Gallup Polls shows continuing drop in Pro-Choice from last July

[syaoranvee]

PRINCETON, NJ -- The 41% of Americans who now identify themselves as "pro-choice" is down from 47% last July and is one percentage point below the previous record low in Gallup trends, recorded in May 2009. Fifty percent now call themselves "pro-life," one point shy of the record high, also from May 2009.



Gallup began asking Americans to define themselves as pro-choice or pro-life on abortion in 1995, and since then, identification with the labels has shifted from a wide lead for the pro-choice position in the mid-1990s, to a generally narrower lead for "pro-choice" -- from 1998 through 2008 -- to a close division between the two positions since 2009. However, in the last period, Gallup has found the pro-life position significantly ahead on two occasions, once in May 2009 and again today. It remains to be seen whether the pro-life spike found this month proves temporary, as it did in 2009, or is sustained for some period.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/154838/Pro-Choice-Americans-Record-Low.aspx

More polls in the article, Republicans and Independents have a Pro-Life majority, Democrats, a Pro-Choice.

One poll in particular I wish they had specified on:



What circumstances? Trimesters?  If so most wouldn't have one after the first and possibly the second and I'm fairly sure it's an extreme example to have one during a the third. Or are we more talking about only in the case of rape or incest scenario?

[gyeonghwa]

I was reading about this actually. I lost the link, but from what I heard the poll used confusing terms that influenced the outcome. I don't think it was intentional but it's worth noting as one of the problems in designing polls.

[Saturn500]

"Certain circumstances" probably refers to rape.

[mice34]

While I have noticed the anti-abortion crowd getting louder and seemingly bigger over the last ten years, I've also noticed Gallup over-samples Republicans and conservatives, so I don't really trust this result. I DON'T believe there's been a big drop in one year. I wonder if it's related to this (study finds only 9% of Americans answer polls):

http://www.people-press.org/2012/05/15/assessing-the-representativeness-of-public-opinion-surveys/

[Smurfette Principle]

"Certain circumstances" probably refers to rape.

Quite a lot of the "pro-life except X" crowd actually don't make exceptions for rape. They tend to make exceptions for the life of the mother or if the baby will definitely die anyway (anencephaly, for example).

[MadCatTLX]

"Certain circumstances" probably refers to rape.

Quite a lot of the "pro-life except X" crowd actually don't make exceptions for rape. They tend to make exceptions for the life of the mother or if the baby will definitely die anyway (anencephaly, for example).

I've never understood why rape isn't considered a good enough reason.

[Smurfette Principle]

"Certain circumstances" probably refers to rape.

Quite a lot of the "pro-life except X" crowd actually don't make exceptions for rape. They tend to make exceptions for the life of the mother or if the baby will definitely die anyway (anencephaly, for example).

I've never understood why rape isn't considered a good enough reason.

Because the whore should have known better than to go out in public with a skirt like that! [/actual fundie logic]

[TheUnknown]

"Certain circumstances" probably refers to rape.

Quite a lot of the "pro-life except X" crowd actually don't make exceptions for rape. They tend to make exceptions for the life of the mother or if the baby will definitely die anyway (anencephaly, for example).

I've never understood why rape isn't considered a good enough reason.

Because the whore should have known better than to go out in public with a skirt like that! [/actual fundie logic]

While I don't doubt some fundies think that, from my observation, the more common line of thinking is that "the baby shouldn't be punished for the father's crime."  My guess is that many who think this have never actually been raped or had to face carrying a rapist's baby.

[Murdin]

I've never understood why rape isn't considered a good enough reason.

Because the harm in killing an innocent human being in the womb still outweighs the harm of forcing a woman to be used as an incubator, even when the child is the product of rape. That's perfectly valid reasoning, if you ask me.

Now, in the real world, this proposition is completely useless. Since, you know, embryos are not persons, and you can't conclude anything from a false premise. But if you believe that humans are magical beings brought into the world by the Miracle of Ensoulment, like most people (including many atheists) do... well, it only makes sense to be anti-abortion.

The results are not surprising, and I expect the trend to continue in most Western countries, with all the legal consequences that this implies. The subterfuge of using women's liberation to hide the real argument has lasted long enough, and it won't work again because complacency killed feminism a long time ago. More and more people are realising that abortion goes, in fact, completely against their broader world view. And that's especially true among teens and young adults, who have never really known that "feminism" thing. Man, I hate my generation.

[MadCatTLX]

I've never understood why rape isn't considered a good enough reason.

