I don't believe it. There is no demographic change that would explain such a reversal.

I disagree with you slightly on this one Steve. I think the wording is fair enough in the questioning. I think what we are seeing is a bulge like push from the right on their core issues. It won't last.

Over at Powerline they're noting that the change was almost entirely among Republicans, and that there was little change among Democrats. So the explanation might be a consolidation of the Republican base.

I have frankly never understood the abortion debate and doubt that any one poll could ever accurately get the pulse of the nation, as it is far too nuanced to be measured. Pro-life and Pro-choice are too very vague terms used more for political purposes than to accurately describe the opinion of Americans.

Both groups view abortion as a negative and really only differ on whether it should be legal or not. Many people who identify as Pro-life are against abortion, yet don't think it is something for the government to decide. They see it as a personal decision, yet self-identify as Pro-life based on this view. The Pro-choice group is almost identical, although they self-identify with being for choice, despite their personal feelings on the matter. It is really a perspective issue, not a difference of opinion.

It is only the hardcore Pro-life groups that feel that it should be outlawed and they are pretty much a minority. As more current issues arise, their arguments almost self-destruct as they typically have opposing opinions on other issues that are similiar. When speaking of health care, the hardcore Pro-life groups typically are against single-payer or national healthcare, based on the argument that "Who is better making decisions about your health, the government or you?" Somehow they do a complete 180. When abortion is in the mix, the government can never be too invasive, nor should the government have any limits in regulating doctors. The same doctor; however should absolutely never be restrained by government restrictions or policy regarding any other heath issue. It is all rather bizarre and doesn't seem to make much sense.

Liberals work hard to protect the so-called right to life of people whom others call terrorists. At the same time they doom infants still in the womb to death- without blinking an eye. Odd people.

Do you support 4yr/o Billy and 6yr./o Tammy losing their mother due to pregnancy complications if abortions are made illegal?

I would like to know how many people think a fetus is a baby or a handful of cells is a baby or why some think they have the right to tell a woman she must conceive before this handful of cells even becomes a fetus? Pro-life people are always screaming about baby killers when in fact it is only a handful of cells that are being aborted...not a baby.

I recommend that all men have a reversible vasectomy preformed as children which can only be removed when a certificate is issued so they can have then and only then impregnate a woman.

Posted by: mhr on May 15, 2009 at 2:05 PM |

Tired from building all those strawmen, dumbass?

"Liberals work hard to protect the so-called right to life of people whom others call terrorists. At the same time they doom infants still in the womb to death- without blinking an eye. Odd people."

Out of pure curiosity, could you provide just a few examples of this? These odd people, by your own definition, would have to do all that you stated.

Personally, I find an odd person to be someone who tries to define a group of people that they don't actually know, assigns different beliefs to them, claims that they perform specific actions and thinks that they have come to some sort of a conclusion, other than they are a bit nutty and have an overactive imagination.

What's more, the same Gallup poll asked respondents, "Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?" Here, a majority (53%) wants to see abortion legal under certain circumstances, while the other groups of respondents were evenly split.

If a majority still think that it should be legal under some circumstances, then the "pro-life" label doesn't mean much. A majority still favor Roe v. Wade, period. But I'm sure the right will appreciate all the attention give to this worthless poll.

Making abortions illegal won't stop them or even slow them down. It will be the back alleys for the poor and trips to Mexico or overseas for the wealthy. Forcing women into motherhood is tragic for all concerned.

Only idiots cannot understand that abortions are not killing babies. Like claiming that the death penalty would also mean killing all the children a condemned man might have had.

No real crosstabs so hard to tell what's going on, but my guess is that they are constant weighting Republicans despite shrinking actual numbers. And Republican pro-life percentages are way up because it's the most moderate Republicans leaving in droves, so if you weight them higher tha their shrinking real numbers you are magnifying the views of the most hardcore.

Woth pointing out that Gallup says the movement was mostly among women while the Pew poll that the right is trying to use as corroboration says the movement was mostly among men.

