May 15, 2009

Suddenly, more Americans are pro-life than are pro-choice.

Look at the flip from '08 to '09. The shift took place within the GOP, it's important to see. Democrats did not change. But why did the change take place? The big difference between '08 and '09 is that Obama took over the presidency:
With the first pro-choice president in eight years already making changes to the nation's policies on funding abortion overseas, expressing his support for the Freedom of Choice Act, and moving toward rescinding federal job protections for medical workers who refuse to participate in abortion procedures, Americans -- and, in particular, Republicans -- seem to be taking a step back from the pro-choice position. However, the retreat is evident among political moderates as well as conservatives.

It is possible that, through his abortion policies, Obama has pushed the public's understanding of what it means to be "pro-choice" slightly to the left, politically. While Democrats may support that, as they generally support everything Obama is doing as president, it may be driving others in the opposite direction.

121 comments:

goesh said...

- I don't think we should give the Messiah that much credit

John Lynch said...

Looks like a blip-- in 2006 the numbers were almost exactly reversed. There does seem to be a bit of a trend since the mid 90s.

What's striking is that "legal under any" and "illegal under any" are now positions held by about about the same number of people. Even if this is a bad poll, the numbers are getting pretty close.

John Lynch said...

Here's another thing-- as we get more socially conservative immigrants, isn't support for abortion going to slip?

Hoosier Daddy said...

moving toward rescinding federal job protections for medical workers who refuse to participate in abortion procedures, .

I find the idea that someone can be forced to perform a procedure that is in conflict with their belief system reprehensible. Evidently being a conscientious objector only carries weight when it comes to military service.

Its also nice to know that despite being in the worst economy since THE GREAT DEPRESSION we can still find the money to pay for third worlders to have abortions. That's just so precious.

Bissage said...

Sarah Palin inspires courage.

Pogo said...

"...rescinding federal job protections for medical workers who refuse to participate in abortion procedures"

What a great government.
You must not only tolerate abortions, you must participate in them if getting federal funds.

That's what will make national health care so fun. The left's view of the world (pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, multi-culti crap) will be mandatory and opposition will be prohibited.

Obama's a uniter.

John Lynch said...

I think making people do their job is constitutional, given the constitution as it's seen by the Supreme Court. If you can be made to open your business to people of any race, it follows that if abortion is a constitutional right you have to provide it. That's what 'right' means.

Now, whether that's a valid court decision...

Hoosier Daddy said...

Here's another thing-- as we get more socially conservative immigrants, isn't support for abortion going to slip?.

If you're referring to the undocumented American community that hails from south of the border, you might see that. Then again don't count on it making any difference at the polls. Hell when you look at the issues, African Americans are pretty socially conservative when it comes to fighting crime, gay marriage, school vouchers, abortion and are more fervently religious than your liberal east coaster. Despite all that, they continue to vote overwhelmingly for a party that sits on the opposite side of those issues

Go figure.

traditionalguy said...

I believe that the Professor has the right answer. As long as Americans could believe that Abortion was only an act of mercy for teenage girls in trouble, then the evil of abortions could be shoved under the rug. Today the stark image of Partial Birth murder of babies, which does not evince a momentary qualm from the Cool Hand King Obama, is very disconcerting to the 60 and up citizens who will need mercy themselves as they get into the 70 to 80 age range. Suddenly we want to a least discuss the ethics of an unregulated killing industry which has its eye on us next.

richard said...

sweden just made gender an acceptable reason to abort. obama speaking at notre dame and the resulting controversy has shed more light on his position. Sebilius accepting $36,000 from dr. george tiller an abortionist who admits to performing an abortion one day before the due date has also shed light on how extreme abortion rights have been pushed.

Hoosier Daddy said...

sweden just made gender an acceptable reason to abort..

Well it's good enough for China.

Pogo said...

I think making people do their job is constitutional...Isn't there an amendment against coercive labor somewhere?

aberman said...

Yeah, I actually agree with Blissage that Sarah Palin may have had more impact than Barack Obama.

Obama has said very little about abortion.

I wonder if the increase in singles and the average age before marrying has reached the point of a paradoxical effect-- people may be getting tired of Gloria Steinem style feminism and are starting to long for long term relationships and commitment, with spillover into the abortion issue. How's that for a reach?

John Lynch said...

It's not making gender a reason to abort, it's refusing to put a restriction on abortion.