Because the harm in killing an innocent human being in the womb still outweighs the harm of forcing a woman to be used as an incubator, even when the child is the product of rape. That's perfectly valid reasoning, if you ask me.

Now, in the real world, this proposition is completely useless. Since, you know, embryos are not persons, and you can't conclude anything from a false premise. But if you believe that humans are magical beings brought into the world by the Miracle of Ensoulment, like most people (including many atheists) do... well, it only makes sense to be anti-abortion.

The results are not surprising, and I expect the trend to continue in most Western countries, with all the legal consequences that this implies. The subterfuge of using women's liberation to hide the real argument has lasted long enough, and it won't work again because complacency killed feminism a long time ago. More and more people are realising that abortion goes, in fact, completely against their broader world view. And that's especially true among teens and young adults, who have never really known that "feminism" thing. Man, I hate my generation.

On the opposite side of that it seems the broader world view your referring to is slowly changing as well. Religion is slowly losing it's hold on the world in more intelligent parts of the world. Without that world view then there is no reason to stop rape victims from having an abortion. Sadly most of the world wallows in stupidity and has to be dragged, kicking and scream all the way, into the 20th century. Maybe then progress will be made.

[Old Viking]

What's the latest word on the pro-gravity position?

[nickiknack]

The results are not surprising, and I expect the trend to continue in most Western countries, with all the legal consequences that this implies. The subterfuge of using women's liberation to hide the real argument has lasted long enough, and it won't work again because complacency killed feminism a long time ago. More and more people are realising that abortion goes, in fact, completely against their broader world view. And that's especially true among teens and young adults, who have never really known that "feminism" thing. Man, I hate my generation.

I wonder if they will have a different outlook once abortion rights go bye bye, and people once again become very ill/ or dying due to DIY abortions
http://www.now.org/issues/abortion/120904women-who-died.html
and a more recent one.

It's stories like this why I'm Pro-Choice, shit like this should never fucking happen. Plus, I also know how to Mind My Own Business...

[Osama bin Bambi]

Medically speaking, fetuses do not have the brain faculties to be considered "people" because their minds and self-consciousness do not yet exist. Legally speaking, even if they were medically sentient, they cannot be granted protection under the U.S. constitution because in order for that to happen, it must be a citizen of the United States. To be a U.S. citizen, one must be born in America, or pass a citizenship test and become naturalized. A fetus is obviously not born yet, and is incapable of taking a citizenship test. Therefore, a fetus is not a citizen of the United States and has no legal protections.

If you're a citizen, one of the rights you get is the right to your property, which includes your body. No one can be forced against their will to donate blood, marrow, or other organs to a sick person who needs them, even if it will save that sick person's life. Blood donations require consent forms, for example. They can't just drag you away in a van, suck out a pint or two, and toss you back out on the road. In the same way, no woman can be forced to give up any part of her body, blood, nutrients, or organs to a fetus. Banning abortion by making fetuses "people" is probably one of the most legally disastrous things I have ever heard, because it grants a fetus more rights than any other person in the United States - the right to take away your right to property.

[/Lawful Neutral]

I'd like to point out though that most people I know who are against abortion even in cases of rape do not actually believe the woman is responsible for what happened to her. They argue that the fetus should not be punished for the rapist's crimes. Granted, it completely misses the point of abortion in the first place, but fortunately I've never found the "lol ur a hore" mentality particularly common in everyday life here.

[TheUnknown]

No one can be forced against their will to donate blood, marrow, or other organs to a sick person who needs them, even if it will save that sick person's life.

Pro-lifers tend to get around this position by saying that simply consenting to sex is giving permission for the fetus to use your body until it's grown.  Wasn't there a user here who said something along these lines?  I'm pretty sure, because I think I remember a back-and-forth argument going on about whether accepting the risks of sex necessarily meant giving consent for the fetus to use your body.

[Patches]

No one can be forced against their will to donate blood, marrow, or other organs to a sick person who needs them, even if it will save that sick person's life.

Pro-lifers tend to get around this position by saying that simply consenting to sex is giving permission for the fetus to use your body until it's grown.  Wasn't there a user here who said something along these lines?  I'm pretty sure, because I think I remember a back-and-forth argument going on about whether accepting the risks of sex necessarily meant giving consent for the fetus to use your body.

That's like saying if you consent to a medical procedure, you can't file a malpractice suit if something goes wrong because you consented to the potential consequences as well.