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

[aphex]

Like Clinton said, abortions should be legal and rare.

Agree 100%.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Evan
Roe v. Wade is very necessary, leaving abortion up to the states is inconsistent and a moral cop-out.

Inconsistent with what? Oh, yeah, the Constitution. :thumbsup:

The Constitution does not provide the Federal Government authority to regulate, rule over, nor decide upon, abortion.

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.

Well, actually, Evan, err, Mr. Champion of the Constitution, the Federal Government does have the job of protecting liberty and property of all people. Of course we shouldn't have needed new federal laws to protect those things for black Americans, I like to think that it wasn't government that granted rights and liberties to black Americans, it was black Americans like Martin Luther King, Jr., and Rosa Parks, who fought to keep the freedoms and liberty they knew they already had. And maybe I feel that way, Evan, because it wasn't government that got bashed over the head, strung up on trees, it was the black Americans who fought that war, it was Martin Luther King who was continuously tossed into jail, of course almost 100 years after our civil war was over.

But we don't need to go back to our history to understand the ideas of representation and jurisdictions of the Federal government. We can look at a prime example of this argument today, and that is the prohibition of marijuana and the entire Federal war on drugs. Certainly this is a case, like abortion, where the Federal government has no jurisdiction, the Constitution does not grant the Federal government authority for these powers. And yet out of fear we have allowed them to do this anyway. And it is not shocking that the result of this "war on drugs" is a complete disaster. Hundred of billions of dollars wasted, jails full of nonviolent drug offenders, empowered drug lords and street gangs, and hundreds of dead bystanders caught in their violent black market dealings gone bad. And all the while, they still cannot keep marijuana, or any other drug, out of our schools, not even our prisons. Do the people want change? Yes they do. Already many states have legalized medical marijuana, and talk on higher levels has begun for legal recreational use of marijuana, all of this contradictory to Federal drug laws. But it is much easier for people to change laws on the local level than on the Federal level, and this again, is a prime example, and this is perhaps just one reason why the Constitution grants limited powers to the Federal government and leaves many matters up to the states and to the people. Perhaps it would have been easier for me to plead my case had Roe v. Wade went the other direction, and it wasn't right-wing radicals terrorizing abortion clinics, but the Federal government terrorizing them, much in the same way they do the medical marijuana facilities in California. My point, Evan, is that while we may have been lucky with the federal legality of abortion, it certainly isn't wise to continue gambling, it isn't wise to continue betting against the Constitution. Because if we do, in the long run, the house always wins, and we always lose.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Evan
Roe v. Wade is very necessary, leaving abortion up to the states is inconsistent and a moral cop-out.

Inconsistent with what? Oh, yeah, the Constitution. :thumbsup:

The Constitution does not provide the Federal Government authority to regulate, rule over, nor decide upon, abortion.

Sure it does, the founders specifically left regulation like this vague and open to interpretation for future generations precisely because they knew they could not dictate from the grave the direction of the U.S. Roe v. Wade is rooted in basic rights laws, read up.. Of course, you'd have to not be blinded by partisan strict constructionist viewpoints of the Constitution. I'm afraid you utterly failed that test.

Well, actually, Evan, err, Mr. Champion of the Constitution, the Federal Government does have the job of protecting liberty and property of all people. Of course we shouldn't have needed new federal laws to protect those things for black Americans, I like to think that it wasn't government that granted rights and liberties to black Americans, it was black Americans like Martin Luther King, Jr., and Rosa Parks, who fought to keep the freedoms and liberty they knew they already had.

Hate to break it to you, but they didn't have them until they were written into law and enforced by the U.S. govn't via the Civil Rights Act (many more before and since).

And maybe I feel that way, Evan, because it wasn't government that got bashed over the head, strung up on trees, it was the black Americans who fought that war, it was Martin Luther King who was continuously tossed into jail, of course almost 100 years after our civil war was over.

I hate to break it to you, but gov't employees are Americans citizens and have had their rights violated just like any other group. Black Americans have been in gov't for quite a while now. Did Lew Rockwell nor Ron Paul not inform you of this?

But we don't need to go back to our history to understand the ideas of representation and jurisdictions of the Federal government. We can look at a prime example of this argument today, and that is the prohibition of marijuana and the entire Federal war on drugs. Certainly this is a case, like abortion, where the Federal government has no jurisdiction, the Constitution does not grant the Federal government authority for these powers.

