GALLUP: Most Americans now 'pro-life'

bush_cheney2004 · May 20, 2009

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.

True....just like PM Mulroney.

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!!!

If you say so....dead Iraqis say otherwise.

Oleg Bach · May 20, 2009

True....just like PM Mulroney.
If you say so....dead Iraqis say otherwise.

Yep - heard Mr. Mulroney say today ----"I have never did anything wrong in all my life" --- jeezzz a frinking saint...I could have sworn I saw him molseting naive farm animal while looking in my crystal truth ball....we have all been wrong - a man can not be right till he admits that he was wrong..then he can move on...Mulroney is so proud that he wants to go to the grave as a great and historic PM - What the hell is a former PM - doing sitting down having coffee and picking up cash with a Nazi arms dealer - arms dealers are the lowest of low - lower than heroine sales men - of course it was wrong Brian...you were a bad boy - now fess up and show the nation you are the "Honourable" Brian Mulroney.. These old guys worry more about how history will percieve them ---- I guess George Bush will be writing his memoirs soon...maybe he will call it - " I did it my way - right or wrong..and that's just not right... :rolleyes:

Smallc · May 20, 2009

"Honourable" Brian Mulroney..

Right Honourable, actually.

BubberMiley · May 20, 2009

True....just like PM Mulroney.

Is there a conservative not tainted by affiliations with Sadaam Hussein?

bush_cheney2004 · May 20, 2009

Is there a conservative not tainted by affiliations with Sadaam Hussein?

I don't think you got the joke....kids!

Shady · May 20, 2009

Is there a conservative not tainted by affiliations with Sadaam Hussein?

I don't know, would you call Chirac and Schröder conservatives?

WIP · May 20, 2009

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?

An ultrasound doesn't tell us anything about fetal brain development -- and since the brain enables consciousness, a "scientific" argument that the fetus should have personal rights of its own depends on the stage of development it is at.

Even if we determine the fetus is at stage where higher brain function is just beginning; the self-interests of the fetus may be negated by the mother's -- for example, if the doctors determined that continuing the pregnancy could be dangerous and possibly life-threatening, then her right to life, as a fully conscious individual, should take precedence over the fetus's right to be carried to term.

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

So! If you're one of these "life begins at conception" people, does that mean you are also against birth control pills? Since they often prevent a newly fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall, causing its death:

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.

But, until scientists wanted to use nonviable embryos from fertilization clinics, nothing was said about the practice of spawning extra fertilized eggs that would have to be discarded. It seemed to be okay with zealots, as long as they were using the technology to have more children.

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.

Take another look at that Youtube video: "Abortifacient." If anti-abortion extremists are going to declare that life begins at conception, then they have to oppose oral contraceptives as well, since they can "kill" unborn children.

Yes, all of those "extra" human beings. Oh the horror. Lets determine their right to live on the basis of social costs.

Fact is: the conservative majority who make up the pro life movement, are the same people who want to cut the support costs.

Yeah, that sounds logical. And at the sametime, we'll completely ignore the long lists of parents looking to adopt.

Do these people have peculiar tastes in the sort of children they are interested in adopting? Where I live, Children's Aid has the opposite problem -- trying to find enough good foster homes for abandoned and neglected children.

Up till 40 years ago, taking babies away from unwed mothers and putting them up for adoption, was the standard practice. So, I grew up with a lot of people who were adopted. The horror stories far outweighed the good ones -- in some cases, because the parents had biological children of their own, who were favoured; or they just could not bond with the adoptive parents because of the differences in personality. Adoption isn't a panacea, and a system where there are more people looking to adopt, than children available, is a better situation for the children -- since they are more likely to find good homes....certainly more likely than in the old days when children floundered in orphanages waiting to be adopted.

kimmy · May 21, 2009

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

To me the explanation is more likely the ongoing rise of evangelicals in the US.

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.

Who is "non-partisan" on this issue?

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?

