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

[strike wolf]

Funny I thought the trend would be going in the reverse of that.

[PLAYER57832]

Funny I thought the trend would be going in the reverse of that.

Why?

[strike wolf]

Funny I thought the trend would be going in the reverse of that.

Why?

I don't know I guess I just had a feeling that people were becoming more pro-choice not pro-life.

[PLAYER57832]

Funny I thought the trend would be going in the reverse of that.

Why?

I don't know I guess I just had a feeling that people were becoming more pro-choice not pro-life.

The initial post said that was not true.

However, you also hit on a major problem with much of the rhetoric. The REAL truth is that no one sane really likes or wants to see any abortions. The goal of EVERYONE sane is to reduce them (we'll forget the few crazies ... those who like abortion are equivalent to those who think killing abortion doctors is OK... they are insane idiots alike). The primary difference between the two positions is in how we expect that to happen.

Also, and this is very key. Those who are in favor of a legal abortion feel that circumstances are too complicated, ethical dilemmas too diverse for it to be an appropriate front for the government, for other people who have no real stake in the decision, to intervene and decide.

I, for one, decided a long time ago that I would almost never have an abortion. But, as a Christian, I think there are things worse than death. Those decisions are things that each individual has to make on thier own. THAT is the point, not that abortion is "good".

[thegreekdog]

I really didn't want to weigh in on this thread because I have conflicting views on this issue. I don't want the government to regulate a person's choices or body (and yes, I still do not think there is anything in the Constitution in this regard) but at the same time, I'm very much against abortion except for two circumstances: (1) when the mother's life is in danger and (2) when there was no "choice" to have sex (i.e. rape). Personally, I believe that abortion for any other reason (i.e. "I'm not ready to have a baby" or "My child will have X disease" or "I really wanted a girl") are poor reasons. I would probably feel much better about this issue if abortions would only be done in certain limited cases.

Here's a paradox for you:
Many conservatives are pro-life, but also pro-death penalty.
Many liberals are pro-choice, but also anti-dealth penalty.

[PLAYER57832]

I really didn't want to weigh in on this thread because I have conflicting views on this issue. I don't want the government to regulate a person's choices or body (and yes, I still do not think there is anything in the Constitution in this regard) but at the same time, I'm very much against abortion except for two circumstances: (1) when the mother's life is in danger and (2) when there was no "choice" to have sex (i.e. rape). Personally, I believe that abortion for any other reason (i.e. "I'm not ready to have a baby" or "My child will have X disease" or "I really wanted a girl") are poor reasons. I would probably feel much better about this issue if abortions would only be done in certain limited cases.

For me, it is that level of indecision that takes it firmly outside the jurisdiction of the government and into individual hands.

Two things I will point out. Roughly 1/3 of pregnancies end in miscarriages during the first 3 months. That is the only time when truly elective abortions are allowed, and even then, there are often restrictions. (and reports of numbers for that time frame include surgically removed miscarriages as well a real abortions. The procedure is reported, not whether the child had already died.) After three months, there has to be a serious and "compelling" reason.

When you say "x disease" ... It is one thing if you are talking about a child who is simply "not perfect". But there are some things that no child should ever have to endure. Death is death, wether before birth or after, but death is not the worst thing that can happen to a child. I don't say anyone should go that route, but I think there is enough pain in any decision that it should be left up to the parents.

[HungrySomali]

This pole is obviously flawed, no one asked me. I love how the people least likely to get laid, let alone need an abortion are the ones most vocally against it. Have you ever seen the people on those picket lines? /shudders At this point the last thing this world needs is more humans. Obviously mentally impaired in the womb? Mandatory abortion. Terri Schaivo'ed? Mandatory abortion. Commit a heinous crime? Mandatory abortion. We dont need to waste the resources on dead weight IMO. Just for reference, my stats: 4 Abortions, 1 Adoption, 2 beautiful kids.

[strike wolf]

Funny I thought the trend would be going in the reverse of that.

Why?

I don't know I guess I just had a feeling that people were becoming more pro-choice not pro-life.

The initial post said that was not true.

However, you also hit on a major problem with much of the rhetoric. The REAL truth is that no one sane really likes or wants to see any abortions. The goal of EVERYONE sane is to reduce them (we'll forget the few crazies ... those who like abortion are equivalent to those who think killing abortion doctors is OK... they are insane idiots alike). The primary difference between the two positions is in how we expect that to happen.

