More people Pro-Life than Pro-Choice

[Jamie_B]

[url="http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/More-Americans-Pro-Life-Than-Pro-Choice-First-Time.aspx"]http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/More-Ame...First-Time.aspx[/url]

[quote]More Americans “Pro-Life” Than “Pro-Choice” for First TimeAlso, fewer think abortion should be legal “under any circumstances”by Lydia Saad
PRINCETON, NJ -- A new Gallup Poll, conducted May 7-10, finds 51% of Americans calling themselves "pro-life" on the issue of abortion and 42% "pro-choice." This is the first time a majority of U.S. adults have identified themselves as pro-life since Gallup began asking this question in 1995.

[img]http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/qgpmcs1jxuwo2l6achm_cg.gif[/img]


The new results, obtained from Gallup's annual Values and Beliefs survey, represent a significant shift from a year ago, when 50% were pro-choice and 44% pro-life. Prior to now, the highest percentage identifying as pro-life was 46%, in both August 2001 and May 2002.

The May 2009 survey documents comparable changes in public views about the legality of abortion. In answer to a question providing three options for the extent to which abortion should be legal, about as many Americans now say the procedure should be illegal in all circumstances (23%) as say it should be legal under any circumstances (22%). This contrasts with the last four years, when Gallup found a strong tilt of public attitudes in favor of unrestricted abortion.

[img]http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/qg8phio020orbfpcihagma.gif[/img]

Gallup also found public preferences for the extreme views on abortion about even -- as they are today -- in 2005 and 2002, as well as during much of the first decade of polling on this question from 1975 to 1985. Still, the dominant position on this question remains the middle option, as it has continuously since 1975: 53% currently say abortion should be legal only under certain circumstances.

When the views of this middle group are probed further -- asking these respondents whether they believe abortion should be legal in most or only a few circumstances -- Gallup finds the following breakdown in opinion.


[img]http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/-trrvu0n2ec-mym1hguzfa.gif[/img]

Americans' recent shift toward the pro-life position is confirmed in two other surveys. The same three abortion questions asked on the Gallup Values and Beliefs survey were included in Gallup Poll Daily tracking from May 12-13, with nearly identical results, including a 50% to 43% pro-life versus pro-choice split on the self-identification question.

[img]http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/fmyujfx3z0stmsiariccdq.gif[/img]

Additionally, a recent national survey by the Pew Research Center recorded an eight percentage-point decline since last August in those saying abortion should be legal in all or most cases, from 54% to 46%. The percentage saying abortion should be legal in only a few or no cases increased from 41% to 44% over the same period. As a result, support for the two broad positions is now about even, sharply different from most polling on this question since 1995, when the majority has typically favored legality.

Republicans Move to the Right

The source of the shift in abortion views is clear in the Gallup Values and Beliefs survey. The percentage of Republicans (including independents who lean Republican) calling themselves "pro-life" rose by 10 points over the past year, from 60% to 70%, while there has been essentially no change in the views of Democrats and Democratic leaners.

[img]http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/r6nv3ssnjeo3e5rmjcp-wq.gif[/img]

[img]http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/j_lokucqe0ewmqfbanch1q.gif[/img]

Similarly, by ideology, all of the increase in pro-life sentiment is seen among self-identified conservatives and moderates; the abortion views of political liberals have not changed.

[img]http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/vvturtjyp02thyhmqhwoyw.gif[/img]

"Pro-Life" Up Among Catholics and Protestants

One of the more prominent news stories touching on the abortion issue in recent months involves President Barack Obama's commencement speech and the bestowal of an honorary doctorate degree on him at the University of Notre Dame -- a Roman Catholic institution -- on Sunday. The invitation has drawn criticism from conservative Catholics and the church hierarchy because of Obama's policies in favor of legalizing and funding abortion, and the controversy might have been expected to strengthen the pro-life leanings of rank-and-file Catholics.

Nevertheless, the swelling of the pro-life position since last year is seen across Christian religious affiliations, including an eight-point gain among Protestants and a seven-point gain among Catholics.

[img]http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/4auoozlleuscjeh5xxxwlw.gif[/img]

Gender Agreement

A year ago, Gallup found more women calling themselves pro-choice than pro-life, by 50% to 43%, while men were more closely divided: 49% pro-choice, 46% pro-life. Now, because of heightened pro-life sentiment among both groups, women as well as men are more likely to be pro-life.

