'Pro-Choice' Americans At Record Low, Poll Finds
Source: ABC OTUS News
The percent of Americans who identify as "pro-choice" regarding legalized abortion is at a new low of 41 percent, according to a newly released Gallup poll. The figure is one percent lower than the previous all-time low registered by Gallup, which was in May 2009.
The decline appears to fall along party lines, with the percent of Republicans identifying as "pro-choice" decreasing from 28 percent last May, to 22 percent in this most recent poll. Democrats remain somewhat consistent, around 60 percent identify as pro-choice.
Pro-choice and pro-life was the language used in the Gallup poll questionnaire.
Potentially troubling for Democrats heading into the fall is the drop among voters who are registered as Independents identifying as "pro-choice." The survey found 41 percent of Independents identified as "pro-choice," while 47 percent identified as "pro-life," marking only the second time since 2001 that the number of "pro-life" Independents has outweighed the number of "pro-choice" Independents.
Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/pro-choice-americans-record-low-poll-finds-162145636--abc-news-politics.html
I think the bump here is with so-called "Independents". The truth is probably that more people are now ashamed or afraid to call themselves republicans, so they claim to be independents.
NYC Liberal
(20,132 posts)sweetloukillbot
(10,814 posts)Five years ago, independent meant "Moderate." The MSM still uses it as that definition, but speaking at least in teabag central (Arizona) Independent means "Republican/Libertarian who doesn't want to admit to voting for Bush."
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)wordpix
(18,652 posts)lies. She can't stand R-money and R's out for themselves with the rich getting richer and no thought to the country.
mzteris
(16,232 posts)1. Support the death penalty?
2. Support causes that help unwed mothers? or single mom families living in abject poverty?
3. Foster or adopt unwanted and/or abused children?
Raster
(20,996 posts)demand that their unwed, teenage daughter visit the clinic for a "d and c" and then pretend it never happened?
lunasun
(21,646 posts)meaning...... it was for them or their family.........and then that makes it OK
I'll give you the answer to your question : zero , nada , zilch , 0 !
NV Whino
(20,886 posts)WhoIsNumberNone
(7,875 posts)The overwhelming majority of them will be vehemently opposed to adoption by same sex couples.
On edit; Maybe I should phrase that more carefully- in this case by "pro-life", we mean "anti-abortion". I've known plenty of people who call themselves "pro-life", but believe abortion should remain legal. As people are saying downthread, it makes a big difference how you phrase the question.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)Excellent point. I would think it's about 80 percent or so. Hypocrites.
mzteris
(16,232 posts)Are you saying that 80% of those people do do those things??
DCKit
(18,541 posts)mzteris
(16,232 posts)A doobie? Because - dude - you ain't making much sense!
Judi Lynn
(160,219 posts)smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)It's all about hate and oppression. It has nothing to do with "saving babies". The behaviors you described just follow the line of their sickness.
I'm opposed to all abortions, except to save the mother's life.
1- I'm against the death penalty, the State can not be entrusted with that power
2- I don't do enough, I admit. There's only so much I can do and I focus my efforts on children and animal rescue and rehabilitation.
3- I've adopted one and am looking into adopting two more, a brother and sister.
CTyankee
(63,771 posts)That should take care of your "concerns" about abortion...
obamanut2012
(25,911 posts)But don't tell other people they can't have a legal medical procedure.
See how easy that is?
Also, can you answer this for me please: why is the mother more important than the fetus?
Captain Lee
(27 posts)Only one can be saved. Two men climbing a mountain, tied together, and one falls off a cliff. If you can, pull him up. If you can't, cut the rope.
And I don't tell people not to have a medical procedure. I support outlawing a murder loophole. Oh, and I'm agnostic, so save the anti-Christian screed I know is coming. My opposition is based on my own opinion on the definition of life.
mzteris
(16,232 posts)I take it you favor cutting the Mom's - who may have other children who need her at home? or favor having a child who won't have a Mother - or who may be born with serious medical conditions that will cause it significant pain and suffering for as long - or as little - life it has. speaking of, the child might die quite immediately after "birth" so killing the MOM would have been somewhat of a waste, now wouldn't it?