Also, and this is very key. Those who are in favor of a legal abortion feel that circumstances are too complicated, ethical dilemmas too diverse for it to be an appropriate front for the government, for other people who have no real stake in the decision, to intervene and decide.

I, for one, decided a long time ago that I would almost never have an abortion. But, as a Christian, I think there are things worse than death. Those decisions are things that each individual has to make on thier own. THAT is the point, not that abortion is "good".

All I know is that if I got someone pregnant. I would not want them to have an abortion under pretty much any circumstances however (and this is my one big exception) I say that an abortion where it saves the mothers life Is ethical.

[GabonX]

Two things I will point out. Roughly 1/3 of pregnancies end in miscarriages during the first 3 months. That is the only time when truly elective abortions are allowed, and even then, there are often restrictions. (and reports of numbers for that time frame include surgically removed miscarriages as well a real abortions. The procedure is reported, not whether the child had already died.) After three months, there has to be a serious and "compelling" reason.

This is not true.

There are no restrictions regarding when a woman can have an abortion in the United States. Certain types of abortion have been banned, but third trimester abortion is recognized as part of a woman's right to choose.

The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act was passed in 2003 and was only upheld in 2007. This only bans abortions in which the fetus is partially delivered and then killed. Abortions after the 20th week can still be performed legally in the United States by injecting the fetus with lethal drugs.

Some states have restrictions but their is no federal law. Women from anywhere in the United States can travel to another state to have third trimester abortions. They are not required to give a reason.

[strike wolf]

Two things I will point out. Roughly 1/3 of pregnancies end in miscarriages during the first 3 months. That is the only time when truly elective abortions are allowed, and even then, there are often restrictions. (and reports of numbers for that time frame include surgically removed miscarriages as well a real abortions. The procedure is reported, not whether the child had already died.) After three months, there has to be a serious and "compelling" reason.

This is not true.

There are no restrictions regarding when a woman can have an abortion in the United States. Certain types of abortion have been banned, but third trimester abortion is recognized as part of a woman's right to choose.

The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act was passed in 2003 and was only upheld in 2007. This only bans abortions in which the fetus is partially delivered and then killed. Abortions after the 20th week can still be performed legally in the United States by injecting the fetus with lethal drugs.

Some states have restrictions but their is no federal law. Women from anywhere in the United States can travel to another state to have third trimester abortions. They are not required to give a reason.

Umm...I'm pretty sure that's false.

[GabonX]

Two things I will point out. Roughly 1/3 of pregnancies end in miscarriages during the first 3 months. That is the only time when truly elective abortions are allowed, and even then, there are often restrictions. (and reports of numbers for that time frame include surgically removed miscarriages as well a real abortions. The procedure is reported, not whether the child had already died.) After three months, there has to be a serious and "compelling" reason.

This is not true.

There are no restrictions regarding when a woman can have an abortion in the United States. Certain types of abortion have been banned, but third trimester abortion is recognized as part of a woman's right to choose.

The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act was passed in 2003 and was only upheld in 2007. This only bans abortions in which the fetus is partially delivered and then killed. Abortions after the 20th week can still be performed legally in the United States by injecting the fetus with lethal drugs.

Some states have restrictions but their is no federal law. Women from anywhere in the United States can travel to another state to have third trimester abortions. They are not required to give a reason.

Umm...I'm pretty sure that's false.

Wording of the partial birth abortion ban:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-Bi ... ned_by_law

Legal status in the United States, state restrictions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-term_ ... d_States_2

An Example:
Abortion is legal in the state of New York until the 24th week. If an abortion is performed between the 20th and 24th week a second physician is required to treat the child in the event that it is accidentaly borne. Nevertheless, it is legal.
http://naral-pca.wsm.ga0.org/choice-act ... sumID=2745

[PLAYER57832]

Two things I will point out. Roughly 1/3 of pregnancies end in miscarriages during the first 3 months. That is the only time when truly elective abortions are allowed, and even then, there are often restrictions. (and reports of numbers for that time frame include surgically removed miscarriages as well a real abortions. The procedure is reported, not whether the child had already died.) After three months, there has to be a serious and "compelling" reason.

This is not true.

There are no restrictions regarding when a woman can have an abortion in the United States. Certain types of abortion have been banned, but third trimester abortion is recognized as part of a woman's right to choose.

The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act was passed in 2003 and was only upheld in 2007. This only bans abortions in which the fetus is partially delivered and then killed. Abortions after the 20th week can still be performed legally in the United States by injecting the fetus with lethal drugs.