This pro-choice / pro-life dichotomy is annoying. Choice and life are not opposites. Of course, I like choice. Who doesn't. And of course, I'm also pro-life. Who isn't? But it's none of my business to decide for a pregnant woman what she should do.

This question has nothing to do with abortion rights.

I don't even like the question! The question should be asking if people are pro-choice or anti-choice. I can be pro-life and pro-choice at the same time.
IMHO it's a slanted question.

I'm pro-life. I am in favor of life continuing to exist on this planet.

That's why I am concerned about things like runaway anthropogenic global warming, ocean acidification, deforestation and other forms of wholesale ecosystem destruction, and nuclear weapons proliferation, that threaten to end most, if not all, life on Earth.

Oddly, most people who call themselves "pro-life" are not concerned about these things at all, or are even in favor of making them worse.

I don't know about other cities, but those billboards by "Pro-Life Across America" have been all over the Des Moines area for the past year. In my opinion, it's a very effective advertising campaign--nothing about overturning Roe, just a huge cute baby on every billboard with a simple slogan, such as "FRAGILE," "Embryos are tiny babies," "Fe-tus (Lat.): Little one." In smaller print at the bottom of the billboard, it says "Heartbeat 18 days after conception."

I could see how a long-term ad campaign like that would affect the number of people who identify themselves as pro-life. I agree with Steve, though--I'm interested in how many of these "pro-life" people want the government to take away abortion rights.

but my guess is that they are constant weighting Republicans despite shrinking actual numbers.

There is also the argument that Dems are increasingly underrepresented in polls because they are less likely to have landlines (I scrapped mine months ago) than republicans.

Abortion should remain safe and legal. I love the comment above, it seems like "Conservatives" (who don't seem to conserve anything) want to protect children in the womb so they can turn 18 and get sent to the Middle East to die by roadside bombing! If you don't like abortion, then don't have one. If you don't like homosexuality then don't practice it. If you don't like guns don't buy one. Is it really too difficult to grasp?

chaboard,

Well said. I immediately thought the same thing: sample weight errors due to marginalization of moderates and the resulting consolidation of conservatives.

This could be unintentional, or, since polls that do nothing but buoy conventional wisdom don't garner headlines, it could have been quite deliberate.

"..."Who is better making decisions about your health, the government or you?" ..."-ashton

I think you understand but if not then get it straight...National single payer health care will not be making decisions about your health or your health care...it is ins. only...not "care". The health "care" is totally up to you and what ever Dr. or hospital "you" choose.

And while I'm here... Obama's claim that Medicare is causing a huge gov. deficit...it wouldn't be so if everyone were covered by Medicare. Right now it is only available to the elderly and handicapped, those that most private ins cos. won't cover. I am amazed at what lengths our elected officials will go to to keep the profiteering, campaign donating private ins industries profiteering off our health care...even Obama. Support HR676 and a single payer public option...the only real reform to our health care.

"...this only tells us that the majority of Americans reject the notion that life begins at conception..."

I'd hardly say it supports that conclusion. Last I checked even a blastocyst has an internal metabolism and actively dividing cells; it's hard to say that "life" (as opposed to "personhood" or some other squishy metaphysical concept) begins at any point other than at conception, but that fact is hardly conclusive of one's stance on abortion rights.

The numbers are also a function of no one being willing to make the positive case for abortion rights. The Democratic position amounts to calling abortion a necessary evil. "Safe, Legal, and Rare," is fine. But there are also important reasons to support abortion rights. The pro-choice people need to make that case as well.

"Forcing women into motherhood is tragic for all concerned."

I'm pretty sure that life, even in most of its worst variations, is preferable to non-existence. So, it's not tragic for ALL concerned.

Mike

I think you understand but if not then get it straight...National single payer health care will not be making decisions about your health or your health care...it is ins. only...not "care". The health "care" is totally up to you and what ever Dr. or hospital "you" choose.

