New poll: Majority in U.S. is now 'pro-life'

[Red Dawn]

I'm Pro Choice, I hope the choice is to have the baby but I'm not going to tell her she has too.

 

[Drift3r]

Obviously these folks have not been to or lived in East Oakland or Richmond, California otherwise these views would be different.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: Evan
Except a huge majority of Americans, 70%+, want to keep abortion legal federally in at least some cases. Fact is, nearly half of all self-described pro-lifers still want abortion to stay legal in limited cases and other pro-lifers in less limited cases. The end result is one and the same for 70%+ of Americans; don't make it illegal again in all cases, i.e. do not overturn the SC's 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling because there's simply far too much downside to overturning this particular federal law, not even close to appropriate. But it medically dangerous back-alley abortions, higher crime rates from discarded children, etc.

And lmao at people downplaying abortion as a wedge issue. It's hugely important.

EDIT: Here's the link to the 70%+ polls and an excerpt from the OP's article:

"The terms 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life' no longer define the parameters of the debate, witnessed by the fact that in the Gallup Poll, a majority of people say they are both pro-life and that abortion should be legal," Richards said.

Absolutely. One question: Does anyone truly believe that the Republican Party itself would actually like to see Roe v Wade overturned?

What, and lose this vital wedge issue?

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: feralkid
... Does anyone truly believe that the Republican Party itself would actually like to see Roe v Wade overturned?

What, and lose this vital wedge issue?

Excellent point. The gop, the party of morons, wants its faithful to remain morons. Morons are more easily manipulated. It makes sense now. This explains why a person of the caliber of palin could possibly be embraced.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
This is the important stat IMHO:

23 percent saying it should be illegal in all circumstances

So long as we keep this extreme fringe group marginalized, I'll be happy.

And 22 percent it should be legal under all circumstances.

Seems like the fringe is equally balanced.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: feralkid
... Does anyone truly believe that the Republican Party itself would actually like to see Roe v Wade overturned?

What, and lose this vital wedge issue?

Excellent point. The gop, the party of morons, wants its faithful to remain morons. Morons are more easily manipulated. It makes sense now. This explains why a person of the caliber of palin could possibly be embraced.

Oh that is epic... can I use that in my sig??

Let's look at the ever growing list of broken promises from Obama and talk about which group was easily manipulated in the last election.

 

[Blackjack200]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: brxndxnI don't see why this is such a big issue anyway. Most people in their lives will never even need to consider abortion. Why do those people have an opinion?

Because they conceive of a situation where they or a loved one or a woman they might have accidentally impregnated would want the option some day?

It is sad that so many Americans feel that abortion is a bad (not the same as should be illegal). This lack of support for an excellent form of birth control is hurting our society. As a result, we don't have free abortions for the poor and it's still stigmatized. Also, as a result, the concept of paper abortions for men (make women be responsible for their birthing choices) is unknown to Americans at this time.

Holy shit dude; that's fucked up. Did you just reach into my head, scoop out my ideas and post them? Because this is exactly how I feel. Abortion needs to be viewed the same way that condoms and birth control pills are. And men should be able to remove themselves for parental responsibility as long as they give notice when an abortion is still a reasonable and safe option.

Honestly, I feel like we should have moved past this stuff like 40 or 50 years ago.

 

[Blackjack200]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
This is the important stat IMHO:

23 percent saying it should be illegal in all circumstances

So long as we keep this extreme fringe group marginalized, I'll be happy.

And 22 percent it should be legal under all circumstances.

Seems like the fringe is equally balanced.

Cool, I like being fringe. I definitely don't want to be associated with mainstream American viewpoints on a lot of issues.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: feralkid
... Does anyone truly believe that the Republican Party itself would actually like to see Roe v Wade overturned?

What, and lose this vital wedge issue?

Excellent point. The gop, the party of morons, wants its faithful to remain morons. Morons are more easily manipulated. It makes sense now. This explains why a person of the caliber of palin could possibly be embraced.

Oh that is epic... can I use that in my sig??

