GALLUP: Most Americans now 'pro-life'

[Shady]

More Americans “Pro-Life” Than “Pro-Choice” for First Time

Also, fewer think abortion should be legal “under any circumstances”

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

Gallup

I see this long-term shift as proof, that the pro-life position isn't just about morality, but also science. Your average non-partisan person recognizes that an unborn child, with a heart-beat etc, is more then just "a lump of cells" or "zygote" or whatever other pajorative term the anti-life crowd likes to use to try to delegitimize their existence. Those who advocate abortions under any cirumstance will eventually go the way of the slave owner, and we'll all be better off for it.

[jdobbin]

Those who advocate abortions under any cirumstance will eventually go the way of the slave owner, and we'll all be better off for it.

Those who advocate for a total ban like many on the right do will find that support for that is not very high even with this poll.

[bush_cheney2004]

Those who advocate for a total ban like many on the right do will find that support for that is not very high even with this poll.

Maybe, but those "on the left" who adamantly maintain that a viable fetus (up to full term) as not a human life are losing ground on this issue.

[Oleg Bach]

Maybe, but those "on the left" who adamantly maintain that a viable fetus (up to full term) as not a human life are losing ground on this issue.

It's not that - people are maturing and becoming more aware. They are begining to understand that offspring are wealth - and aborting is not like squeezing a pimple - and old feminists who are aged - regret not having a normal relationship with a male - and having children - that being 55 alone and living with a dog and a lisbian by choice "partner" is not what it's cracked up to be...that abortion is a form of race suicide - and when abortion champions like old Henry Morgantaler recieve the Order Of Canada - and write in their memiors - that "Unwanted children become concentration camp guards" - meaning - better kill the little Nazis before they are born - that this champion of womans rights was just an old delluded and hyper vigilant Jew - who made a horrible mistake with his form of well meaning eugenics.

[Smallc]

Maybe, but those "on the left" who adamantly maintain that a viable fetus (up to full term) as not a human life are losing ground on this issue.

Not in the rest of the world. A viable fetus isn't a life until it breaths air...and becomes a life...or so says the law in much of your country anyway.

[Oleg Bach]

Not in the rest of the world. A viable fetus isn't a life until it breaths air...and becomes a life...or so says the law in much of your country anyway.

And you are not a viable life untill you stop breathing air and one human demise is proof that you were alive - enough already - only a barbaric race of humans eat their own young - and those that consume the young before birth are even more cannibalistic - those who like abortion - like capital punishment..

[jdobbin]

They are begining to understand that offspring are wealth

You must have two dozen children.

[bush_cheney2004]

Not in the rest of the world. A viable fetus isn't a life until it breaths air...and becomes a life...or so says the law in much of your country anyway.

False.....I would be charged and convicted of a crime if I caused the death of a fetus...."death" means the fetus has "life".

Canada is one of the few countries in the world with binary life when it comes to a fetus.

[Smallc]

False.....I would be charged and convicted of a crime if I caused the death of a fetus...."death" means the fetus has "life".

That depends on which state you live in, but you are correct, most of them would charge you with homicide...of a fetus....not a person.

[bush_cheney2004]

That depends on which state you live in, but you are correct, most of them would charge you with homicide...of a fetus....not a person.

Hence the fetus has/is a life. This has long been the battleground that the "left" must not concede, or 3rd trimester limits would logically follow (in the USA).

[Smallc]

Hence the fetus has/is a life.

It does seem rather strange....especially give that it isn't uniform across the country....so maybe it isn't a life...something the right can't concede.

[bush_cheney2004]

It does seem rather strange....especially give that it isn't uniform across the country....so maybe it isn't a life...something the right can't concede.

Canada solved this obvious dilemma with legal definitions to skirt the issue entirely. Not so easy in the USA. Even so, many doctors in either nation refuse to perform the procedure except under specific circumstances, adding to the possibility of a future interests convergence on a gestational limit.

[Shady]

A viable fetus isn't a life until it breaths air...and becomes a life...or so says the law in much of your country anyway.

Hmm, the law doesn't quite seem to agree with you.

Scott Peterson pleads not guilty to killing wife, unborn child

MODESTO, California (CNN) -- Scott Peterson pleaded not guilty Monday to two counts of murder in the deaths of his wife, Laci, and his unborn son, charges that could bring the death penalty.

CNN

[jdobbin]

Hmm, the law doesn't quite seem to agree with you.

So by extension women and doctors should be charged with murder and sentenced to the death penalty if they have an abortion? Should that extend back to all women and doctors in recent decades?