That's all well and good, but it seems like Obama is already starting off on the wrong foot:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/health/policy/15health.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

Oddly, most people who call themselves "pro-life" are not concerned about these things at all, or are even in favor of making them worse.

They don't care about anyone after they exit the womb. In fact, if you're one of the many unplanned children born to unwed parents, you get the pleasure of being labeled "illegitimate" by the religious right, along with their desire to cut any and all assistance that you might need.

If you guys are interested in some real data about this, head over to Nate Silver's 538 site.

And while I'm here... Obama's claim that Medicare is causing a huge gov. deficit...it wouldn't be so if everyone were covered by Medicare. Right now it is only available to the elderly and handicapped, those that most private ins cos. won't cover.

The problem is, all taxpayers pay into Medicare right now, even though only the elderly and handicapped take money out.

So if everyone is covered by Medicare, then either taxpayers will have to pay more, or the health industry will have to accept a LOT less.

See above post for Obama starting to mess that up already.

They don't care about anyone after they exit the womb. In fact, if you're one of the many unplanned children born to unwed parents, you get the pleasure of being labeled "illegitimate" by the religious right, along with their desire to cut any and all assistance that you might need.

I won't paint them with that broad of a brush. Just because they don't favor government assistance doesn't mean they want these babies to die.

Some prefer, and support, private organizations to help the needy and indigent.

Before jumping down my throat, when my parents needed help, private organizations helped much better and quicker that state assistance organizations (and we lived in MN at the time).

As someone whos a lifelong Roman Catholic, when it comes to my own personal decisions such as reproduction and end-of-life care, I'm "pro-life". That said, I have no right to impose my personal views upon others, and will offer my opinion on such matters only when it's actively and respectfully solicited.

I'm also an amateur historian, and I must note here that there's more than ample historical evidence proving that women will seek the termination of their pregnancy if they feel compelled by personal circumstances to do so. Because I'm not a woman, I'm really in no position to judge such decisions or actions.

As it stands, I also staunchly support the separation of church and state, and by extension a woman's constitutionally-guaranteed right to freedom of reproductive choice. Thus, I have to believe that her decisions thereof are betweem her, her medical provider and her God.

It's not enough to just draw a hard line and say no. Those of us who consider ourselves "pro-life" are morally obligated to offer and provide reality-based alternatives to abortion that actively and comprehensively address a pregnant woman's personal circumstances, i.e., health care, employment, housing and family situation. We need to mitigate and support, and not regulate or preclude.

Aloha.

I won't paint them with that broad of a brush. Just because they don't favor government assistance doesn't mean they want these babies to die.

I didn't say they wanted them to die, they just don't give a damn, and if private charities can't deal with it, then they don't care about that either.
Hundereds of billions flushed down the toilet in Iraq with untold women and children killed? Okay
A fraction for assistance to women and children in the U.S.? Forget it.

p.s. Delete This Now=McGruber
The mods should just do what the dishonest poster demands.

While I had many problems w/President Clinton's triangulation, he really nailed when it came to abortion. He said that, in his view, abortion should remain safe, legal, and rare. I suspect that this formulation really does capture Americans' general agreement that abortion should remain a choice, but also their discomfort w/the procedure.

Keeping abortion safe requires keeping it legal, since banning the procedure will only, as has been noted, drive abortionists underground. But keeping it rare requires both accurate sex education + availablity of contraception.

Too many of the religious right apparently want to keep both abortion + contraception illegal so as to make pregnancy a 'punishment' for 'bad girls.' Hardly a rational or productive viewpoint, but one must consider the source.

-Z

JRD wrote: "... it's hard to say that 'life' ... begins at any point other than at conception ..."

It's hard to say that "life" begins at conception, given that both sperm cells and ova are alive before conception.

According to our best scientific understanding, "life" -- on this planet at any rate -- begins about three and a half billion years ago and has continued uninterrupted since then.

MBunge wrote: "I'm pretty sure that life, even in most of its worst variations, is preferable to non-existence."