Some states have restrictions but their is no federal law. Women from anywhere in the United States can travel to another state to have third trimester abortions. They are not required to give a reason.

Umm...I'm pretty sure that's false.

Wording of the partial birth abortion ban:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-Bi ... ned_by_law

Legal status in the United States, state restrictions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-term_ ... d_States_2

An Example:
Abortion is legal in the state of New York until the 24th week. If an abortion is performed between the 20th and 24th week a second physician is required to treat the child in the event that it is accidentaly borne. Nevertheless, it is legal.
http://naral-pca.wsm.ga0.org/choice-act ... sumID=2745

You are correct that there is no federal law. There is the effect of law in the Supreme Court Roe vs. Wade ruling.

New York has some of the most liberal abortion laws in the country. On the other hand, many other states, South Dakota in particular, have passed laws so restrictive that they did not even allow for exceptions to save the mother's life. THOSE extremely restrictive laws have been deemed unconstitutional. In many cases, it is not legal, never mind just plain impractical for a woman to travel to a state where she can have an abortion. Not to mention that delay often pushes the pregnancy past that first trimester.

Anyway, the bottom line is that restricting specific types of abortions is part of the classic "lets lump the worsts cases and call that the norm" tactic of the far right.
I am in no way in favor of any but the most narrowly reasoned late term abortions (to save the mother, a very, very few other cases). I myself am personally repulsed by any abortion. However, I just don't think the way to limit abortions is through laws. I don't think the time to get a woman to think about negative aspects of abortion is when she is already at the doctor's office wanting to get one. Yes, there should certainly be some review, discussion then, just to be sure this is what she really and truly wants to do. HOWEVER, the real discussion, the real understandings have to come long before she even thinks about having sex. ..and it certainly has to include boys! (not men.. .boys).

In addition, we have to be sure that the social services are in place so that women are not forced between working, eating and having a house, and a child. We have to be sure she gets the best medical care, and that she knows all about the needs of pregnancies, even before she gets pregnant, so that the chidl she may bear has the best chance at health. We need to be sure that if a woman does not want to get pregnant, that she knows more than just one way to avoid it. In THOSE ways, you will significantly reduce the numbers of abortions more effectively than any law, and with far less pain all around for all concerned.

Finally, I would make a legal exception for any child that is already dead. ANY removeal of a dead child is a miscarriage, not an abortion!

[muy_thaiguy]

A miscarriage is one thing, as the baby has already died and could pose as a health concern for the mother, as well as possibly causing problems should the mother want to have another child. I agree with you on that player. Wait a second, I agree with you a second time? Is the sky turning red yet?

[got tonkaed]

A miscarriage is one thing, as the baby has already died and could pose as a health concern for the mother, as well as possibly causing problems should the mother want to have another child. I agree with you on that player. Wait a second, I agree with you a second time? Is the sky turning red yet?

to be fair though, surely there cannot be people out there who disagree with the idea of removing a dead fetus still inside the mother.

[Snorri1234]

I never understood how you guys managed to get away with calling it "pro-life". Because the opposite of "pro-life" would be "pro-death" and plenty of people wouldn't want to be seen as pro death.

[PLAYER57832]

A miscarriage is one thing, as the baby has already died and could pose as a health concern for the mother, as well as possibly causing problems should the mother want to have another child. I agree with you on that player. Wait a second, I agree with you a second time? Is the sky turning red yet?

to be fair though, surely there cannot be people out there who disagree with the idea of removing a dead fetus still inside the mother.

Legally, there is no distinction, at least in the first trimester. This is because a fetus, legally, is not defined to have life (again, in most cases). It is also because the records are kept on the proceedures, the method of removal and not whether the child has a heartbeat or not.

It gets complicated after the first trimester and I am not going to pretend to be a legal expert. I just know that many early miscarriages removed through surgery are classified no differently from true abortions.

[mpjh]

Yes, this is great, and does also explain why we are banning the death penalty in more and more states. Soon, what do you know, we will challenge the concept of "collateral" damage and ban the murder of innocent civilians by military forces.

[StiffMittens]

I never understood how you guys managed to get away with calling it "pro-life". Because the opposite of "pro-life" would be "pro-death" and plenty of people wouldn't want to be seen as pro death.

That is absolutely essential to their "brand". It's the same idea as identifying yourself as anti-terrorist. If you successfully brand your viewpoint as "anti-terrorist", then anybody who disagrees with you is a terrorist.