[Smallc]

See, this is why I don't visit this side of the forum all that often...I don't know nearly as many facts about the US as I do about Canada. That seems rather backwards to me, but California is one of the jurisdictions that allows it to be called 'murder' or 'homicide', and I don't think my disagreement is going to change their mind.

[bush_cheney2004]

See, this is why I don't visit this side of the forum all that often...I don't know nearly as many facts about the US as I do about Canada. That seems rather backwards to me, but California is one of the jurisdictions that allows it to be called 'murder' or 'homicide', and I don't think my disagreement is going to change their mind.

Nope, probably not. There are a host (pun intended) of other issues as well from fetal alcohol abuse to plain old gender selection. Abortion is the gift that keeps on giving (politically).

[WIP]

I see this long-term shift as proof, that the pro-life position isn't just about morality, but also science.

Like hell it's about science! It's about right wing conservative religious and political leaders who want to return us to our patriarchal past of high birth rates and expendable sons marching off to war or joining the priesthood.

Your average non-partisan person recognizes that an unborn child, with a heart-beat etc, is more then just "a lump of cells" or "zygote" or whatever other pajorative term the anti-life crowd likes to use to try to delegitimize their existence. Those who advocate abortions under any cirumstance will eventually go the way of the slave owner, and we'll all be better off for it.

Don't know how many times it's worth going down this road, but it depends on what stage of development we're talking about, since the anti-abortion fanatics are even opposed to embryonic stem cell research -- when the embryo is just an undifferentiated "lump of cells." Further proof that the "Pro Life" Movement doesn't really give a rats ass about the sanctity of life, is:

1. those embryos that biologists want to use for developing new lines of stem cells, are coming from fertility clinics, where thousands of embryos are spawned so that the prospective parents can choose the healthiest and most viable ones for implantation in the mother's womb. If the anti-abortion movement was so hot and bothered by the prospect of a newly fertilized egg cell being destroyed, why the hell have they said nothing about this business that enables people who would otherwise have no children of their own, to have babies? One reason: they want more and more children, to keep birth rates up and to keep the women busy rearing children and away from trying to influence economic policy and politics, where they are more likely to support social spending over war-making desires of would be potentates!

2. what does most of the "Pro Life" movement have to say about the social costs of supporting all of the extra babies they want single, unwed mothers to bring in to this world?.......I can hear the crickets chirping! They want welfare spending cut to the same women who are raising children in poverty.....more evidence that the conservative, pro-life movement doesn't care about life after it is out of the womb!

[Shady]

Like hell it's about science! It's about right wing conservative religious and political leaders who want to return us to our patriarchal past of high birth rates and expendable sons marching off to war or joining the priesthood.

The science is settled, and you're on the wrong side of it my friend. The 3D ultrasound is the beginning of the end of the rapid anti-life movement and the abortion in any circumstance crowd. This has nothing to do with your false choices of patriarchal pasts, or marching to war, or joining priesthoods, or any other strawmen you'd like to erect. It's about science and human life. I side with science. How about you? Why are you so anti-science? Why do you continue to dwell in the darkages?

but it depends on what stage of development we're talking about

Not to the rapid anti-life crowd. There's absolutely no point of development that they'll agree to where abortion is wrong. None.

since the anti-abortion fanatics are even opposed to embryonic stem cell research

That's incorrect. Embryonic stem-cell research is one thing. Government funded (ie their tax dollars) embryonic stem-cell research is another. And some people have a definite problem with the creation of life for the sole purpose of it's destruction to aid in the lives of the already living.

to keep the women busy rearing children and away from trying to influence economic policy and politics

Now you've resorted to crazy person talk. Women have the choice as to whether or not they want to get pregnant. Ever heard of contraception and birth control? Thought so. And even when pregnant, women retain their voting rights, as well as their rights to run for political office.

what does most of the "Pro Life" movement have to say about the social costs of supporting all of the extra babies

Yes, all of those "extra" human beings. Oh the horror. Lets determine their right to live on the basis of social costs. Yeah, that sounds logical. And at the sametime, we'll completely ignore the long lists of parents looking to adopt.

Eugenics is an evil and rejected form of policy.

[daniel]

Well, at some point in the past, most American also believed it was a good idea to invade Iraq.

[bush_cheney2004]

Well, at some point in the past, most American also believed it was a good idea to invade Iraq.

Well, at this point, most also believe there is no death penalty in Canada...except for unborn babies.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Well, at some point in the past, most American also believed it was a good idea to invade Iraq.