I would be extremely interested in hearing about your own experiences of non-existence upon which you base that conclusion.

I know there was a time when I did not exist, but I don't have any memory of my own nonexistence, so I cannot judge whether it was preferable to life or not.

It's really funny that McGruber, a.k.a. "Delete This Now", had his comments deleted from another thread, because he was spamming it with wildly off-topic comments about abortion, and now here is a thread that is actually about abortion, and he is spamming it with off-topic comments about Medicare.

Why does the terms of all debates seem to be driven by the reich-wing? The options are not pro-life and pro-choice.

I am pro-life. I am NOT anti-choice. I believe that the fewer the abortions the better. I also believe that old white men should not be dictating medical decisions for women!

Just a hunch, but I'd bet that a minority of pro-lifers would deny their own daughters an abortion if the need arose.

"In general, I think we should be wary of reading too much into two polls. Longer-term trend lines confirm that we are living in a country divided on abortion but with a clear preference for choice in most circumstances."

Abortion choices are very situational. I was absolutely floored when my 80+ year old mother, staunch Catholic and rabidly anti-abortion, upon learning that Sarah Palin's 5th child has Down's Syndrome, said: "Why didn't she have an abortion?" And said that in a shocked, not sarcastic, voice.

In the abstract, in our personal ethics, we may feel very strongly about something, but we don't necessarily vote the most extreme position or act in consistence with our values.

I can't see it. The idea that Americans have suddenly made a 180 degree turn is highly unlikely.

Hard right conservatives complain about government being too intrusive, but have no problem when it dictates personal choice in whatever capacity with the exception of health care.

While they want the government to deny a woman's right to choose they do not want the government choosing their doctors, health care providers and/or medical treatments.

The polls have long shown a majority of the public as more tolerant of abortion rights. I cannot imagine a sudden change of opinion. I suspect Gallup's poll is more of an outlier than anything else.

The million dollar question, which it seems nobody can be bothered to ask, is how many people are BOTH pro-choice and pro-life. I know I fall into that category, as do many of my friends and family.

Such a position may be inconceivable to the partisans on both sides of the issue, but there are plenty of people out there who are against abortion but also feel that the decision should be left up to the individual.

It was always a mistake to enshrine abortion as a right derived from privacy. It should have been a right derived from the very essence of choice itself. Humans should never be forced to become parents. By making this about health, we've created a system where only women matter and only women care. Men are still forced to become parents against their will, and abortion activists justify this with the same language anti-abortion types use against them. They say we should have kept our zipper up (like they should have kept their legs shut).

So fuck them. This isn't an issue that impacts me. they've made it the entire purpose of the party, and ignored every human rights issue not connected to their genitals. They've gone so far as to resurrect the spectre of debtors prison to go after 'dead-beat' dads. Fuck them. They made their bed. Let them lay in it.

Let's be honest - Republicans aren't pro-life, they're anti-choice. They are against women having the choice of when, whether, with whom, and how to have sex. They are against men and women having accurate data concerning sex and contraception in order to make an informed choice. They are against women having access to doctors who will treat them as human beings rather than walking incubators, and make sure they can make the right choice for themselves and their families. And when that dirty slut defiles herself by getting pregant, well, by Jebus, it's her own fault, and she'll just have to suffer the consequences. I cannot be the only one here who knows that states with the most restrictions on abortion are also the states with the most inadequate social welfare programs for impoverished women and children.

This, of course, does not apply when the women are their own daughters. Then they're all about facilitating an out-of-state abortion so they can keep their position in the local Right To Life club.

The Only Moral Abortion Is My Abortion

I'm Not Sorry - Stories of women who do not regret their abortion

It was always a mistake to enshrine abortion as a right derived from privacy.

The legal right to choose abortion is based on the right of married couples to use contraception, which was won in Griswold v. Connecticut. The plaintiff's argument to overturn the Comstock laws banning contraception was based on the 4th Amendment "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search and seizures." The government interfering in people's bedrooms by banning contraception was considered to be an unreasonable search and seizure.