The ultrasound has been around for many years. As have those full-color "uterus-cam" pictures that the Pro-Life crowd like to wave around on placards. This is not exactly news.

You're calling WIP "anti-science" because he suspects that there is more to the issue of what constitutes a human life than a beating heart and a happy little face?

Personally, I'd call him "anti-simplistic" for staking out that turf.

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

("rapid"? You ought to find yourself a thesaurus...)

How many people on the pro-choice side of the debate believe in unrestricted access right up to 9 months? I suspect it's a pretty tiny portion of the pro-choice movement, and I suspect very few doctors would perform abortions in such circumstances except in the case of extreme medical emergency. I believe statistics have been posted here before that show that the large majority of abortions are performed within the first trimester, and only a miniscule percentage is performed in the second.

What about you? Is there a point at which you feel abortions are acceptable, or are you as black and white as the "rapid anti-life" crowd you're up in arms about? You feel that ultrasounds of fetuses with beating hearts and happy little faces prove they're human lives. If that's the foundation of your posotion, then what about abortions performed before they have beating hearts and happy little faces? Is it still murder if there's no beating heart and happy little face?l

-k

Shady · May 21, 2009

To me the explanation is more likely the ongoing rise of evangelicals in the US.

Well, you'd be wrong.

The percentage of self-identified Christians has fallen 10 points in the past two decades.

Newsweek

The ultrasound has been around for many years.

Again, you'd be wrong. Yes the ultrasound has been around for many years. But as I specifically stated, the 3D ultrasound hasn't.

How many people on the pro-choice side of the debate believe in unrestricted access right up to 9 months?

Many do. Legislation which provides restrictions on late-term and partial-birth abortions gets opposed time and time again. I'm sorry you're unware of this fact.

I believe statistics have been posted here before that show that the large majority of abortions are performed within the first trimester, and only a miniscule percentage is performed in the second.

Good. Then there shouldn't be any problem outlawing late-term procedures. Right?

What about you? Is there a point at which you feel abortions are acceptable?

Yes. If the mother's life is in danger, and/or before implant on the uterine wall.

You feel that ultrasounds of fetuses with beating hearts and happy little faces prove they're human lives. If that's the foundation of your posotion, then what about abortions performed before they have beating hearts and happy little faces? Is it still murder if there's no beating heart and happy little face?l

Well, I'm not sure what a posotion is (perhaps you need a thesaurus?)

Of course it's human. According to the scientific laws of genetics, humans can only have humans. So you ask what it is? It's a human being, in its earliest form of development, and looks and acts exactly the way it should, as does a 2 year old when it's 2, or a 50 year old, when it's 50.

bush_cheney2004 · May 21, 2009

....Again, you'd be wrong. Yes the ultrasound has been around for many years. But as I specifically stated, the 3D ultrasound hasn't.

Moreover, there has been widespread fetal imaging and intra-uterine simulations /animation on American television programs (e.g. Discovery Channel).

August1991 · May 21, 2009

Another abortion thread? I hope not.

To me the explanation is more likely the ongoing rise of evangelicals in the US.

I disagree. People change their minds and this is a moral question that everyone can understand.

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.

Dobbin, you miss the political implication of this poll.

Obama's election, at 53%, is hardly a sea change in American society.

jdobbin · May 21, 2009

Dobbin, you miss the political implication of this poll.
Obama's election, at 53%, is hardly a sea change in American society.

I think you miss the point: That Obama is not going to ban abortion as some on the right might want.

bush_cheney2004 · May 21, 2009

I think you miss the point: That Obama is not going to ban abortion as some on the right might want.

Point of Order: Obama cannot ban abortion even if he wanted to.

Oleg Bach · May 21, 2009

Point of Order: Obama cannot ban abortion even if he wanted to.

I like life. I appreciate the fact that I was granted this miracle to just be here. This is just fantastic! I feel like a disembodied angel that was given a body to hang out in this resort called heaven on earth...Those that think this is hell - want to kill everything - babies - those in the flower of youth though war and perpetuated profitable violence - Of course Obama can not ban abortion - that would be like banning death and suffering - he's a chicken shit,

kimmy · May 21, 2009

Well, you'd be wrong.
The percentage of self-identified Christians has fallen 10 points in the past two decades.