Let's look at the ever growing list of broken promises from Obama and talk about which group was easily manipulated in the last election.

Come on. You can do better than the "If you think what X did is bad, look at what Y did" retort. Fuck, I hate this comeback with a passion - more that I hate republicans.

 

[NoStateofMind]

IDC what the majority has to say and the Federal government shouldn't either, not their place to decide.

 

[kage69]

Democrats have used the abortion for too long to lure female votes. It distracts them from the bread and butter issues like taxes, the economy, and the illegals.

Thanks for the hearty laugh this gave me, it really made my morning! A conservative accusing the Dem party of using abortion as a lure, now I've heard everything.

LOL, right, it's Democrats using rights to lure females! Wow, you gotta have some balls (or absolutely no brains) to try and attribute that kind of tactic to Dems when the Repubs have been working it extensively for decades. Dems and Independents have been largely wanting to spend time on real issues that pertain to the immediate wellbeing of our Union, you know, healthcare, civil rights, education, etc etc. Yet the Repubs, pretty much without fail, always seem to bring it up when the political road gets too bumpy for them. Terri Schaivo anyone? Social conservatives have a political life line, and it's called Roe v Wade. To ignore, downplay, or falsely attribute this is the height of ignorant dishonesty.

I don't really care what the percentage of "pro-life" Americans is. Until they start giving a damn about unwanted pregnancies after birth, and can reconcile the pro-life attitude towards capital punishment and support for elective wars, then I will continue to disregard their hypocritical, fair-weather criticism for what it is.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Evan
Except a huge majority of Americans, 70%+, want to keep abortion legal federally in at least some cases. Fact is, nearly half of all self-described pro-lifers still want abortion to stay legal in limited cases and other pro-lifers in less limited cases. The end result is one and the same for 70%+ of Americans; don't make it illegal again in all cases, i.e. do not overturn the SC's 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling because there's simply far too much downside to overturning this particular federal law, not even close to appropriate. But it medically dangerous back-alley abortions, higher crime rates from discarded children, etc.

And lmao at people downplaying abortion as a wedge issue. It's hugely important.

EDIT: Here's the link to the 70%+ polls and an excerpt from the OP's article:

"The terms 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life' no longer define the parameters of the debate, witnessed by the fact that in the Gallup Poll, a majority of people say they are both pro-life and that abortion should be legal," Richards said.

I disagree. I'm ardently pro-life, and I believe abortion should be legal in one circumstance: when it threatens the mother's life.

I don't think Roe v. Wade is necessary to protect that one exception.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Evan
Except a huge majority of Americans, 70%+, want to keep abortion legal federally in at least some cases. Fact is, nearly half of all self-described pro-lifers still want abortion to stay legal in limited cases and other pro-lifers in less limited cases. The end result is one and the same for 70%+ of Americans; don't make it illegal again in all cases, i.e. do not overturn the SC's 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling because there's simply far too much downside to overturning this particular federal law, not even close to appropriate. But it medically dangerous back-alley abortions, higher crime rates from discarded children, etc.

And lmao at people downplaying abortion as a wedge issue. It's hugely important.

EDIT: Here's the link to the 70%+ polls and an excerpt from the OP's article:

"The terms 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life' no longer define the parameters of the debate, witnessed by the fact that in the Gallup Poll, a majority of people say they are both pro-life and that abortion should be legal," Richards said.

I disagree. I'm ardently pro-life, and I believe abortion should be legal in one circumstance: when it threatens the mother's life.

I don't think Roe v. Wade is necessary to protect that one exception.

Rape?

Incest?

Congenital or other quality of life problems revealed during pregnancy?

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: bamacre
It is a wedge issue, meant to divide the people, and to distract from more important issues.

It's a shame you fall for the manufactured diversion of "wedge issues." People don't like the propaganda coming from one side so they create their own...

Interesting reply: Then how would you assess the interference in the Terri Schiavo case, by Republican politicians?

Looked like some Republican politicians used the case as a springboard to defend their ideas and attack the ideas of others.