The 4th Amendment is the entire basis of "right to privacy," which entails the human right to make our own personal choices free of government interference. Like it or not, there isn't another Constitutional basis.

You know, I'm not trying to prevent anyone from talking about whatever they want to talk about on this or any other subject, but am I the only one who's goddamned sick and tired of this topic after all these years? No matter what the original post, every conversation, in real life and online, devolves into the same stuff: the wrongness of how Roe v. Wade was decided, "I'm Not Sorry," XX million innocent lives, men have no right to opine because they can't get pregnant, blah, blah, blah.

I know it's important, and I do care about it, but my god this gets old.

We're all sick and tired of hearing about it. We would love for it to be legal, safe, unneccessary, and a done deal. Unfortunately, Republicans need your campaign donations, so be sure to think of that innocent little (white) winged angel fetus in (white, Eurocentric) Jesus's arms the next time you open your checkbook.

Who writes checks anymore? This whole conversation is stuck in 1984.

...

My two cents.

Life begins at conception, period. The decision to abort that life -- for a Christian woman -- is between the woman and God, period. There is no biblical basis for expecting any government to intervene in that decision.

Christians have a strong argument for fighting government attempts to use their tax dollars for funding pro-abortion related activities.

It is the constitutionalists who should have an issue with the current debate. The constitution proscribes that all are entitled to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I am perfectly comfortable with the right of a woman to choose her course, however, it should be done through a constitutional amendment and the government should never be involved in funding the procedure.

"It's hard to say that "life" begins at conception, given that both sperm cells and ova are alive before conception"

That's a fair point, but I took Steve to be referring to the individual life of the fetal organism which may or may not be aborted, not to "life" generally. The sperm and egg cells that formed me existed prior to the commencement of my life, but my unique genetic code did not. It's hard to coherently argue that after my DNA code was brought into existence through the fusion of the sperm and egg and my own cells started dividing, my own life did not yet exist independently of my parents'. But that concession to empirical fact, as I said above, is not really relevant to-- and certainly not dispositive of-- one's views on the permissibility of abortion. Certainly I'm strongly pro-choice despite acknowledging biological reality.

m wrote: "Life begins at conception, period."

So you believe that sperm and ova are not living?

m wrote: "There is no biblical basis for expecting any government to intervene in that decision."

There is no biblical basis for anything the US government does, period. It is a secular government, not a religious government.

It is interesting to me that one can read hundreds and thousands of comments discussing the question of abortion and 'when life begins' and never once encounter the word "sentience".

The reason is probably that if we start discussing when sentience -- the capacity for subjective experience -- begins, then we are no longer discussing the morality of how we treat human life, but the morality of how we treat sentient life.

And since lots of non-human animals are indisputably sentient, that would raise some very uncomfortable questions.

Particularly for people who get all worked up over terminating the existence of a human blastocyst consisting of a few dozen cells with no nervous system, no brain and no sensory organs, while they happily gobble down chunks of flesh cut from the corpse of a highly intelligent, sensitive, emotional creature like a pig that has been subjected to a life of miserable suffering, confinement and abuse, and then brutally slaughtered for their enjoyment.

Thousands of babies, born babies, all over the world die EVERY SINGLE DAY from malaria -- a disease that could be prevented with a small amount of money and attention.

Ok "Pro-life" folks -- save all the children and babies in Africa from this preventable disease in -- then I'll discuss banning 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions in the US.

(BTW -- partial birth abortions are only .17% of all abortions in the US, and that includes operations to remove fetuses that have died of natural causes in the womb. 94% of all abortions are done in the 1st trimester -- which doesn't satisfy those who believe life begins at conception -- but satisfies most Americans.)

In any case -- lets save those African children babies who have already been born from malaria and we can talk. Or are American zygotes and fetuses more important to all you "pro-life" folks than live African babies?

At the risk of pretense, it's clear to me most Americans accept there shouldn't be an absolute right to anything, so in abortion there should be time-limit issues etc.