Newsweek

People who've never really been part of the church no longer feel guilty about putting a check in the "None/Other" box instead of calling themselves "uh, Protestant or something."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_...2C_2001.2C_2008

(the None column plus Refused to Reply column add up to almost all of the decline in Christian...)

Regardless, I think that religious conservatives in America are as numerous, well-organized, and well-funded as they've ever been.

Again, you'd be wrong. Yes the ultrasound has been around for many years. But as I specifically stated, the 3D ultrasound hasn't.

Big fat deal. The heart-warming images of happy little fetuses have been with us for decades. The arrival of a brand new means of showing happy little fetuses to people makes little difference. People have known for a very long time that fetuses look like tiny little people.

Many do. Legislation which provides restrictions on late-term and partial-birth abortions gets opposed time and time again. I'm sorry you're unware of this fact.
Good. Then there shouldn't be any problem outlawing late-term procedures. Right?

Personally, no, I wouldn't have any problem with it.

I believe that when Canada's Progressive Conservatives tried to provide a compromise on abortion that would have banned late-term abortions, it was the pro-lifers who screamed the loudest against it, arguing that it would prevent almost no abortions at all. That was before my time, of course; I don't know the full history of Mulroney's attempt at abortion legislation.

But trying to paint the pro-choice side as being inflexible and dogmatic is about the worst case of the pot calling the kettle black that I can think of.

Yes. If the mother's life is in danger, and/or before implant on the uterine wall.

So for you, it's not "life begins at conception", but rather "life begins at implantation"?

Well, I'm not sure what a posotion is (perhaps you need a thesaurus?)

Writing "posotion" once is a typing error. Typing "rapid" over and over again when you mean "rabid" is ... tell you what, I'll get a spell-checker if you get a thesaurus.

Of course it's human. According to the scientific laws of genetics, humans can only have humans. So you ask what it is? It's a human being, in its earliest form of development, and looks and acts exactly the way it should, as does a 2 year old when it's 2, or a 50 year old, when it's 50.

I'm sure you recognize that the debate is not over whether the fetus is genetically human.

-k

GostHacked · May 21, 2009

To me the explanation is more likely the ongoing rise of evangelicals in the US.

I would agree with this.

How many people on the pro-choice side of the debate believe in unrestricted access right up to 9 months? I suspect it's a pretty tiny portion of the pro-choice movement, and I suspect very few doctors would perform abortions in such circumstances except in the case of extreme medical emergency. I believe statistics have been posted here before that show that the large majority of abortions are performed within the first trimester, and only a miniscule percentage is performed in the second.

In many US states, 3rd trimester abortions are illegal, for the fact the feotus has a pretty good chance of surviving out of the womb. But unless there is a life threatening situation to the mother from the birth, abortion is not a legal option at this point. I will agree with you again that there is a very very small number/percentage of people who favour abortion up to 9 months.

bush_cheney2004 · May 21, 2009

....In many US states, 3rd trimester abortions are illegal, for the fact the feotus has a pretty good chance of surviving out of the womb. But unless there is a life threatening situation to the mother from the birth, abortion is not a legal option at this point. I will agree with you again that there is a very very small number/percentage of people who favour abortion up to 9 months.

It's a little more complicated than that depending on how the restrictions are linked to gestational period and orders enjoined by the courts. Internationally, there are "many" restrictions and outright bans on abortion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-term_abortion

GostHacked · May 21, 2009

It's a little more complicated than that depending on how the restrictions are linked to gestational period and orders enjoined by the courts. Internationally, there are "many" restrictions and outright bans on abortion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-term_abortion

Agreed there are many grey areas and other complicated matters. But for this thread we are dealing with the US, since that is the subject matter of the opening post.

bush_cheney2004 · May 21, 2009

Agreed there are many grey areas and other complicated matters. But for this thread we are dealing with the US, since that is the subject matter of the opening post.

