friend’s post. He called the viewpoint “fascist.” People hold viewpoints. Governments have policies. Nor was his post “dispassionate and detached” even if one were to accept your weak explanation of the use of the word “fascist.” He directly attributes to those who oppose abortion as being wholly unconcerned with the mother and her circumstances. This is a caricature to be so rare among anti-abortion supporters as to be an offense against the truth and wholly devoid of respect and charity.

While we are imagining, imagine a government that allowed certain select people to kill their children without consent of the other parent or a government that allowed those who commit incest or rape to cover up their crime by coercing the victim to destroy the evidence.

But to your other point, (while I disagree that the characterization of it as “emotional” as it implies it is not based on reason), the issue prompts a visceral response to people on both sides of the issue that makes the dialogue difficult. But dialogue we must and we must take great pains to do so with language that is respectful and charitable.

I’m not sure that when we imagine in a way that characterizes the other side as “fascist” is respectful and charibable.

Ok, Troy, perhaps instead of arguing with me, you can grasp my friend’s libertarian point and give it language you would find more acceptable. That might be a worthy exercise. Fussing with me over it is probably not.

Here is my sample edit, Troy. I believe I have addressed all the potentially offending language. Let me know.

“Absolute anti-choice advocates want the government to decide whether a woman is required to carry a fetus. They object to the position that the government should stay out of the picture and that the decision belongs alone to the woman whose body is directly involved.

They question position that a woman should have the right to choose when, where and who can use her body. They think that this complicated issue should be decided either by majority vote or by an official government viewpoint that a woman is merely a vessel for reproduction rather than a free individual with the right to decide who and when another being can use her body for his or her own personal needs.

Once we take the decision making power away from an individual woman and give it to the government, then what in the world makes us think the government will consistently exercise this power in the manner that we think best?”

My edit:

Most opponents of abortion on demand believe that upon conception human life exists and this human life deserves legal protection with regard to the right to life afforded life outside the womb. The failure of the government to provide this legal protection is a abrogation of a fundamental government obligation provided in the Consititution.

Most opponents of abortion on demand understand that this places an extra-ordinary stewardship obligation on the mother. However, this obligation was accepted as a potential consequence of having consensual* sex until such time this human life no longer requires the mother.

Bill, if you don’t recognize it, it is because opponents of abortion on demand were described by one who supports abortion on demand.

* I know this opens up a conversation about pregnancy as a result of rape and incest. Because your friend didn’t discuss this factor, I’m not either. I recognize that that rape and incest is an area of disagreement among opponents of abortion demand.

“However, this obligation was accepted as a potential consequence of having consensual* sex until such time this human life no longer requires the mother.”

Would you want this stipulated as a matter of law, Troy?

I don’t believe there is any such law on the books right now, is there?

By law, I’m required to provide for the health and welfare of my chidren. Failure to do so is a crime.

Bill, one thing I want to make clear. I’m extremely sensitive to the burden this obligation imposes on the mother. I do have three daughters. Adoption, abortion counseling, and other assistance to mother’s experiencing an unwanted pregnancy receive financial and non-financial support from me and my family. And, it looks like the President thinks this is common ground for all of us regardless of the law.

“So let’s work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term.” Barack Obama at Notre Dame

Yes, Troy, I agree, that’s the best approach.