Men and women have been evenly divided on the issue in previous years; however, this is the first time in nine years of Gallup Values surveys that significantly more men and women are pro-life than pro-choice.

[img]http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/hcruux-5lk6-zbv0hmk-wg.gif[/img]

[img]http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/lx0zsc1heuwiaymzmsrhsq.gif[/img]

Bottom Line

With the first pro-choice president in eight years already making changes to the nation's policies on funding abortion overseas, expressing his support for the Freedom of Choice Act, and moving toward rescinding federal job protections for medical workers who refuse to participate in abortion procedures, Americans -- and, in particular, Republicans -- seem to be taking a step back from the pro-choice position. However, the retreat is evident among political moderates as well as conservatives.

It is possible that, through his abortion policies, Obama has pushed the public's understanding of what it means to be "pro-choice" slightly to the left, politically. While Democrats may support that, as they generally support everything Obama is doing as president, it may be driving others in the opposite direction.

Survey Methods

Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,015 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted May 7-10, 2009. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points.

Gallup Poll Daily results are based on telephone interviews with 971 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted May 12-13, 2009, as part of Gallup Poll Daily tracking. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points.

Interviews are conducted with respondents on land-line telephones (for respondents with a land-line telephone) and cellular phones (for respondents who are cell-phone only).

In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.[/quote]

[Squirrlnutz]

Interesting. Some of those groups are moving up or down large percentages over two years, seems like people are constantly changing their mind.

That second graph seems most telling though, with the majority under the "sometimes legal" camp.

Anyone here in the "legal under all circumstances" category? I support abortion, but I can't justify aborting an 8 month pregnancy or any fetus thats reached the age of viability for that matter.

[#22]

The only way that Abortion is going to be returned to its pre-Roe v. Wade status is if that 23% who want it to be illegal in all circumstances gets up to around 40 or 50%. Most of those people are straight-up wackos, and I don't forsee it happening.

One of the reasons that the Palin gambit didn't pay off (well, besides the fact that they were Wasilla hillbillies) is because people saw through the ruse: McCain doesn't have the stones to do what the people who only vote based on Abortion want- to completely criminalize it, no exceptions. Palin's stance doesn't give a shit if rape or incest or the health of the mother are involved, and that's a much more concrete position.

If you are fine with abortion in the case of rape or incest, those are a little harder to get around. The "health of the mother" is pure political poison. If you are still against abortion in those cases, you come off as a crazy Jesus freak (which is usually accurate). The thing about the "health of the mother" clause is that it's a very nebulous term. "Health of the Mother" could mean death or sterility to one judge, and it could mean morning sickness to another. In addition, it would probably have to go through family doctors or OBGYNs, and those who could dispense these "get out of pregnancy free" cards would gain notoriety very quickly.

I'm not able to say what this country would be like without legalized abortions. I wasn't alive before 1973, and the history of abortions has been so politicized before that point that there is no logical grasp on what options women really had.

In short, I kind of twitch a little bit at those late term abortions where a woman sticks an Awesome Auger up into her vagoo, but
[img]http://www.shopgetorganized.com/images/p33123b.jpg[/img]
otherwise I'm not really sure how this country could or should ever ban abortion.

[Jamie_B]

Cant say for sure but I would imagine the "sometimes legal" crowd would be "rape, insesct, health of the mother" types.

[Squirrlnutz]

[quote name='Jamie_B' post='777093' date='May 18 2009, 03:48 PM']Cant say for sure but I would imagine the "sometimes legal" crowd would be "rape, insesct, health of the mother" types.[/quote]
Add the "shit or get off the pot" crowd too. I stand in the sometimes legal category because, beyond what you mentioned, I have no problem aborting a 2 month old mass of tissue...but someone should not be allowed to carry a baby for 6-8 months and then decide they don't want to have it. Either make the decision before its a viable human or live with the cards your dealt and bring the baby to term.

[Vol_Bengal]

I'm in the legal under incest, rape, and mother's health (but that one would require some very stringent oversight...).


Otherwise, no. I'm not an abortion supporter.


I don't understand the argument that there is nothing wrong with abortion... then I hear from Obama that we need to work on reducing the number of abortions...


If there isn't anything inherently wrong with abortion, then why try to limit the number of them???

just my opinion.

