By Yael T. Abouhalkah, Kansas City Star Editorial Page columnist
A new Gallup Poll contains stunning news for the pro-choice crowd: Their side is losing, and the pro-life/anti-abortion side is finally winning.
The poll is bound to be a deep concern to pro-choice backers who want abortion to remain legal.
Most notably, the poll likely will ramp up pressure on Obama to try to appoint a Supreme Court justice who would uphold the Roe vs. Wade decision.
The news in the poll is especially shocking given recent events.
They include the election of a liberal as president in Barack Obama, and the facts that Democrats now easily control Congress and that the GOP is in disarray.
The Gallup Poll from earlier this month says 51 percent of Americans call themselves "pro-life" and 42 percent "pro-choice."
Adds Gallup: "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."
Just a year ago, only 44 percent were pro-life and 50 percent were pro-choice.
Delicious
Digg
If you love fashion,you must
If you love fashion,you must konw abercrombie and fitch
and you are a abercrombie manor
abercrombie womensand
hollister clothingis also very fashion.
And you know RuehlNo.925
I also like abercrombie outlet,and you?
ugg boots
Good ! I like it ! Welcome to read following news: ugg boots,Nike dunk sb,discount ugg boots, uggs ,nike dunk low,ugg boots sale,UGG Bailey Button boots,new nike sb,UGG Classic short boots,UGG Nightfall boots,cheap nike dunks,UGG Classic tall boots.
pro vs anti argument is stupid
Let's say some religious zealot tries to pass a bill to prevent anyone getting tattoos. What are they "for?" Pro-unmarked skin? No, they are anti-tattoo. If you're trying to take something away from someone else, or stop them from doing something, you're ANTI, not PRO.
This is notwithstanding the fact that only zealots and demagogues think it's OK to assign a clearly charged term to the opposition, to undermine their position and argument. If you insist on calling them pro-abortion, then they have every right to call you anti-choice. Anti-abortion is a personal choice. Trying to force that moral on others is not.
Fine, you want a pro out of us? We're pro-law and pro-constitution. Your elected representative government and judiciary has said abortion is a privacy issue. By disagreeing, you are anti-law and anti-constitution, right? We are pro-selfdetermination, pro-liberty, and pro-freedom. I guess this means you are anti-selfdetermination, anti-liberty, and anti-freedom. We are pro-religious freedom. By tying the abortion issue to the bible and your morals, you are anti-religious freedom (you believe everyone should practive YOUR religion).
We are pro-separation of church and state. By giving to PACs that bribe and threaten politicians to serve your will or else, you are anti-separation of church and state, and pro-religious state. And that's FINE with you, as long as it's YOUR religion--the second someone says it should be Jewish, Catholic, Baptist, Protestand, Buddhist, or Muslim, they you'll UNDERSTAND what our founding fathers wanted to prevent. When you're WASP, it's easy to push your views around, with so many in agreement. So we are pro-empathy, and you are anti-empathy, or pro-selfishness.
OK, enough rhetoric. Hopefully that will end the pro vs anti garbage jibber jabber. Stop attacking the other side, unless the other side is trying to oppress, suppress, or subjugate you. The way the right does...
or ...
... if the other side, using a 5-4 vote margin passed during a liberal-packed court, wishes to dream that a right to abortion actually exists in the Constitution, as if the very religious founding fathers would have actually AGREED with that ruling - insane on the face of it to assume they would. And where does the 'right to privacy' end? You mean its okay to kill a fetus, but it's not okay to refuse to answer a census question? Its okay to terminate inarguably a life form but it's not okay not to want cameras installed on city blocks?
Well, okay, that's the way you think - that as long as you personally support actions that violates a person's privacy, then there's no constitutional right, but if you disagree, it's the old Roe vs. Wade decision.
This is why this issue is so polarizing. So be it. To try to cut off argument is not only pointless, it's disingenuous.