What IS your definition of "Life" - sperm? Egg? fertilization? Implantation? Blastocysts? At what point, exactly do you consider it a LIFE and not a bunch of cells?
Captain Lee
(27 posts)Save the mother, of course. How is that even a legitimate question? Your convoluted scenario is absurd and seems trollish.
My definition of life is a complete set of DNA with the possibility of growth. It's the only one I can come up with that's not defined by arbitrary requirements.
As to your other post, sadly 10-11 year old mothers was far more common during our history, possibly why population growth was held in check until recent times. Pregnancy is dangerous. See above.
mzteris
(16,232 posts)so I'll politely tell you that calling someone "trollish" is not really appropriate behaviour. If you really think I am, then alert MIRT, but I think you would look rather foolish given my l ong history and post count.
YOU were the one who said you "opposed abortion" except maybe sometimes. I was trying to get you to clarify. Those "convoluted scenarios" happen every day. So not so "convoluted, actually.
Your definition of life is a complete set of DNA? So the MOMENT of conception is life to you? So I guess you oppose most forms of birth control. Or maybe ANY form of birth control which would prohibit those two sets of DNA becoming "complete".
If a woman has a spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) is she guilty in your opinion? Are you going to imprison any pregnant woman to ensure her behaviour does nothing to "harm" that life? Oh wait, you don't really KNOW if a woman (of child-bearing years) is pregnant so maybe just lock them all up. You know, just in case. For that matter, little girls will grow up to be child-bearers to lock them up, too. Just to make sure they're good little baby-makers. I guess that leaves just the "old women" free. Of course after a lifetime of enforced imprisonment, they probably wouldn't be able to function on their own in society so may as well keep them as well.
There you have it folks. The on-going subjugation of women.
You do not have the right to make the decision for anyone else so it doesn't really matter what YOU "believe". You have NO idea what goes into that decision. You have NO concept of what it's like to be raped or the victim of incest. Being FORCED to carry that baby to term? All those unwanted babies that languish in the foster system or group homes. Unless you're white (or a little Chinese girl0 and not impaired in any way. Or worse, unwanted and kept to live a life of abuse and poverty and degradation and devoid of love. Wow. Some compassionate pro-lifer you are.
Being pro-choice does not mean a person isn't pro-life. Just like being "anti-abortion" doesn't mean (most of them) are remotely PRO-life - they're merely "pro-unborn" & the hell with them after they get here.
If you're anti-abortion, don't have one.
Response to mzteris (Reply #93)
Post removed
Sterling
(7,730 posts)Now that's a word to be thrown around at people you don't agree with. Nothing dangerous or inflammatory there. So what do we do with these "murderers"?
mzteris
(16,232 posts)What I posited happens every single day. And you have the nerve - the audacity - you freaking noob - to call ME Hitler? FU.
SO what do you do with all those unwanted babies, eh? Eat them for breakfast.
I'm pretty much done with you. Speaking of certain behaviours . . . I think I'll just let others know that now. Thanks for stopping by.
dflprincess
(28,057 posts)and a woman who had one could face the death penalty.
Granted, the law was not enforced equally. "Ayrian" women were the ones who ran the greatest risk having the law enforced if they had an abortion while women from other ethnic groups might be forced to abort.
mzteris
(16,232 posts)rape, incest - you're good with that? 10 or 11 yo's having babies? That's okay with you?
1. Good. The death penalty doesn't work.
2. You can only do what you can do. If you do anything at all, it's more than most.
3. Good for you. I'm an adoptive mom myself (and former foster mom.)
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)Proud Liberal Dem
(24,355 posts)The whole "Pro-life" vs. "Pro-Choice" dichotomy is false anyway. IMHO you're either "Pro-Choice" (believing that people should make their own choices when it comes to abortion and that government shouldn't regulate it much if at all) or "Anti-Abortion" (believing that government should actively seek to make abortion illegal under pretty much all circumstances). Unless you're a serial killer/psychopath, just about everybody is "Pro-Life" (or at least I don't know of anybody who actually describes themselves as "Pro-Death" or "Pro-Abortion" for that matter). I do seriously question, however, the credentials of people whom claim to be "Pro-Life" but seem to have an unhealthy obsession with the death penalty and/or unwarranted military aggression.