Sure it does, it's in the Commerce clause and has been correctly interpreted by far more educated and experienced judges than yourself literally thousands of times.

And yet out of fear we have allowed them to do this anyway. And it is not shocking that the result of this "war on drugs" is a complete disaster. Hundred of billions of dollars wasted, jails full of nonviolent drug offenders, empowered drug lords and street gangs, and hundreds of dead bystanders caught in their violent black market dealings gone bad. And all the while, they still cannot keep marijuana, or any other drug, out of our schools, not even our prisons. Do the people want change? Yes they do. Already many states have legalized medical marijuana, and talk on higher levels has begun for legal recreational use of marijuana, all of this contradictory to Federal drug laws. But it is much easier for people to change laws on the local level than on the Federal level, and this again, is a prime example, and this is perhaps just one reason why the Constitution grants limited powers to the Federal government and leaves many matters up to the states and to the people. Perhaps it would have been easier for me to plead my case had Roe v. Wade went the other direction, and it wasn't right-wing radicals terrorizing abortion clinics, but the Federal government terrorizing them, much in the same way they do the medical marijuana facilities in California. My point, Evan, is that while we may have been lucky with the federal legality of abortion, it certainly isn't wise to continue gambling, it isn't wise to continue betting against the Constitution. Because if we do, in the long run, the house always wins, and we always lose.

I know you hate hearing it, but you're the resident loon with this libertopian crap. It has always been torn to shreds and always will be. The founding fathers specifically elaborated in the Federalist papers exactly why they left the Constitution open to interpretation. The fact that you want to "follow the Constitution" means nothing; you don't understand it nor do you understand the 200 years of case law behind expanding federal powers.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: feralkid
And the majority of women voters prefer the Democrats' (look, CAD; it's called a plural possessive! Woo-Hoo!) platform on those issues as well; based on the last several elections.

Look, it's sierrita... err... feralkid on grammar patrol!

So hard to keep those two straight .

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: extra
Yeah, the thing is though that it looks like in the same poll the majority of americans still believe abortion should be legal. Which seems to indicate people don't like abortions happening, but don't want it to be illegal, either, which is a pretty normal (and imho common sense) position to have.

there ya go.

forcing choice is un-American. Which is the actual message that this poll sends.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

Originally posted by: senseamp
Good thing they also voted for Obama and Democrat Congress. Good ACLU lawyers are coming to the USSC

Heaven help us all if ACLU lawyers get to the scotus. Don't get me wrong, the ACLU is a necessary evil, but 80% of the time they are way left of center and they go with ideology over logic. We don't need more political correctness gone crazy all the way at the top of the chain. Anyway, that's not for this thread.

I, like (I'd guess most people) tend to be pro-choice for society, but pro-life personally. I'm pro-choice and my choice is life. I don't presume to be the right one to make that choice for others though.

I agree with about all of this. I'm a life-long Dem, support (most) of what the ACLU does, yet I don't want to see them in the USSC either. Those positions should be filled with judges who have NO agendas, no political leanings, and are able to rationally consider both sides of an argument...not just the side they favor.

I, 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.

:thumbsup:


:americanflag;

 

[manlymatt83]

Originally posted by: brxndxn

Originally posted by: Mani
I think the guy they quoted from Planned Parenthood summed it up perfectly - that "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are not the correct parameters for the debate at this point - that in fact you can be both, which a majority of Americans are.

That's what I am..

I 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?

Aren't the statistics like 40% will have one in their lifetime?

EDIT: oh crap, sorry. I thought this thread was much newer than it is. My apologies =(

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Topic Title: New poll: Majority in U.S. is now 'pro-life'

I very rarely discuss anything abortion. I lean anti-abortion but I'm not fanatical about the issue at all.

Bullshit and Bullshit

 

[eits]

whoopty fuck. they're pro-life. who fucking cares?

seriously, who cares?

the fact that there are more people out there who are against having an abortion is great news. it means NOTHING based on the fact that they're exercising their choice not to have an abortion.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

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.

Sorry to hear about your kid; children are the best; only mentally disturbed people can look at their children and not know it was the best thing that they had ever done in their lives.

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.

Offering the end of a life or a life of hell dichotomy is a moral cop-out.

Very, very few children who would otherwise be aborted would live the life you are suggesting. The number of prisoners you we preemptively remove from existence through abortion does not make up for even one would-be researcher who will now never discover a cure for the complications of sickle-cell anemia.