<<<
Global warming is the new eugenics - its proponents are reality deniers <<<
Surveys show Americans are 60-65% in favor of Roe v. Wade
There is nothing "stunning" about this, much less anything important. Few people call themselves liberal, but many are. This is only one poll, and it was conducted during a biased and charged election year. When we see 2-3 years of it, THEN it's a trend, and a statistic someone can believe. Polls easily can be worded (or given not so "randomly") to support either side. Look at ALL the polls and you'll find this out, and it is not changing at all in favor of the radical right, and never will:
<10% Number of Americans that think abortion should be illegal in all instances
2:1 Ratio of Americans that say Roe v. Wade should be upheld (v. for overturning)
>60% Americans that say Roe v Wade should NOT be overturned
<30% Americans that say Roe v Wade SHOULD be overturned
As a result, it causes no concern whatsoever for pro-choice backers. The Supreme Court has spoken many times, and stare decisis (and jurisprudence constante) will prevent them from "changing their mind" capriciously based on politics. States that have passed laws sneaking around Roe v. Wade have consistently seen their vote-pandering attempts thrown out as unconstitutional. In only 1 instance did the Supreme Court overrule the lower court, and that was during the Dark Age of Bush (and his Republican Congress)--that will change soon, luckily for America. The only reason the Partial Birth Ban was passed is because activists came up with a fake term that would easily polarize the issue and electrify (and dupe) the far right Republican base.
Regardless of how many people call themselves pro-life, almost 2/3 of American say early and mid-term abortion should be a choice for the mother, which is in line with Roe v Wade that they clearly support. Don't try to make a mole hill into a mountain. Most people filling out polls have no idea what the terms really mean, or even recognize that a non-viable fetus at 20 weeks is 6" long and weighs only 1 pound. Most don't realize that viability up to week 26 is still only 15%, and a fetus at that stage (only 8" long) does not sense pain. Most pro-lifers have a clear ulterior motive that doesn't warrant or excuse their alarmist tactics: to supplement the religious, fear-based brainwashing of their children, by taking away a choice from their daughters and sons, in the hopes that they will have yet another reason to not have evil sex, much less enjoy it. Barking without teeth sucks. Same reason they are against sex education and condoms.
When the base of their arguments fail to force morality on their kids at home directly, they want to force morality on them indirectly through society, so that their kids can't escape the "when you're under my roof" rule of any good autocrat or dictator. By taking away the abortion option, and the condom/pill option, they hope that their daughters will be more encouraged to keep their legs together. But if they don't, there's always the hushed out of state abortion (so they're not embarrassed in church), or the "had mono that year" while having a baby elsewhere and putting it up for adoption. Or claiming it's the mother's, like some "responsible parents" (and presidential candidates) do in Alaska.
please post a link to the abortion survey
How many surveys are you referencing, street? Your title says 'surveys' but then you say it's 'only one poll'. In either case, if you are referencing a survey, you're going to have to post a link to it so that everyone can read it and know who did it.
Thank you.
How do those of you who call yourselves "pro-choice"
consider yourselves to be intellictually honest when you act as though you believe that all pro-life people are violent and approve of bombings and murder? I would estimate that somewhere upwards of 99% of people who describe themselves as pro-life consider bombings of abortion clinics and shooting at abortionists to be criminal acts. Further I believe that the same 99%+ think the criminals should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and pray that no one engages in violent acts while protesting the killing of unborn children. Those few who engage in that type of behavior in no way represent the rest of us.
People who are pro-life believe that women have choices too. We simply believe that women (and men) should make those choices BEFORE they engage in behavior that could create a child.
Clarify.
People who are pro-life believe that women have choices too. We simply believe that women (and men) should make those choices BEFORE they engage in behavior that could create a child.
I would agree.
Jenniferm, how can it ever be your right to kill another human being?
Well, for one, the Supreme Court says its my right. Second, if that is your argument then I really don't have any need to discuss this issue further with you. You believe what you want to believe and I believe what I want to believe.