CBHagman
(16,968 posts)Look at the breakdown of the numbers here.
http://news.yahoo.com/pro-choice-americans-record-low-poll-finds-162145636--abc-news-politics.html
The reason for the shift in numbers is unclear, but the potential political implications may not actually be that great.
When polled on the question of legality, 52 percent of Americans said they believe that abortion should be legal "in certain circumstances." That number remains consistent with polling from May 2011.
Gallup found that 25 percent believe that abortion should be legal "in all cases," while 20 percent believe it should be illegal "in all cases." Those numbers are also consistent with polling from the same time last year.
Add to that the huge backlash against the Susan G. Komen organization for its treatment of Planned Parenthood, and also the simple fact that so many American women seek abortion, and the picture is a good deal more complicated than the headline suggests.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,355 posts)That's a big word there for our fundie friends- and an even more difficult concept for them to grasp.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,355 posts)Whoops! Kind of blows a BIG hole in that stupid (yup, Yahoo) article!
agtcovert
(238 posts)It's all in the labeling: choice. I've often wondered why the people I discuss this with drop their jaw when I say (hopefully it's safe to say this here) I suspect most people don't think abortion is a good idea. That's not the point though, and never has been. It's legal is this country and there could be any number of reasons for seeking an abortion. It's the individual's choice.
What always makes me smirk in this argument is that the people so adamantly opposed to abortion clamoring the government make this illegal and "stop" people from doing it are the same people who want the government out of almost every other aspect of life: regulation, PPACA, etc. U.S. grown conservatism: hypocrisy at its best.
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)There are times when it is absolutely the best choice and the right thing to do. I've seen too many abused, unwanted children with miserable, incapable parents to believe otherwise. And I don't just mean "child beating." It takes a lot more more to raise a healthy, functioning adult than to refrain from beating the crap out of a child.
And I am not sure why anyone would want to force/require a 13 or 14 year old (or younger) to go through child birth if she didn't want to. She shouldn't be forced to experience pregnancy if she doesn't want to -- I don't believe she "owes" it to anyone to go through with the pregnancy. Too many "pro-lifers" just think that young girls and women who are irresponsible enough to get pregnant should have to have the baby and give it up for adoption not because they care about the baby but because they care about shaming the sex out of wedlock.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,355 posts)In some cases, particularly in cases of rape or incest, it's simply unconscionable that some people would actually EXPECT girls to carry their pregnancies to term.
wordpix
(18,652 posts)how it's been done for generations. The baby is a "blessing," even though it's unwanted, the mother is an adolescent in middle or high school with no job, often no boyfriend, no skills and no desire to be a mother at this point. It's a tragedy all around.
I think we should call "pro-life" what it really is: "no choice."
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)Yeah, a blessing. For whom?
wordpix
(18,652 posts)qwlauren35
(6,112 posts)I'm so glad to hear someone else label themselves that way. I think abortion should be the number 1 choice made by certain people, and I think they should be encouraged to have one. Those people are:
- children under 15, and are likely to have an unhealthy child
- drug abusers with no means of non-government financial support, and are likely to have an unhealthy child
- homeless with no means of non-government financial support, and are likely to have an unhealthy child
- women who are unwilling to raise their children, and are likely to have an unhealthy child
- women with more than 2 children and no means of financial support, and are likely to have an unhealthy child
- women for whom a pregnancy would be unhealthy and they are not willing to take care of themselves or the fetus
- women who do not wish to raise their children and for whom a pregnancy is a hindrance to work
I admit that for most of these individuals, adoption is a possible option if the child will be healthy. However, in many of these cases, the child may be malnourished. I would be happier if these women had adoptive parents lined up by the 2nd trimester.
OK, maybe I should restate this. I believe in adoption, but I also believe that abortion should be the option of any woman who wants it, no matter the reason, and for any woman who might not be willing to take care of HER OWN health or the fetus's health, abortion makes more sense than adoption. For children, I believe that abortion should be the number one option because pregnancy is likely to disrupt school.
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)horrible, traumatic, shameful, etc. etc.
I'm not saying it is a bowl of cherries, but I am saying I hate hearing "no one is pro-abortion." Sure, no one should be going around encouraging people to have unprotected sex. But in some circumstances, it is exactly the girl's/woman's first choice as well as what is best for all concerned, and no one should interfere with that because of their own preferences. They are not the ones who have to endure the pregnancy or be a good, capable parent afterwards.