[Vol_Bengal]

[quote name='Squirrlnutz' post='777096' date='May 18 2009, 03:56 PM']Add the "shit or get off the pot" crowd too. I stand in the sometimes legal category because, beyond what you mentioned, I have no problem aborting a 2 month old mass of tissue...but someone should not be allowed to carry a baby for 6-8 months and then decide they don't want to have it. Either make the decision before its a viable human or live with the cards your dealt and bring the baby to term.[/quote]

Taking out incest, rape, and mother's health...

shouldn't the woman be making that decision before she's spreading her legs??? Use a condom, birth control pills, etc., etc., etc.


If a woman is pregnant and gets hit by a drunk driver and the baby is killed, the man is charge with vehicular manslaughter... yet, that same woman could have an abortion the day before and no ramifications. And, the man has no say in the matter, one way or the other, yet if the woman elects to keep the baby he's required to pay child support.


Just seems like a double-standard...

[Squirrlnutz]

[quote name='Vol_Bengal' post='777100' date='May 18 2009, 04:03 PM']I'm in the legal under incest, rape, and mother's health (but that one would require some very stringent oversight...).


Otherwise, no. I'm not an abortion supporter.


I don't understand the argument that there is nothing wrong with abortion... then I hear from Obama that we need to work on reducing the number of abortions...


If there isn't anything inherently wrong with abortion, [b]then why try to limit the number of them???[/b]

just my opinion.[/quote]
To try to bring the people of our country closer together?

As far as I know/understand/hear nobody wants to increase the number of abortions even if they think its okay under certain circumstances be it broad or narrow limitations.

[Squirrlnutz]

[quote name='Vol_Bengal' post='777101' date='May 18 2009, 04:08 PM']Taking out incest, rape, and mother's health...

shouldn't the woman be making that decision before she's spreading her legs??? [b] Use a condom, birth control pills, etc., etc., [/b]etc.


If a woman is pregnant and gets hit by a drunk driver and the baby is killed, the man is charge with vehicular manslaughter... yet, that same woman could have an abortion the day before and no ramifications. And, the man has no say in the matter, one way or the other, yet if the woman elects to keep the baby he's required to pay child support.


Just seems like a double-standard...[/quote]
I agree with you...but until we get to a point where everyone has access to medically sound sex education and proper contraception there will unfortunately be girls getting pregnant who had no idea that is what would happen. Plus even when precations are taken, accidents happen and I would still support terminations.

[Vol_Bengal]

[quote name='Squirrlnutz' post='777102' date='May 18 2009, 04:08 PM']To try to bring the people of our country closer together?

As far as I know/understand/hear[b] nobody wants to increase the number of abortions[/b] even if they think its okay under certain circumstances be it broad or narrow limitations.[/quote]

But why not???

[Vol_Bengal]

[quote name='Squirrlnutz' post='777104' date='May 18 2009, 04:13 PM']I agree with you...but until we get to a point where everyone has access to medically sound sex education and proper contraception there will unfortunately be girls getting pregnant who had no idea that is what would happen. Plus even when precations are taken, accidents happen and I would still support terminations.[/quote]

Don't we pass out free contraception, at public health facilities, which will provide free sex education / family planning???


Whatever, I guess. I suppose this is why it remains in the state it is in at this point... everyone has their opinion on it.

[Squirrlnutz]

[quote name='Vol_Bengal' post='777107' date='May 18 2009, 04:16 PM']But why not???[/quote]
Because there are safer, less radical/dividing options like proper medically sound sex education.

Abortion from a scientific perspective is a gradient scale that at one end is akin to passing a kidney stone and at the other is clearly murder. The best option is to bypass the whole idea (via sex ed etc.), the second best option is define the turning point, the worst option is to ignore that there is this gradient scale all together and ban or allow it across the board.

There are a lot of people actively working to inhibit the first option.

[Squirrlnutz]

[quote name='Vol_Bengal' post='777108' date='May 18 2009, 04:20 PM']Don't we pass out free contraception, at public health facilities, which will provide free sex education / family planning???


Whatever, I guess. I suppose this is why it remains in the state it is in at this point... everyone has their opinion on it.[/quote]
How many 14 year old girls take the time to go out of their way to walk to a public health facility and garner themselves an education on a topic they aren't even talked to about by their parents?

Wouldn't the better option be to make these places you speak of the schools which they are already attending?