And Jenniferm - I respect your opinions but disagree with all of them. And I can't see why now that you continually draw Interface's ire.
Because I don't pray at the alter of Obama. I never once bought into his act or believed he was anything more than the Dems GWB. Interface is a paid professional whose job it is to come here and support Obama (not the Dems, mind you, but Obama--there is a difference). Period.
Jenniferm claims the right to kill
People who are pro-life believe that women have choices too. We simply believe that women (and men) should make those choices BEFORE they engage in behavior that could create a child.
I would agree.
Jenniferm, how can it ever be your right to kill another human being?
Well, for one, the Supreme Court says its my right. Second, if that is your argument then I really don't have any need to discuss this issue further with you. You believe what you want to believe and I believe what I want to believe.
And Jenniferm - I respect your opinions but disagree with all of them. And I can't see why now that you continually draw Interface's ire.
Because I don't pray at the alter of Obama. I never once bought into his act or believed he was anything more than the Dems GWB. Interface is a paid professional whose job it is to come here and support Obama (not the Dems, mind you, but Obama--there is a difference). Period.
What I believe doesn't matter, it's the truth that matters. Ideology has nothing to do with this issue. Actually, Jenniferm, the ambiguity you pretend grants you the right to kill your unborn baby was not the intention of the Supreme Court "(Some claim) that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree. Appellant's arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, are unpersuasive. The Court's decisions recognizing a right of privacy also acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by that right is appropriate. As noted above, a State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. (Section VIII)"
Lezzle
...I have absolutely no intention of discussing/arguing/debating etc with you at all on this topic.
As I have stated before, those politicians who claim to be a "pro-choice" candidate do not have the balls to take a strong stand on this issue. I am just as disgusted with them as you are, although for different reasons.
When rape, incest and date rape drugs no longer exist, and
birth control is universal, then we will no longer need abortion.
It is a myth that most abortions are for birth control, but it suits you to make it sound that way.
When young men feel that using it is masculine and manly not to have unprotected sex and coercing starry-eyed young women into it is not, then we will no longer need abortion.
Yes, that would be a perfect world, and no, we don't live in it.
If so, Sarah Palin's daughter would have kept her knees together as well as Levi kept his pants up, but that didn't happen. She is fortunate that her family is wealthy enough and forgiving enough to allow her the luxury of having her baby. She will still have to struggle somewhat with the things she gives up, while Levi pays out of his pocket but continues to play.
And that's the bright side.
The dark side is the number of girls and young women who are forced, coerced or persuaded into sex who weren't being irresponsible.
When those who are 'pro-life' support that initiative, stand in protest at every rape and incest trial and agree to support every unwanted, battered and abused child, we will no longer need abortion.
Someday....
human rights
"This unanswered question remains before us: Why does a fetus not have an inalienable right to life? The question is one of constitutional law, not of religious belief. As a question of law, when is human life to be afforded constitutional protection?"
Jenniferm, how can it ever be your right to kill another human being?
The problem with pro-choice
is the person making the choice isn't the person dying because of that choice.
Jenniferm - until today, I would have bet money you were Pro-life.
And Apop, calling it "Anti-choice" is just jockeying. Call it what it is "Pro-life" or "anti-death" - because the party that doesn't have any say is the one dying.
And Apop - let me guess - you are AGAINST the death penalty? That one should be called "Pro-Choice" - because the perpetrator made a choice to kill someone.
Anti choice fits
Jenniferm - until today, I would have bet money you were Pro-life.
And Apop, calling it "Anti-choice" is just jockeying. Call it what it is "Pro-life" or "anti-death" - because the party that doesn't have any say is the one dying.
And Apop - let me guess - you are AGAINST the death penalty? That one should be called "Pro-Choice" - because the perpetrator made a choice to kill someone.
because the ant-choicers favor taking the choice away from all women. Choice includes carrying a baby to term.