I too, believe in adoption (heck, I'm adopted myself!). But I also strongly believe young girls should not be forced into that choice if that's not the choice they want.
SunSeeker
(51,378 posts)If you watch Fox, you'd think "Pro Choice" meant pro abortion. Of course the low info voter would cringe from that label. No one is "pro" abortion in the sense that no one thinks having an abortion is a dandy experience. But the vast majority of Americans think women should be free to decide whether of not to have an abortion, particularly in the first trimester. As this chart demonstrates, only 20% believe abortion should be illegal under all circumstances.
Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)Still she is pro-choice. She does not believe in abortion for herself, still defends the right of other women to chose.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)and they said that the majority of folks still believe that women have the right of choice what to do with their own bodies.
They said to look at ALL the tabs of the survey/poll.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,355 posts)now would it?!!!
The anti-abortion forces shouldn't be unpopping the champagne over this poll IMHO.
kardonb
(777 posts)it is call,ed push-polling .
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)Touting the "Pro-Choice" /"Pro-Life" tab without referencing the other results is at best sloppy and at worst intentionally attempting to influence public opinion.
Good for the news folks who still journalists.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)the belief that Roe -v- Wade stood for, "right to privacy" in doing this.
What a WASTEFUL issue!
DCBob
(24,689 posts)A "good" survey designer can design a survey to get their desired result which is often the case with many RW survey firms such as Rasmussen.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)What do they propose to do with all these unwanted children? They will remain celebate (doubt that) until marriage?
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,355 posts)but c'mon, let's be realistic (something anti-abortion fanatics can't- or won't do because they can't see past their own existence). Most people are not going to abstain from sex all the way until they are married in most circumstances, particularly if most people are waiting until their late 20's or 30's to get married. It's not like that many people are getting married much before age 20 like in "ye olde days". Things changed in our society and they continually fail to notice.............
RKP5637
(67,032 posts)Last edited Wed May 23, 2012, 10:07 PM - Edit history (1)
rural areas, women making lots of babies, he wants everyone in Kansas married populating the state. Then, he thinks many corporations are moving to KS, lots of jobs. KS will be a destination point, everyone will want to live in KS. Well, something like that. I think he thinks KS is the new NYC. Today he signed his bill to cut income tax, cut corporate taxes - in his dystopia he wants to badly to create. Many financial types have projected KS will be in the red, billions in the red. Anyway, that's how these people think.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)I don't think so. No even close. Of course, just like Limbaugh thinks, no married mother will ever use birth control, or have an abortion.
qwlauren35
(6,112 posts)There are lots and lots of couples who want a healthy baby, especially a healthy white baby. If the adoption process was easier, it would be better all around. My concern is for the babies that aren't healthy. I think it is heartless to bring an unwanted baby into the world that ends up in foster care.
In fact, if a child or woman had adoptive parents lined up in their FIRST trimester, I'd be even happier. If you can't find anyone to adopt your child and you don't want it yourself, you shouldn't have it.
alp227
(31,962 posts)Geez, I think the party registration of such couples should be quite predictable.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)where infertile couples HAD to adopt to have children. With the advances in medical sciences and infertility treatment, do you really think a couple would adopt over having their own biological children? I know, I know. They want to ban IVF too. It kills embryo babies, and isn't "natural" and against GOD! They want to go back to the 1950s, but it is not going to happen. This horse left the barn decades ago.
mzteris
(16,232 posts)What about the rest of them?
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)which the corporate media won't tell you IS, approx. 77% are, wait for it.........................PRO CONTRACEPTIONS.
I'm fucking tired of these fucking polls!
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)the likes of me when their own darling daughters get the death penalty some day for causing their own miscarriage while engaged in silly horseplay.
That's what's coming. But they want it, and I am about done fighting.
RKP5637
(67,032 posts)women dying, quack drs. of sorts performing abortions. This is going to be a horrific mess as this continues. If the republicans gain full control of the US again, I think the 21st century is going to be one of the worst in the US.