 

[kage69]

Looked like some Republican politicians used the case as a springboard to defend their ideas and attack the ideas of others.

You know, it really says a lot that you managed to not make a single mention of Tom DeLay here, irt the Terri Schaivo debacle.

:thumbsdown: There goes your credibility.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: kage69

Looked like some Republican politicians used the case as a springboard to defend their ideas and attack the ideas of others.

You know, it really says a lot that you managed to not make a single mention of Tom DeLay here, irt the Terri Schaivo debacle.

:thumbsdown: There goes your credibility.

Explain?

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: Hacp
Democrats have used the abortion for too long to lure female votes. It distracts them from the bread and butter issues like taxes, the economy, and the illegals.

Even if that is true, the Republicans have shown that they have no interest in lowering the tax burden on the Middle Class by more than a token amount, creating a solid economy with many Middle Class jobs, or cracking down illegal immigration.

 

[kage69]

Explain?

I don't care enough about your opinion to rehash the entire Terri Schaivo media smokescreen for you. I just think it's interesting that you can feel that way after what the GOP stooped to in order to run interference for Tom DeLay.

The party of "family values" led a disgusting assault on just that and now they downplay it. I simply don't equate that with credibility.

Is it the "DeLay relative being taken off life support" angle that makes that topic uncomfortable for you guys?

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: kage69

Explain?

I don't care enough about your opinion to rehash the entire Terri Schaivo media smokescreen for you. I just think it's interesting that you can feel that way after what the GOP stooped to in order to run interference for Tom DeLay.

The party of "family values" led a disgusting assault on just that and now they downplay it. I simply don't equate that with credibility.

Wait a second, you have the brains to say "it really says a lot that you managed to not make a single mention of Tom DeLay here" after I give a one sentence blurb of the situation from a certain context?

That might explain why you tend to focus on the scandals of one man and totally discount the feelings and opinions of millions... like any toolbag would do.

This issue, like any other, has plenty of people on both sides who feel strongly about a certain aspect of our culture with no regard to the media hype and partisan wrangling douchebags like Delay (and you) get caught up in. But that seems to be the prevailing modern answer to everything.

Many people still see things their own way and fight for their favorite causes. The fact that you -like so many- will reject them outright with shrill cries of "wedge issue" belies your lack of sincerity just as much as those that spin it for their own partisan gain. Both sides are manipulators. Sincerity is the foundation of credibility so coming from you, credibility means nothing.

Is it the "DeLay relative being taken off life support" angle that makes that topic uncomfortable for you guys?

Who the fuck are you talking to?

 

[AFMatt]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: BoomerDI, as a male, believe I have NO say in what a woman does with her body...except that, as her "life partner," I expect to be a part of any decision along these lines that my wife makes.

I'm NOT pro-abortion...but I am pro-CHOICE.

What if a woman wants to have a child and you want her to have an abortion? You tried to explain to her that having an abortion would be the rational thing to do since the two of you aren't married and neither of you can afford to have a child. You even offered to pay for the costs of the abortion and even offered to give her $5000 to keep if she would do it. You also pleaded with her to agree to put the infant up for adoption but she wanted no part of it.

In that case, might you have a "say" over what a woman does with her body--such as her irrationality--her choice--having a negative impact on your life? Her choice--your responsibility. That's why I urge you to support the concept of paper abortions for men.

I agree that men shouldn't be able to force women to have abortions or not to have them, but that doesn't mean that men should have to pay for the costs of women's irrationality (an externality). If a man is willing to pay for the costs of an abortion and some money above that, then I'm all for his being able to legally waive all rights to the child and to be absolved of all child support and parental responsibilities.

"Her irrationality"? LOL. Arguments like this crack me the hell up. Dude, she cant get pregnant without your sperm. It doesn't matter if you tried to pull out, had a condom break, had a condom fail, or had a pill fail, the bottom line is when we choose to have a sexual relationship with a woman, we also choose to accept the responsibility that comes with it. If she gets pregnant, and doesn't want to have an abortion, too f-in bad for the guy. You knew there was a chance when you stuck it in there. Now the guy needs to do what needs to be done to make sure that child has a decent life. You can't opt-out of supporting a life you helped bring into the world. It just doesn't work that way.