Pro-life is also a misleading term. If you are really pro-life, you must oppose war too. And the death penalty.
Apop - get out of the dreamworld
For you to relate war & death penalty to abortion pro-life is ridiculous, but that's how people in dreamworld think.
War: So what should FDR have done? How about Woodrow Wilson? I won't bring GW Bush into it because your hate will cloud the issue.
Death Penalty - who made a "choice" to kill someone?
And Apop - what did the fetus do to deserve death?
You are either pro life or you are not
War: So what should FDR have done? How about Woodrow Wilson? I won't bring GW Bush into it because your hate will cloud the issue.
Death Penalty - who made a "choice" to kill someone?
And Apop - what did the fetus do to deserve death?
I am just pointing out the hypocrisy of the term and the reason I refer to these folks as anti-choicers. It fits; pro-life does not. Deal with it.
Apop - so it's all "words" to you?
Babies/fetus die - but all Apop worries about is what to call it.
How about answering my questions? I'd love to hear your reasoning.
Really?
Why?
Jenniferm -
I guess the best reason I thought that was you seem to be a person who wants people to be accountable/responsible.
Plus, even though you state otherwise, your views on your posts look conservative.
I'd be interested in your reason for being Pro-choice/death.
Been pro-choice all my life
I do think people ought to be held accountable and responsible for their decisions--whether that is to their parents, their bank or whomever. I won't put that opinion in any liberal vs. conservative bucket.
I resent greatly the idea that if I should choose to have an abortion that is anyone else's business. My decision, my responsibility. And frankly if someone wants to call me "murderer" or whatever, I don't care.
I support a women's right to choose, I support the rights of gays to marry, I support the rights of gays to adopt children. Life doesn't exist in a petri dish. I don't support the death penalty--but won't go lighting a candle or sit in on a vigil for anyone about to be executed. I don't support the idea that everyone has a right to own a gun. I never supported the Iraq War.
Interface - do you really think Jenni & I are one in same?
Jenniferm said:
I resent greatly the idea that if I should choose to have an abortion that is anyone else's business. My decision, my responsibility. And frankly if someone wants to call me "murderer" or whatever, I don't care.
I support a women's right to choose, I support the rights of gays to marry, I support the rights of gays to adopt children. Life doesn't exist in a petri dish. I don't support the death penalty--but won't go lighting a candle or sit in on a vigil for anyone about to be executed. I don't support the idea that everyone has a right to own a gun. I never supported the Iraq War.
And Jenniferm - I respect your opinions but disagree with all of them. And I can't see why now that you continually draw Interface's ire.
Conservatives and Abortion
I find it interesting that individual liberty, personal responsibility, and dislike for social engineering are supposed to be conservative principles, but those principles fly right out the window as applied to abortion. Under Roe v. Wade, nobody forces a woman to have an abortion. It is the woman's personal responsibility and freedom to choose for the first three months of pregnancy. After that, the State can lawfully impose increasing restrictions. The "pro-life" crowd wants to overturn Roe v. Wade so that Big Government can intervene in this personal decision. There's something definitely anti-conservative about that. Don't they trust the woman to make the right decision?
It's amazing
The anti-choice crowd wants the government to intervene in a private decision between a woman and her doctor, yet many of them claim to be opposed to single payer health care, as that would (in their opinion) involve the government in private health care decisions.
So they want the government in a woman's womb but not anywhere else?
Mind blowing, isn't it?
I'm pro-choice
And proud of it. The Democrats have allowed the GOP to whittle away at this legal right for the past 25 years or so. Too bad we can't get any candidate for office to stand up and say, "The Supreme Court has made abortion legal and I will do everything in my power to see that it stays legal". Alas, no balls--not even on the women.
Why on earth would a party who has the WH and both houses of Congress and an opening on the Supreme Court right now being talking of compromise or common ground or anything else other than standing ground. Cowards.