You know, I said that earlier today, I'm about done fighting, I've started to lose interest in the future of the US. Sometimes things have to totally fail, before anything gets better.
tcaudilllg
(1,553 posts)RKP5637
(67,032 posts)"Central to his philosophy is the idea of "life-affirmation", which involves an honest questioning of all doctrines that drain life's expansive energies, however socially prevalent those views might be."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche
I think mankind wastes the essence of life. Much of mankind's time/life is spent in utter conflict often in pursuit and support of ridiculous doctrines by any means. Just a snapshot of the world today shows a species in utter conflict and disarray with a questionable future and possibly extinction of the species by mankind's own hand.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)My mother does not like the idea of abortion. Still, she supports a woman's right to chose.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)I am almost entirely pro-choice, but abortion still makes me queasy, and I suspect that the questions are worded so that people like me are counted as anti-choice.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,355 posts)OTOH most of us recognize instinctively that our choices don't have to/shouldn't be other people's choices and that it's not up to us to demand that our government police other people's reproductive organs and make their family planning decisions for them. Also, I don't think that most of us would want to see the women in our lives (our mothers, sisters, daughters, et. al) be left without a choice to terminate a pregnancy if continuing with the pregnancy might threaten their health and possibly even their life. I'm sure that most people, contrary to what some anti-abortion folks suggest, don't treat abortion lightly and most of us would (rightly) agonize over the decision if we were facing the possibility of an unplanned pregnancy and/or medical complications as a result of pregnancy. However, when all is said and done, what right do the rest of us have to play doctor, God, et. al with other people's lives? What right do the rest of us have to demand government to do it?
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)From Gallup's own analysis:
Note that the poll data occasionally spikes like this. The more interesting data is the trend.
However, the self-identification measure is only one part of this poll. The same poll still shows a majority favoring the availability of abortion. From the same poll analysis:
So any reporter who bothered to read the whole press release would have included some reference to this data point too, unless said reporter was pushing an agenda.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/154838/Pro-Choice-Americans-Record-Low.aspx
treestar
(82,383 posts)But this poll doesn't appear to have asked what they think the rule should be for others.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)The pro-choice people are some of the poorest communicators on the left, to the point that it alienates natural allies like me and your mom.
They have to address that uneasiness a lot of us have and not just shout it down.
For most of us, legalized abortion is like legalized gambling, smoking, alcohol, or the push to legalize pot: having it legal is not without it's downsides, but making it illegal again would be worse.
I now await the deluge.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)what is meant by pro-choice, they would have come up with different answers.
Many people still think "pro choice" means have all the sex you want irresponsibly and if there is an oops get an abortion. They don't think of choice as a rational decision that women have to torment to make and it is done with the best interests of the fetus in mind.
indivisibleman
(482 posts)Most people don't want anti choice as it would take us back to the middle ages. We need safe access to abortion for all. Without this there will be a mess.
What? throw people in jail? What happens to the thousands of unwanted babies that would be born? What about a woman's right to manage her own health? Do we just throw that out too? Men don't have this issue, I wish to gawd they did because then this wouldn't be an issue. Stupid men. Arrrrrggghhh.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)... people will not stand and allow abortion rights to go away.
Response to hrmjustin (Reply #30)
Post removed
FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)obamanut2012
(25,911 posts)Until now, that is.
qwlauren35
(6,112 posts)It's such a simple option to what seems like a disaster. If you've never had an unwanted pregnancy, you have no idea of all the things that go through your mind. I got pregnant in the 1980's, right after abortion became legal. I'm not even sure I can put it into words, but totally embarrassed that the world would see my carelessness was one thing. Afraid of how disruptive it could be to my life was another. Unprepared was another. When you're unmarried and pregnant, the entire world judges you. Your sex life becomes everyone's business, like it or not. Your privacy is invaded. Pregnancy is not something you can hide. Random strangers will comment. Some people will want to touch you. And most people will congratulate you on something that you feel nothing positive about. Last, everything about your life will all of a sudden revolve around being pregnant. Your body will change drastically, it will be hard to sleep, you may develop health problems, and you will be expected to put the health of your baby first. This is what went through my mind, not to mention how drastically my life would change if I tried to raise the child myself, alone and single, jobless, unlikely to finish college... it was unthinkable.