[Jason]

[quote name='Vol_Bengal' post='777100' date='May 18 2009, 03:03 PM']I'm in the legal under incest, rape, and mother's health (but that one would require some very stringent oversight...).


Otherwise, no. I'm not an abortion supporter.


I don't understand the argument that there is nothing wrong with abortion... then I hear from Obama that we need to work on reducing the number of abortions...


If there isn't anything inherently wrong with abortion, then why try to limit the number of them???

just my opinion.[/quote]

I would put myself in the category that abortion should only be legal in instances where the life of the mother would be iminently threatened if the baby were not aborted prior to viability.

What about rape/incest? The last statistics I saw on rape abortions is that most women who were raped, and had abortions felt worse about the abortion than the rape. I would, however, support a law that banned abortions except for rape, incest, and life of the mother. And that must be "life", not "health".

I am a little surprised at the men/women breakdown. When I was in college, I did a survey on abortion as my probability and statistics class project. Granted, this was a fairly narrow demographic cross section, they were all college students (though not all traditionally "college aged") and with the classes I was taking, most of the survey consisted of math and science types, but when I did my survey, the women were split down the middle, exactly 50/50 pro-life vs pro-choice, and the men were about 75% pro-choice.

[Vol_Bengal]

[quote name='Squirrlnutz' post='777111' date='May 18 2009, 04:28 PM']How many 14 year old girls take the time to go out of their way to walk to a public health facility and garner themselves an education on a topic they aren't even talked to about by their parents?

Wouldn't the better option be to make these places you speak of the [b]schools which they are already attending[/b]?[/quote]

So... you're good with a 14 year old having an abortion that her own parents aren't even aware of???

And, if it was an after school class or something that didn't require all kids to attend as a required class, etc. then I'd have no problem with it.


We've got a drastically different view of things, I guess.

Jason, I agree with your defining the term as life and not health. That would help pin down the definition better.

[Squirrlnutz]

[quote name='Jason' post='777113' date='May 18 2009, 04:29 PM']I am a little surprised at the men/women breakdown. When I was in college, I did a survey on abortion as my probability and statistics class. Granted, this was a fairly narrow demographic cross section, they were all college students (though not all traditionally "college aged") and with the classes I was taking, most of the survey consisted of math and science types, but when I did my survey, the women were split down the middle, exactly 50/50 pro-life vs pro-choice, and the men were about 75% pro-choice.[/quote]
That surprised me too. I'm inclined to think that the Obama administration has had a very polarizing effect on a matter like this specifically for the pro-life people. Those who sat on the fence before might feel compelled to lean pro-life now as it is something else they can dislike him for.

[Squirrlnutz]

[quote name='Vol_Bengal' post='777114' date='May 18 2009, 04:33 PM']So... you're good with a 14 year old having an abortion that her own parents aren't even aware of???


We've got a drastically different view of things, I guess.

Jason, I agree with your defining the term as life and not health. That would help pin down the definition better.[/quote]
Haha no, actually I'd support a bill that would make parental notification necessary for the abortion. I wouldn't give the parents the right to decide, but I wouldn't let a 14 year old have an abortion that her parents don't know about.

But again, the bigger problem remains that sex education is usually taboo and not addressed by parents at all, or addressed incorrectly by parents. The disconnect between what children are going to do, what they know about what they are doing and what their parents want/know has more to do with abortions than the procedure itself.

[Jason]

[quote name='Squirrlnutz' post='777117' date='May 18 2009, 03:42 PM']Haha no, actually I'd support a bill that would make parental notification necessary for the abortion. I wouldn't give the parents the right to decide, but I wouldn't let a 14 year old have an abortion that her parents don't know about.

But again, the bigger problem remains that sex education is usually taboo and not addressed by parents at all, or addressed incorrectly by parents. The disconnect between what children are going to do, what they know about what they are doing and what their parents want/know has more to do with abortions than the procedure itself.[/quote]

I think it should be parental consent for a minor, unless it can be shown that the baby is a product of incestual rape.

[Ben]

I vote for more abortions. Just think. At least half of the steelers players would have been aborted by their crack head parents.

btw, Has anyone here ever been contacted for a Gallup poll? I'm curious who it is that they sample in their various polls.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Ben' post='777127' date='May 18 2009, 05:21 PM'][color="#FF0000"]I vote for more abortions. Just think. At least half of the steelers players would have been aborted by their crack head parents.[/color]

btw, Has anyone here ever been contacted for a Gallup poll? I'm curious who it is that they sample in their various polls.[/quote]


See Im more in support of Genocide for the city of Pissbugh. Problem really gets solved then.