Abortion is racist, it is the destruction of the poor-black people of the inner city... you sit on your white ivory tower and look down on the poor and say "well, they are better off dead aren't they?".

You should be, and I know deep down are, disgusted with yourself.

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: DixyCrat

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.

Sorry to hear about your kid; children are the best; only mentally disturbed people can look at their children and not know it was the best thing that they had ever done in their lives.

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.

Offering the end of a life or a life of hell dichotomy is a moral cop-out.

Very, very few children who would otherwise be aborted would live the life you are suggesting. The number of prisoners you we preemptively remove from existence through abortion does not make up for even one would-be researcher who will now never discover a cure for the complications of sickle-cell anemia.

Abortion is racist, it is the destruction of the poor-black people of the inner city... you sit on your white ivory tower and look down on the poor and say "well, they are better off dead aren't they?".

You should be, and I know deep down are, disgusted with yourself.

What the fuck are you talking about? Women of all races get abortions, and if you want to inject race and class into the issue, poor black people have less information and access to abortion than whites in the "ivory tower."

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Originally posted by: n yusef
Women of all races get abortions

But the argument was that poor people, who are disproportionately black, would have a hard-life and thus are better off not living.

Abortion is destroying the fertility of the inner-city black woman, in another four generations we won't have to worry about our 'black' problem in America, the practice of abortion will have eliminated it for us.

Affluent people use abortion to allow themselves the ability to get-ahead in life before having children; poor people use abortion as a life-long means of birth-control.

... I've read this in books about gender-studies, in particular the book "black feminist thought" and the research of my professor. But the data can be cross-correlated for validity through census and publicly available research data.


Those children denied life through abortion would, on balance, have done so much more good for this world we have today than any of us can know. As would those children murdered in the African genocides.

Children, no matter how hard a life they have, are full of so much potential that denying them a chance at life because "life is hard" is the most morally empty argument any human could possibly make.

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: DixyCrat

Originally posted by: n yusef
Women of all races get abortions

But the argument was that poor people, who are disproportionately black, would have a hard-life and thus are better off not living.

Abortion is destroying the fertility of the inner-city black woman, in another four generations we won't have to worry about our 'black' problem in America, the practice of abortion will have eliminated it for us.

Affluent people use abortion to allow themselves the ability to get-ahead in life before having children; poor people use abortion as a life-long means of birth-control.

... I've read this in books about gender-studies, in particular the book "black feminist thought" and the research of my professor. But the data can be cross-correlated for validity through census and publicly available research data.


Those children denied life through abortion would, on balance, have done so much more good for this world we have today than any of us can know. As would those children murdered in the African genocides.

Children, no matter how hard a life they have, are full of so much potential that denying them a chance at life because "life is hard" is the most morally empty argument any human could possibly make.

What grade did you get in your gender studies class? Your citations of black feminists totally contradict your other arguments, which are ridiculous.

You may want to re-read Collins before you quote her again.

 

[between]

...

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Originally posted by: n yusef
your other arguments, are ridiculous.

ad hominim attacks and esoteric red herring disagreements will not change the fact:

Abortion is destroying the fertility of the inner-city black woman, in another four generations we won't have to worry about our 'black' problem in America, the practice of abortion will have eliminated it for us.

Affluent people use abortion to allow themselves the ability to get-ahead in life before having children; poor people use abortion as a life-long means of birth-control.

If you have ever interacted with a new born baby, you quickly realise it is little more than a bundle of reflexes.

If you have ever raised a new born you know they are not born with the in-bread knowledge of how to poop! Which means their learning, their personality and their individual person-hood asserts itself well before you think it does.

 

[n yusef]

DixyCrat, I have no idea what, "Abortion is destroying the fertility of the inner-city black women," means. First, I was unaware that abortion destroyed fertility. Second, in poor and black communities there are high rates of teen and unwed pregnancy. I have no idea where you get your "four-generations" line from; it's ridiculous.

Your second claim that, "Poor people use abortion as a life-long means of birth-control," is false as well. Because of lack of information, access and affordability of abortion procedures, many poor women don't get abortions. But if there were an epidemic of poor women getting abortions as "life-long means of birth-control," it would obviously be a problem of ignorance about real birth control, which is cheaper, easier and far less intrusive. The answer wouldn't be to restrict abortion access, but to provide comprehensive sex education.