Personally, while I would rather someone not get an abortion, I am indifferent on the matter.. Call me "pro-choice" if you will. And yes, I have been there. I got a girl preg in 10th grade. I was willing to do what ever it takes to help raise that kid, and didn't even bring up the idea of an abortion. I still had no say in the matter, however, as she got an abortion then told me about it afterwards. Her mom influenced her to do it.

 

[kage69]

Wait a second, you have the brains to say "it really says a lot that you managed to not make a single mention of Tom DeLay here" after I give a one sentence blurb of the situation from a certain context?

I certainly hope that your "blurb" doesn't fully encapsulate what you know and feel about that fiasco, but when answering about Schaivo you chose to go with a sugar-coated almost apathetic response, purposefully side stepping the part that makes you look foolish for opining on wedge issues.
Can't say I'm surprised, but don't let that stop you from getting indignant...

That might explain why you tend to focus on the scandals of one man and totally discount the feelings and opinions of millions... like any toolbag would do.

Not at all, I am focusing on hypocrisy, and the hypocritical opinions of these millions undermine themselves. All I've done is take notice. That one man is def not alone in scandal, and was mentioned because he is specifically relevant to Terri Schaivo. But thanks for the ad hom anyway.

This issue, like any other, has plenty of people on both sides who feel strongly about a certain aspect of our culture with no regard to the media hype and partisan wrangling douchebags like Delay (and you) get caught up in. But that seems to be the prevailing modern answer to everything.

Thanks Professor. With such insightful observations on the nature of wedge issues already under your belt, this extra bit of social commentary is just a big fat bonus. I'd argue that the modern answer to everything these days to feign lofty indignation, then call the opposition a douchebag. Pretty lame, I know...

Many people still see things their own way and fight for their favorite causes. The fact that you -like so many- will reject them outright with shrill cries of "wedge issue" belies your lack of sincerity just as much as those that spin it for their own partisan gain.

On the contrary, it's taken a bit of time for me to reject them. I have this tendency to focus on what people do, rather than what they say. The last 8 years have been rife with view-changing news. Your perception of sincerity is pretty much worthless to me, so spare me the pithy attempts at objectivity.

Both sides are manipulators. Sincerity is the foundation of credibility so coming from you, credibility means nothing.

Can't really argue with that first sentence, but again I find you saying something you didn't try to say, to the detriment of your argument. You try and opine about credibility by focusing on sincerity, ignoring that one can be sincere and wrong at the same time - but give accuracy no mention at all. What is credibility without accuracy? You know, that truth stuff the social conservatives are always talking about.

Who the fuck are you talking to?

Someone with a piss poor memory, apparently. Whatever, I'm done with you.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Evan
Except a huge majority of Americans, 70%+, want to keep abortion legal federally in at least some cases. Fact is, nearly half of all self-described pro-lifers still want abortion to stay legal in limited cases and other pro-lifers in less limited cases. The end result is one and the same for 70%+ of Americans; don't make it illegal again in all cases, i.e. do not overturn the SC's 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling because there's simply far too much downside to overturning this particular federal law, not even close to appropriate. But it medically dangerous back-alley abortions, higher crime rates from discarded children, etc.

And lmao at people downplaying abortion as a wedge issue. It's hugely important.

EDIT: Here's the link to the 70%+ polls and an excerpt from the OP's article:

"The terms 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life' no longer define the parameters of the debate, witnessed by the fact that in the Gallup Poll, a majority of people say they are both pro-life and that abortion should be legal," Richards said.

I disagree. I'm ardently pro-life, and I believe abortion should be legal in one circumstance: when it threatens the mother's life.

I don't think Roe v. Wade is necessary to protect that one exception.