But then, I was raised to consider abortion as a first option, and not a last resort.
Today, there are more women and children who are willing to go through all of this. But it's not my idea of a good time.
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)Very few women who have had abortions want to speak publicly about it. But you are exactly right--an abortion can make sure you get the chance for all the dreams you have about your life.
Samantha
(9,314 posts)This article is very deceptive, which I am sure it was meant to be. That whole "pro-choice" label number changes to statistically a much higher number when the term "Woman's Right to Choose" is substituted. People's opinion on this subject has not substantially changed; only the jargon the Republicans insert changes the context to imply something different than "Woman's Right to Choose." I wish I could remember that literal new number for "Woman's Right..." but I don't. I do remember it was extremely statistically higher -- something like between 60 and 70 percent.
This point was made by the MSNBC contributor whose name is Karen Finney.
Sam
Tunkamerica
(4,444 posts)harmonicon
(12,008 posts)It just seems like part of their delusional makeup; these sad-sacks who go to tea-party/klan rallies, all the time swearing up and down that it's policy, not party they care about, but only complaining when Dems are in charge. Calling themselves "independent" just goes hand-in-hand with the "don't tread on me" flag.
Of course there are exceptions. I'm not registered with a party (you don't have to be in Michigan - just choose one primary to vote in) and would perhaps call myself an independent if a pollster asked, but I'd sure as fuck never vote Republican.
otohara
(24,135 posts)Then it's not so easy.
progressivebydesign
(19,458 posts)Yavin4
(35,357 posts)until they need one.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)duh
still_one
(91,965 posts)Mind that women are losing basic fundamental rights that have been taken for granted
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)still_one
(91,965 posts)maryellen99
(3,782 posts)They believe it's gods will if you have to suffer when dying.
still_one
(91,965 posts)ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)People don't like abortion, but the vast majority know it's not their business.
and-justice-for-all
(14,765 posts)and have been brain-washed into believing all pregnancies are healthy ones. The complications that can come with a pregnancy, not to mention the possible problems with fetal development that can and do happen.
There is also the "mind your own fucking business" part that the pro-life clowns ignore. They have no idea why some one is having an abortion and it is frankly none of their fucking business. Its between the person/couple and their Doctor.
If they had their way, they would stone a women to death for having a miscarriage or for that matter her period.
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)I think that the only people who answer these polls are the types that would be prochoice. Most people I know don't have land lines and if they do they don't answer calls they don't know.
ananda
(28,783 posts)That poll is just plain wrong.
OverseaVisitor
(296 posts)We one see the crows at OBAMA appearance versus Rmoney, we all see a reality.
When every now and then Republican voters are switching we see a reality.
However it need to be re define to recreate another reality. One that say most American are stupid, One that say most American have not heart etc.
To what end or purpose?
truthisfreedom
(23,113 posts)There are billboards everywhere claiming zygotes (the moment of conception) are babies. It's ridiculous. This is the "guilting" of America by religious disinformation.
The number of women who need access to legal, safe, and unhindered abortions has not changed.
The number of crazies who insist that women can't make decisions regarding their own pregnancies has remained the same as well. But they've gotten so insanely noisy that we're seeing these changes in the polls.
Abortion is legal. That's not going to change. More male repukes cheat on their wives and get women pregnant than Dems, I can assure you that. They're so repressed that they're totally gung-ho about cheating on the side. And they need abortion to remain legal and accessible so they can dispose of their awkward mistakes asap. We won't see repukes making abortion illegal anytime soon, on a national scale. But we will continue to see them use this as a wedge issue.
Abortion is legal. As a Secular Humanist, I know it's a woman's right to terminate pregnancy. A zygote doesn't even know that it exists. But a woman most certainly has to deal with the realities of life, and it's her choice. It's her body. It's her right.
And it's Constitutional.
hamsterjill
(15,214 posts)And damn proud of it! Proud of the fact that I have enough sense not to force women to have babies if they choose not to. Proud enough to realize that abortion will ALWAYS be around, even if made illegal, so I prefer it available to those who want it, private and safe. And no one has ever polled me on that subject.
KansDem
(28,498 posts)That's all she wrote!
bluesbassman
(19,310 posts)Kind of cool though, saw a lot of good new comments and discussion on the choice issue.