[Squirrlnutz]

[quote name='Ben' post='777127' date='May 18 2009, 05:21 PM'][b]I vote for more abortions. Just think. At least half of the steelers players would have been aborted by their crack head parents.
[/b]
btw, Has anyone here ever been contacted for a Gallup poll? I'm curious who it is that they sample in their various polls.[/quote]

Haha that made me think of [url="http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=regressive"]this.[/url]

[bengalrick]

[quote name='Jamie_B' post='777093' date='May 18 2009, 03:48 PM']Cant say for sure but I would imagine the "sometimes legal" crowd would be "rape, insesct, [s]health[/s] LIFE of the mother" types.[/quote]

Health of the mother is the only word I don't agree with here... I think that is the main hurdle for people that believe as I do. I think that it should be up to each individual state to decide, and personally I htink it is dead wrong except in the instances of rape, incest, or the life of the mother. I am pretty sure that Palin has a similar view, but reguardless, most "pro-lifers" are in agreement with my position, rather than the position that it is never justified. The problem is the other side likes to paint my side as the side that has no sympathy for rape and incest victims.

BTW, the problem I have with the word "health of the mother" is b/c how unbelievably vague and open to interpretation that is. If it will cause a woman to think she will have mental problems dealing with it, that is enough to give the go ahead. And that is absolutely ridiculous.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='bengalrick' post='777543' date='May 20 2009, 10:05 AM']Health of the mother is the only word I don't agree with here... I think that is the main hurdle for people that believe as I do. I think that it should be up to each individual state to decide, and personally I htink it is dead wrong except in the instances of rape, incest, or the life of the mother.[color="#FF0000"] I am pretty sure that Palin has a similar view[/color], but reguardless, most "pro-lifers" are in agreement with my position, rather than the position that it is never justified. The problem is the other side likes to paint my side as the side that has no sympathy for rape and incest victims.

BTW, the problem I have with the word "health of the mother" is b/c how unbelievably vague and open to interpretation that is. If it will cause a woman to think she will have mental problems dealing with it, that is enough to give the go ahead. And that is absolutely ridiculous.[/quote]


Not so sure about that.

[url="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/01/palin-on-abortion-id-oppo_n_122924.html"]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/01/p...o_n_122924.html[/url]

[|Bengal Migration|]

[quote name='Vol_Bengal' post='777101' date='May 19 2009, 04:08 AM']Taking out incest, rape, and mother's health...

[b]shouldn't the woman be making that decision before she's spreading her legs??? Use a condom, birth control pills, etc., etc., etc.[/b]


If a woman is pregnant and gets hit by a drunk driver and the baby is killed, the man is charge with vehicular manslaughter... yet, that same woman could have an abortion the day before and no ramifications. And, the man has no say in the matter, one way or the other, yet if the woman elects to keep the baby he's required to pay child support.


Just seems like a double-standard...[/quote]
This is a very convenient position for a man to take, imo. He doesn't have to deal with the consequences. He doesn't have to carry to term, and he doesn't have to deal with the aftermath. He might be forced to deal with payments of some sort or another, but that's about it.

I've said this before... Men should have ZERO say in this debate. Beyond putting on a condom before the act begins. Have a womb? Have a choice. Otherwise, stfu.

I don't mean this with any disrespect to you, Vol, or anyone else. But when you have to deal with the consequences for not only 9 months, but the rest of your life, you get a say. Until then, your say comes when you choose to be smart and wrap it up.

[|Elflocko|]

[quote name='Bengal Migration' post='777563' date='May 20 2009, 09:44 AM']This is a very convenient position for a man to take, imo. He doesn't have to deal with the consequences. He doesn't have to carry to term, and he doesn't have to deal with the aftermath. He might be forced to deal with payments of some sort or another, but that's about it.

I've said this before... Men should have ZERO say in this debate. Beyond putting on a condom before the act begins. [b]Have a womb? Have a choice. Otherwise, stfu.[/b]

I don't mean this with any disrespect to you, Vol, or anyone else. But when you have to deal with the consequences for not only 9 months, but the rest of your life, you get a say. Until then, your say comes when you choose to be smart and wrap it up.[/quote]

Succinct and to the point...