It's the hate from the antis
Why on earth would a party who has the WH and both houses of Congress and an opening on the Supreme Court right now being talking of compromise or common ground or anything else other than standing ground. Cowards.
Their side has fanatics who murder doctors (while claiming to be pro life) and commit other acts of violence to get their point across. I agree that the Dems are disappointing on this issue but I understand their reluctance to challenge the fanatic anti-choicers.
I was in Wichita back in the 90s and saw first hand how insane and violent these anti-choicers are. I have to admit, if I was an elected official I would probably stay as far away from this issue as I could.
I don't.
I agree that the Dems are disappointing on this issue but I understand their reluctance to challenge the fanatic anti-choicers.
I don't understand it. They clearly choose not to fight on principle anymore, rather choose to sit and wait for public opinion to turn (ie Iraq) to take a stand. Nothing noble in that at all.
Both parties are guilty of this
I don't understand it. They clearly choose not to fight on principle anymore, rather choose to sit and wait for public opinion to turn (ie Iraq) to take a stand. Nothing noble in that at all.
And I agree it is not the least bit noble.
Dishonest post, apop
"Their side has fanatics who murder doctors (while claiming to be pro life) and commit other acts of violence to get their point across."
Those on my side do not support the murder of abortion doctors. (Your comment is tantamount to smearing all environmentalists because of the Unabomber or all teachers because of Quantrill.) However, those on the pro-abortion side apparently have no problem with the deaths of more than 30 million children since the Roe v. Wade decision.
"I agree that the Dems are disappointing on this issue but I understand their reluctance to challenge the fanatic anti-choicers."
Science is making it increasingly difficult for the pro-abortion side to argue their position.
You are denying that doctors have been murdered?
Those on my side do not support the murder of abortion doctors. (Your comment is tantamount to smearing all environmentalists because of the Unabomber or all teachers because of Quantrill.) However, those on the pro-abortion side apparently have no problem with the deaths of more than 30 million children since the Roe v. Wade decision.
"I agree that the Dems are disappointing on this issue but I understand their reluctance to challenge the fanatic anti-choicers."
Science is making it increasingly difficult for the pro-abortion side to argue their position.
What a statement. You are actually denying that anti-choice fanatics have murdered doctors? Dr Tiller's shooter is still in prison. Are you now denying she shot him?
You might not agree with these violent acts but you cannot deny they have happened. That is incredibly dishonest. And you can't deny they are on the anti-choice side.
Apop, I read Arminius' post and I don't see it
Apop said:
You should take the Evelyn Wood Reading Dynamics course.
Apop - Head/stool applies.
Apop's poor reading comprehnsion
You should take the Evelyn Wood Reading Dynamics course.
Apop - Head/stool applies.
Evelyn Wood is for speed reading. Myabe you should slow down a bit and focus on reading comprehension because I never wrote that abortion doctors have not been killed.
I guess if you're pro-abortion, lying is no major offense.
Read it again, brainiac
You should take the Evelyn Wood Reading Dynamics course.
Apop - Head/stool applies.
He said "Those on my side do not support the murder of abortion doctors."
Yet those on his side have indeed murdered abortion docs. Are you denying this?
Apop - what liberal criminals do you want me
to throw you in the same sack with?
I believe he was saying that non-fanatics on his side did not support murder of abortion doctors - but you seem to think that everyone who is on the opposite side of your views - is a fanatic.
Grow up!
Show me where he said "non-fanatics"
I believe he was saying that non-fanatics on his side did not support murder of abortion doctors - but you seem to think that everyone who is on the opposite side of your views - is a fanatic.
Grow up!
And grow up yourself. That line is getting old.
Fact remains - anti-choicers murder abortion doctors. Your side.
statistical shennanigans
sample size was 1,015 people.