Sterling
(7,730 posts)I am starting to think that birth should be made illegal or at least regulated. We are never going to feed all the people in the world after a certain point and honestly I don't think everyone is cut out to be a parent. Now maybe we should just stay out of other people's business when it comes to reproduction and family planning but then again maybe that means I'm "CRAZY"?
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)One can think of himself as pro-life on a personal level but oppose making abortion illegal. If a pollster simply asks you if you are pro-choice or pro-life then yes, many people will say they are pro-life because they personally oppose abortion and would never have one. But some of those responders will balk at a question that asks if the procedure should be criminalized.
I don't expect the lazy news reporters to be able to grasp that, however.
glowing
(12,233 posts)into being "pro-life" because of the term. And in that statement, thu r thinking of themselves and their personal choices, however, they would supposed other women's choice to do as they see fit, or if someone is raped, or their life is in jeopardy, or the baby has a massive deffect... They don't realize that they are really pro-choice with that question.
For myself, I would welcome a baby, especially at this time in my life and having some difficulty in doing so, as a gift... On the other hand, I'm not sure I would keep a rapists baby (would opt for Plan B immediately before there was a chance). If the baby had a major defect or was an eptopic pregnancy or some other sort of problem, I would want a safe and practical Dr performing an abortion.
So, I'm smart enough to anwer the question as a "big picture question" and not "how do I feel personally about my choices" when a survey is issued.. I don't think some people think past themselves... Yet they still think of it as their "choice".
If we had a good delivery system of medicine and education and help for those who do happen to want to keep a baby, but are in a tight spot, then we would have people making decisions for themselves without outside influence of economics, age, and stigmatism.
may3rd
(593 posts)To say pro choice doesn't mean pro death.
Many women stop at one. The public education system allows girls to bring their baby's to school for a nutritious breakfast,lunch and dinner programs set up in many urban areas. I'm sure rural public schools also offer the same choices
turtlerescue1
(1,013 posts)Please keep this fact in mind, I wanted six kids when I got married, yep, seriously. But instead I'm barren, after the fourth what is called a "spontaneous abortion", there wasn't much to feel like a woman about, and even less hope for a family. When I hear about an abortion, well its always the same inner response, what I wanted so badly, another woman doesn't.
BUT I do not have the right to dictate someone else's choice and decisions. My life, yep, someone else's Nope.
Learned about the Middle Ground in nursing school: is that which is within the womb viable?
Can it breathe on its own outside the woman's womb? Okay, here's the wrench: Sometimes druggie babies are born with only a brain stem, but they breathe on their own-true its a limited lifetime, but they ARE viable outside the womb. Takes the questions out of the equation, not the emotions but what is life is defined, when does it begin is defined.
Not out to change anyone's mind, but it is a perspective. See I did not murder, but under the terms of some posting here, even that spontaneous abortion would fit their criteria.
I can promise you never did I have any intent of losing the fetus in my womb.
This issue will never have a peaceful discussion. Not until we quit trying to decide what someone else's freedoms are limited to.
xfundy
(5,105 posts)The amazing thing is that GLBTI ppl who want kids can sometimes adopt, depending on their location, as can those married couples who've also planned, etc. Much better to be a wanted kid than a "mistake," and to hear about that "mistake" while growing up.
mzteris
(16,232 posts)I used to think - oh it's different. It couldn't possibly be the same as "having your own". . . until I adopted.
My third child, second son, is adopted. And sometimes I honestly FORGET that I didn't actually have him myself. He IS MY SON. And no different from the two that were "homemade".
Please consider adoption. A child out there desperately needs parents who love them.
turtlerescue1
(1,013 posts)The love of my life, the "pot that fit my lid" (my dad's idea of marriage) and I discussed family, and to the greatest surprise I've had- he said "I did my obligation for having children, and frankly if you had a child, you wouldn't have time for me.I would be jealous." SO I was accepted for what I am as well as what I am not.
From what I have watched friends and others go through, I think a child breaks a parent's heart, and I don't miss that aspect.
BUT my response was to go into nursing to compensate for all the mothering urges, it went well.
Adopting is a special place, it takes special people with a very special ability to love.
But thankyou both for your kindnesses.