And since they've won that war, overthrown a violent murderous dictator who gassed and killed 30,000 of his own citizens - and establish a burgeoning democracy in his place, turns out they were right.

[waldo]

And since they've won that war, overthrown a violent murderous dictator who gassed and killed 30,000 of his own citizens - and establish a burgeoning democracy in his place, turns out they were right.

beat the talking points drum Jerry…

whether the U.S.–Iraq war is actually over (yet), a prevailing sentiment holds to the view that Iran has won/will win the war. That “burgeoning democracy” you speak of has a strong alliance with Iranians whether it’s the governing Dawa Party of al-Maliki, or the opposition United Iraqi Alliance of Mogtada al-Sadr… for the first time in over 1300 years, Iraq is now governed by the Shia. The long standing concerns of the Sunni Arab Middle East to the threat of Shia Persians has come right to it’s doorstep - thanks to the destabilizing influence of the unwarranted U.S. invasion of the sovereign country of Iraq.

the waiting game has been playing itself out ever since the U.S. first announced it’s intentions to leave Iraq… sorry, it wasn’t the “Bush surge”; rather, al-Sadr’s militia - and "others" - essentially disengaged from active combat, content to wait the relatively short time frame for the U.S. to begin wholesale troop departures. It remains to be seen whether Iraqis will continue to accept being governed by Shia… content to being a satellite of Iran. We may yet see the full-on country wide civil-war that “stopped/started” over recent years… we may yet see the split of Iraq into 3 distinct countries. Thank you Cowboy Bush! Hee Haw – Bush, the Great Liberator!!!

[bush_cheney2004]

.....It remains to be seen whether Iraqis will continue to accept being governed by Shia… content to being a satellite of Iran. We may yet see the full-on country wide civil-war that “stopped/started” over recent years… we may yet see the split of Iraq into 3 distinct countries. Thank you Cowboy Bush! Hee Haw – Bush, the Great Liberator!!!

This was true even before President Bush came along....he just rushed the net.

[waldo]

This was true even before President Bush came along....he just rushed the net.

no - there was this other guy - before Bush... uhhh..... Hussein, ya... Hussein, that's his name. You know, the former "best friend" - when it suited U.S. purposes, the guy who was forever propped up by the U.S. - when it suited U.S. purposes. Well, apparently... that Hussein guy had total control - go figure. Possibilities (real) of civil war and the splitting apart of Iraq did not exist when Hussein governed... that "eventuality" is on Bush - the Great Liberator!!!

[GostHacked]

The science is settled, and you're on the wrong side of it my friend. The 3D ultrasound is the beginning of the end of the rapid anti-life movement and the abortion in any circumstance crowd. This has nothing to do with your false choices of patriarchal pasts, or marching to war, or joining priesthoods, or any other strawmen you'd like to erect. It's about science and human life. I side with science. How about you? Why are you so anti-science? Why do you continue to dwell in the darkages?

Got anything to back this up?? The science is not settled for the fact that he is on the 'other side' of this debate. It is religious people that bring this stuff up all the time.

Not to the rapid anti-life crowd. There's absolutely no point of development that they'll agree to where abortion is wrong. None.

You are not doing your homework then. There are plenty of cases where abortion is clearly wrong.

That's incorrect. Embryonic stem-cell research is one thing. Government funded (ie their tax dollars) embryonic stem-cell research is another. And some people have a definite problem with the creation of life for the sole purpose of it's destruction to aid in the lives of the already living.

This reminds me of a Monty Python skit called 'Every sperm is sacred'. I think this might have been a poke at religion in how it deals with masturbation. Call me crazy. And why does it matter if it is government funded or not? When it is government funded, you do not have a problem with it? And can we somehow blame Obama for all this?

Now you've resorted to crazy person talk. Women have the choice as to whether or not they want to get pregnant. Ever heard of contraception and birth control? Thought so. And even when pregnant, women retain their voting rights, as well as their rights to run for political office.

Ever get raped?? I am sure that is a wanted pregnancy. And the groups that seem to have a thing against abortion also have a thing against contraception and birth control. That makes no sense at all to me.

Yes, all of those "extra" human beings. Oh the horror. Lets determine their right to live on the basis of social costs. Yeah, that sounds logical. And at the sametime, we'll completely ignore the long lists of parents looking to adopt.

There are over 6 billion of us on this planet already. And ask any new parent how much it costs to raise a child properly. But I do agree with making adoption more accessable to those who want to adopt. There are loving people out there that want children. Let's make it easier for them to adopt needy children.

Eugenics is an evil and rejected form of policy.

No arguments here. It should stay dead.