You can run...but you can't hide.

Americans live all over the world...believe it or not.

GostHacked · May 21, 2009

You can run...but you can't hide.

Funny thing is, I am sitting down. I'll make it easier for you.

Americans live all over the world...believe it or not.

No kidding. But this is in US POLITICS, believe it or not.

bush_cheney2004 · May 21, 2009

Funny thing is, I am sitting down. I'll make it easier for you.

I don't care if you lay or pray.

No kidding. But this is in US POLITICS, believe it or not.

You mean "US POLITICS" has no relevance to the rest of the world? Brilliant. I wonder why so many non-Americans bitch about it then?

GostHacked · May 21, 2009

I don't care if you lay or pray.
You mean "US POLITICS" has no relevance to the rest of the world? Brilliant. I wonder why so many non-Americans bitch about it then?

In terms of this thread, you can leave out the rest of the world. Because as an American in another country, you follow their rules. This does not apply to Military bases in a foreing country. I think that is considered US soil. Like the US Embassy here in Ottawa. So yes, in terms of more americans being Pro Life has little or nothing to do with the rest of the world.

bush_cheney2004 · May 21, 2009

In terms of this thread, you can leave out the rest of the world. Because as an American in another country, you follow their rules. This does not apply to Military bases in a foreing country. I think that is considered US soil. Like the US Embassy here in Ottawa. So yes, in terms of more americans being Pro Life has little or nothing to do with the rest of the world.

Well, I am dumber for having read that. Thanks anyway.

The terms "Pro-Life" and "Pro Choice" ceased having precise meanings many years ago.....regardless of where Americans live.

betsy · May 22, 2009

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.

Wow! This is good!

I've noticed lately that there seems to be some sort of change in the climate....a subtle shifting.

Believe it or not: I've viewed several movies now that have some positive implications or message on God, religion, faith.

I've seen on Tyra Banks show segments that shows moral values of young people (some teens) swinging to the "right."

Even those assortment of "Judges" show. bravely invoke God and display Christian values. Judge Mathis' most-memorable cases over the years (special show due to his 10th anniversay) tracked down two litigants of two separate cases....one found God, and the other a woman who suffered so many illnesses (survived Cancer of uterus - and had a baby - only to be diagnosed later on with MS), still clings to faith. The amazing thing for me is that these stories have been highlighted.

CTV newsnet recently mentioned that a poll among the teens show that their values are more "conservative" compared to their parents.

Teens and young people advocating and promoting abstinence (bravely on tv)....not only to combat STD, but unwanted pregnancy.

On a talkshow just recently, the heartwarming story of a very young couple who've been married for 2 years and had not been able to consummate the marriage due to some psychological and/or physiological problems by the wife....putting emphasis on commitment and love. The husband saying: "For better or for worse, in sickness and in health."

And it turned out, they were not the only ones who's got the same kind of problem....and the same kind of values.

I don't know if I'm just hoping too much that I "see" and make so much of these little things....

Edited May 22, 2009 by betsy

betsy · May 22, 2009

Well, you'd be wrong.
The percentage of self-identified Christians has fallen 10 points in the past two decades.

Newsweek

The article says:

the central news of the survey was troubling enough: the number of Americans who claim no religious affiliation has nearly doubled since 1990, rising from 8 to 15 percent.

What exactly do they mean by "religious affiliation?" No religion? Non-member of any religious congregation?

I'll use myself as an example: I no longer consider myself a Catholic. And I am not a member of any congregation. But I consider myself very much a Christian, in fact stronger than ever in my belief than when I was a member of a congregation.

Could it be that a lot of people got disgusted with those sex-scandals that started streaming steadily in past two decades involving preachers/priests from various ministries, hence a big drop in percentage? But does that mean they no longer consider themselves as Christians? I'm just sking....because that could be quite possible. They might be just like me.

Edited May 22, 2009 by betsy