Basically, your arguments are wrong, and you attributed them to someone who disagrees with you.




Is "DixyCrat" supposed to be ironic name?

 

[jpeyton]

You can be pro-life on a personal level and pro-choice on a social level.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Thank you for the reply. If you are interested part of my inductive derivation of information came from the paper-back collins book page 212.. where it talks about the deference between black and white women having abortions.

Originally posted by: n yusef
DixyCrat, I have no idea what, "Abortion is destroying the fertility of the inner-city black women," means. First, I was unaware that abortion destroyed fertility. Second, in poor and black communities there are high rates of teen and unwed pregnancy. I have no idea where you get your "four-generations" line from; it's ridiculous.

The present pregnancy rate of black, inner city, women is more than 2 pregnancies per mother. The number of live-births per mother is less than 2 per mother.

At the present rate the black inner-city society will fail to be sociologically sustainable after another four generations.

This is my professor's secondary data analysis and sociological research conclusion.

Your second claim that, "Poor people use abortion as a life-long means of birth-control," is false as well.

This comes from collins obsevations, It is the second page referenced in the index.

Because of lack of information, access and affordability of abortion procedures, many poor women don't get abortions. But if there were an epidemic of poor women getting abortions as "life-long means of birth-control," it would obviously be a problem of ignorance about real birth control, which is cheaper, easier and far less intrusive. The answer wouldn't be to restrict abortion access, but to provide comprehensive sex education.

I agree that the best answer is improved use of contraceptives that the women will use, such as deproprevara. The social structure of the inner city youth does not allow for condoms as a viable alternative, though changing this would be great!

A better solution is to stop subsidizing living in a high-population-density city with government funds and grant government subsidizes for housing, food and the like to those who move to places where there is less population density.

Is "DixyCrat" supposed to be ironic name?

Dixy Lee Ray

 

[BMW540I6speed]

The attempt to regulate sexuality itself, through abstinence-only education, by outlawing extra-marital sex, by outlawing contraception or enforcing contraception, and indeed through outlawing abortion has a dismal track record in human history, and is inevitably unjustly applied. The human race has yet to produce a government that can be expected to apply anti-abortion laws, child-welfare laws, and deadbeat dad laws with anything resembling consistency, competency, and fairness, and there's no reason to expect such a government to emerge any time soon.

A person should have the right to govern his or her own fertility and sexuality, including the right to get an abortion. Without this right, a person is a ready-made victim for any malefactor, including the state. And there are no demonstrable reasons which can establish why this shouldn't be the case.

How do you propose to prevent any single abortion? How do you propose to decide which ones should happen and which ones shouldn't? by having doctors decide?. Or should it be judges? Really? Judges? Could luck getting your pregnancy on the court calendar in time.

Without the right to get an abortion, a woman is a waiting and disproportionately at-risk victim for any rapist, feckless boyfriend, deadbeat husband, contraceptive failure, or tragic lapse of judgment that may come along. It is not only in the interests of the woman, but in the interests of everyone who loves and cares for the woman, male or female, that she have some defense against these eventualities.

If it is the consensus of society that abortion is tragic or immoral on its face, then the best means available to it to prevent abortion, without causing other tragic consequences as an unintended side-effect, is through the liberal distribution of sound, scientifically based education and contraception and the wholesome upbringing of children, where "wholesome" includes the imparting of good self-esteem and sound knowledge, whatever else may be involved.

 

[Moonbeam]

I read a great SciFi story about folk who live in space but send their children to a primitive earth where they undergo rights of passage. Only the ones who survive with nothing but their training and wits for a period of time are returned to space and thus allowed to breed.

 

[WHAMPOM]

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.

WOW!! What if the "man" had spent $10.00 on latex and no "abortion" situation at all?

 

[WHAMPOM]

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.

All pregnancies threaten the mother's life, an abortion some what less. So there goes your reasoning against abortion.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

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.

Lure females:laugh:

You mean the rebublicans have driven away females that don't want their bodily functions controlled by the goverment

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
You can be pro-life on a personal level and pro-choice on a social level.

yeah, that's what i'm saying. this poll = useless in any argument whatsoever.

 

[halik]

From the article:

It showed that Americans remained deeply divided on the legality of abortion - with 23 percent saying it should be illegal in all circumstances, 22 percent saying it should be legal under any circumstances and 53 percent saying it should be legal only under certain circumstances.