McGrube: maybe a cost-benefit analysis would show it wasn't worth banning DDT (was it totally banned BTW?) Conservatives talk of bans on DDT, off-shore drilling etc. as if there was nothing at all deleterious or even potentially deleterious about allowing the given X.

Also, if taking off the ban on DDT might save lives, spending more of rich people's money might save lives too (and you can argue trade-offs along with for the rest.)

The 4th Amendment is the entire basis of "right to privacy," which entails the human right to make our own personal choices free of government interference. Like it or not, there isn't another Constitutional basis. [for privacy-related rights]
Posted by: Ephemereal on May 15, 2009 at 4:08 PM |

Not so: the Ninth Amendment refers to unenumerated rights existing, which means judges have to consider that possibility whenever they consider a law's constitutionality. I'm amazed so many people (including judges tasked to exercise constitutional law) overlook this.

McGruber wrote: "Remove the DDT ban and it won't be a problem."

Is there any subject about which you are NOT an ignorant idiot who slavishly spouts whatever corporate-sponsored bullshit Rush Limbaugh is paid to spoon-feed you?

@McGruber: So, start a campaign to bring back DDT -- and do it. Write letters, donate money, march -- whatever it takes. Save those babies.

Start by using DDT in your own house to prove how safe it is. Be a guinea pig.

Whatever it takes.

Save those already born kids from malaria.

Then go back to saving the unborn.

I assume it wasn't the same poll. But I received a poll call the other day which said "Do you consider yourself pro-life? Yes or No" It was an automated call. I'm strongly pro-choice, but it is hard to answer "No" to "Are you pro-life?" Giving both options in the question (as Gallup did) is much better. Still, very weird.

McGruber: "I will point out that the high and mighty UN championed the banning of DDT without, you know, finding a good alternative."

Finding a good alternative to a known poison and carcinogen before banning it?

Well, let me point out -- although I'm hardly the first here to do so -- that you're truly a fucking moron.

Steve,

Your biases are amusing...

"Of course, since "certain circumstances" is frustratingly vague, this only tells us that the majority of Americans reject the notion that life begins at conception, but they're comfortable with some state-imposed restrictions on reproductive rights."

I read this as the majority of Americans accept the notion that life begins at conception, but they're not comfortable with situations of rape or incest.

And if you looked at the poll results, 15% stated "Legal under most circumstances" while 37% stated "Legal only in a few circumstances" in addition to 23% stating it should be "Illegal in all circumstances".

I believe the science behind when life begins supports the pro-life viewpoint. Of course, I assume you're more about politics than science.

First, DDT has never been banned across most of Asia and Africa. DDT stopped working against mosquitoes where it was used in Africa and Asia in the 1960s. While not using DDT heavily has allowed the bugs to regain some of their susceptibility, the fact is that every mosquito on Earth now carries genes that make them resistant or immune to DDT.

Malaria came roaring back when the drugs used to treat malaria in humans stopped working. Malaria is a parasite, and the parasites evolve, too (as well as the mosquitoes).

To fix malaria, all we need to do is what we did in those countries where we have been successful in wiping it out: Raise the per capita income to $3,000 or $4,000; get medical care professionals in place to diagnose and treat the disease; educate people on how to avoid being bitten; improve housing so mosquitoes can't get at people at night, in the hours the mosquitoes are active; educate people how to drain pools of water around their homes where mosquitoes might breed, and do it.

DDT is not required for any of those steps. DDT might help on a couple of those steps, but DDT causes significant birth defects, second-generation cancers, and can upset local ecosystems so that mosquito populations explode.

There's no cheap solution. There's no easy solution. There's a lot that could be done, inexpensively, but many of the people who might get it done are out picketing abortion clinics. In practice, they act on the principle that a fetus is wholly human, but a baby is not. Others who might help are working under the delusion that if we just poison Africa enough, health care will magically improve.

Data-driven arguments tend not to work on people who don't listen to them or who cannot understand data.