Roe v. Wade is very necessary, leaving abortion up to the states is inconsistent and a moral cop-out. The whole "leave it up to the states" mantra is a default answer for a lot of conservatives but is bupkis in plenty of practical circumstances, this being one of them. Might as well leave civil rights "up to the states" based on that interpretation.

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Evan
Except a huge majority of Americans, 70%+, want to keep abortion legal federally in at least some cases. Fact is, nearly half of all self-described pro-lifers still want abortion to stay legal in limited cases and other pro-lifers in less limited cases. The end result is one and the same for 70%+ of Americans; don't make it illegal again in all cases, i.e. do not overturn the SC's 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling because there's simply far too much downside to overturning this particular federal law, not even close to appropriate. But it medically dangerous back-alley abortions, higher crime rates from discarded children, etc.

And lmao at people downplaying abortion as a wedge issue. It's hugely important.

EDIT: Here's the link to the 70%+ polls and an excerpt from the OP's article:

"The terms 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life' no longer define the parameters of the debate, witnessed by the fact that in the Gallup Poll, a majority of people say they are both pro-life and that abortion should be legal," Richards said.

I disagree. I'm ardently pro-life, and I believe abortion should be legal in one circumstance: when it threatens the mother's life.

I don't think Roe v. Wade is necessary to protect that one exception.

Rape?

Incest?

Congenital or other quality of life problems revealed during pregnancy?

Or just the simple fact that sometimes people make mistakes and shouldn't have to raise children they're not capable of raising responsibly, financially, or morally.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: AreaCode707
As much as I agree with the concept that the current system of choice/right/responsibility is incredibly lopsided in women's favor and that it really sucks for men, I can't help but lament the "my rights over the child's good" attitude. That attitude started with women and it's now spreading very naturally to men.

Consider it this way, the children will be adults one day and the same laws that protect the rights and interests of men and women will apply to them as well. If you use the logic that "whatever is good for children should be put into law" we could become communists "for the children."

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: n yusefWhy would you give someone $5000 to have an abortion? Did you knock up a prostitute?

Simply to encourage the woman to have an abortion. (Duh.)

I bet I'm the biggest supporter of reproduction rights on this forum, but choosing to keep the baby is not "irrational." Everyone knows that if you want to pick on women you call them "irrational." You're sounding pretty misogynist right now.

There we go with name-calling.

Are you saying that you cannot possibly conceive of situations where having a child would be irrational? What if the woman is impoverished and cannot support herself? What if she's a student and it would be against her rational selfish interests to drop out of school and work at Walmart in order to support a child? There is, in fact, such a thing as economic reality and it doesn't take too much imagination to conceive of all sorts of situations where having a child would be irrational.

If you're so concerned with child support, stop having unprotected sex with pro-life women.

I can't say that's bad advice. Regardless, it has nothing to do with the laws we should have for dealing with externalities and for determining who should be responsible for what choices.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: AFMatt"Her irrationality"? LOL. Arguments like this crack me the hell up. Dude, she cant get pregnant without your sperm. It doesn't matter if you tried to pull out, had a condom break, had a condom fail, or had a pill fail, the bottom line is when we choose to have a sexual relationship with a woman, we also choose to accept the responsibility that comes with it. If she gets pregnant, and doesn't want to have an abortion, too f-in bad for the guy. You knew there was a chance when you stuck it in there. Now the guy needs to do what needs to be done to make sure that child has a decent life. You can't opt-out of supporting a life you helped bring into the world. It just doesn't work that way.

Would you be willing to allow men to legally prevent women from having abortions when they are the prospective father? Because if not, then the decision to continue the pregnancy until birth is 100% the woman's choice.

Personally, while I would rather someone not get an abortion, I am indifferent on the matter.. Call me "pro-choice" if you will. And yes, I have been there. I got a girl preg in 10th grade. I was willing to do what ever it takes to help raise that kid, and didn't even bring up the idea of an abortion. I still had no say in the matter, however, as she got an abortion then told me about it afterwards. Her mom influenced her to do it.

How do you feel about that? Do you feel badly about it or, in retrospect, do you consider yourself very lucky?