While at one point this sample size MIGHT have given a 95% confidence +/-3% - telephony has been changing rapidly in the last few years. 10% of households have disconnected their land lines (pollsters typically don't call cell phones, and when they do, they don't get far.). Then theres CallerID, telemarketers putting pressure on people not to pick up their phone unless theres a known name on the callerID.
Anyway, back in 2003-2004, because of changes in telephony, polling response rates were at 30% and falling. So, that number is certainly far less now.
I'm sure both sides of the argument will try to twist these results to their advantage.
The fact is, all we know is these are the opinions of the 1,015 people who don't filter their incoming phone calls very well, and who aren't irritated enough to hang up when they hear it's a pollster. So, out of those 1,015 people, with 95% confidence, AFTER the margin of error, theres a 2% difference in opinion.
Gallup is becoming an irrelevant entity, performing an irrelevant service, producing an irrelevant product.
Nobody should feel good trying to use this poll as "Proof" for an argument, or a dramatic news article or news story.
The numbers just aren't reliable.
It is now socially acceptable
for a teenage unwed mother to keep her baby. I find that sad. Of course the anti-choicers praise these too young mothers for being pro-life and continue to oppose policies that would actually HELP these young mothers. You also have to wonder what ever happened to adoption.
'You chose to keep your baby! Wonderful! Jesus loves you! Health care? Affordable tuition for college? No way!'
Who Isn't "Pro-Life"
These titles have been hijacked by the right-wing fringe, and being Pro-Choice has been turned into "believing in death by abortion". Ridiculous!
Pro-Choice is just that, being for a capable person making their OWN choices in life.
The GOP rails against social programs--knowing dam* well that most kids are born to single parents, while screaming about abortion--EVEN in the event of rape and/or incest, or if catholic, priest child abuse.
GOP = Hypocrite
Ignorant post from noserver
Most kids are not born to single parents.
"Pro-choice" is a weasel word. The actual term is "pro-abortion."
If you type it does that make it true?
"Pro-choice" is a weasel word. The actual term is "pro-abortion."
Cause it's not. More than 50% of kids in the US are born to single mothers and raised in single parent families.
You're wrong, apop
"Cause it's not. More than 50% of kids in the US are born to single mothers and raised in single parent families."
That may be true with black families, but it is not true when you consider all families in the United States.
27%
You knbow there's this thing called google:
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/773/fewer-voters-identify-as-republicans
Much too hard for the wingnuts, Steve
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/773/fewer-voters-identify-as-republicans
I was amazed they even asked. That story was all over the place a week or so ago. I guess this proves they get their news from wingnut friendly sites, which for obvious reasons, didn't post this news.
Okay
Wow. Well let the Democrats believe they're invincible and we can watch them disintegrate before our very eyes because of their hubris.
Apop
Where do you come up with 20% of the population is Republican???
DanBeyer, Apop's math is this:
Obama had an 80% approval rating (debatable), so Apop subtracted 80 from 100 and decided that Republicans are only 20% now.
You Kno Dip Pop
I have seen that "stat" of 70/20 before, if that is true, why didn't your man Yomama win by 70/20 Hmmmmm?
Or...
Pro-death.
I would tend to believe that
I would tend to believe that those who say they are pro-life would also say that they do not want the law over turned BUT at the same time do not want Congress/Obama to make it easier/more accessibly as well.
The Freedom of Choice Act that Obama supports I believe will face HUGE opposition.
I think this majority is a status quo majority. Dont make it more or less than it is right now.
AntiLife or AntiChoice?
I wonder how the percentages would change if we defined the positions as "Anti Choice", or "Anti Abortion"?
Words are powerful.
Pro-abortion would be more accurate
"Pro-choice" is a weasel word since it does not tell us what people would choose (abortion in this case). I'm pro-choice when it comes to a wide variety of issues, but not when it comes to abortion. Let's call the pro-abortion possible pro-abortion since that is what it really is. If polls accurately used "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion," we would see a much larger percentage of people calling themselves anti-abortion.