Here's a question: if we develop a genetic test for homosexuality (assuming it is genetic) would it be OK to abort on that basis? It seems to me that if we put no restrictions on abortion beyond the standards set forth in Roe v. Wade that it would be.

I worry about how many abortions we'll have as our knowledge of genetics increases. Down syndrome is already a reason to abort, so I wonder about autism or any other mental "defect."

LarsPorsena said...

I think that it's not whole-hearted support of the pro-lifers position but revulsion with the president's opposition to the Born Alive Protection Act. It's not abortion, it's the sanctioning of infanticide.
A difference in degree has become a difference in kind.

Hoosier Daddy said...

If you can be made to open your business to people of any race, it follows that if abortion is a constitutional right you have to provide it. .

That's not a very good comparison. Businesses cannot discriminate based upon race unless of course you open a ladies only health club but I digress. If a doctor refuses abortions for white or asian women but will gleefully perform them on black or hispanic women, then I think your argument holds water. I don't think one's right to an abortion supercedes another's right to ignore their conscience.

MadisonMan said...

Here's what my Dad the professor said about teaching: 10% hate you no matter what you do; 10% love you no matter what you do. Your job is to connect to the 80%.

10% of Americans hate abortion no matter what and would ban it absolutely.

10% of Americans see no problem with abortion no matter what and think any restriction at all is a bad one.

80% of America changes its mind as circumstances dictate.

Re: The lady in Sweden who didn't like the gender of her child. The story I read didn't mention the gender, which makes me wonder.

Salamandyr said...

Obama has said very little about abortion.

But he's done quite a bit.

While the names may have shifted, I don't think what Americans actually want has changed all that much. A minority of Americans want abortion either illegal or completely unrestricted, while the great majority want abortion available with some degree of legal restriction. And both the extreme positions claim the middle agrees with them.

The more people see how close this country is to the "completely unrestricted" side of the ledger, the more people who favor legal, but restricted, abortion will identify with the Pro-Life side of the argument.

Floridan said...

The joke is that Obama's recension the "federal job protections for medical workers who refuse to participate in abortion procedures" will remove restrictions that were never in place during the Bush administration.

Bush didn't put the rule in place until he had less than a month to go in office, and even then it didn't begin until Obama took office.

So for 7 years and 11 months the Bush administration resisted putting this measure in place, waiting until the last minute to pass this "time bomb" on to the next occupant of the White House.

Real moral courage.

John Lynch said...

Madison Man- according to that poll, it's more 50-25-25.

The lady in Sweden didn't want another girl.

rocketeer67 said...

Real moral courage.I'm not a fan of W in a lot of areas, but he learned this little technique from his predecessor.

And while you may argue that it was cowardly not to enact it sooner, enact it he did. Thta the timing was questionable doesn't absolve Obama from any moral consequences of rescinding it.

Maguro said...

sweden just made gender an acceptable reason to abort.

If you assume that a fetus isn't a human life then the reasons are none of the government's business and you should be able to abort for any reason you like.

It's morally incoherent to favor abortion rights but disapprove of sex-specific abortion.

Hoosier Daddy said...

It seems to me that if we put no restrictions on abortion beyond the standards set forth in Roe v. Wade that it would be..

Are there any restrictions beyond the mother simply not wanting a baby?

John Althouse Cohen said...

Isn't there an amendment against coercive labor somewhere?

If by "an amendment against coercive labor," you mean a constitutional provision that forbids requiring someone to do their job in order to keep that job, then no, there isn't a constitutional provision like that.

John Althouse Cohen said...

(But I admire your creative attempt to add new meaning to the Constitution.)

Pogo said...

"...another's right to ignore their conscience"

Under National Medicare, the state will be your conscience.

John Althouse Cohen said...

It's morally incoherent to favor abortion rights but disapprove of sex-specific abortion.

Isn't it possible to "disapprove" of an act but still think someone has the "right" to do it? For instance, there are many foolish statements that I disapprove of, but I think it's extremely important for people to have a right to free speech, which must include the right to make foolish statements.

richard said...

the story i read on the swedish story is the woman has two children who are girls. this was the second time the woman was into abort becuse she wanted a boy. the medical personnel were uneasy about the situation and the director of the clinic went to the national medical board who ruled that she was entitled to abort. via hot air

Hoosier Daddy said...

If by "an amendment against coercive labor," you mean a constitutional provision that forbids requiring someone to do their job in order to keep that job, then no, there isn't a constitutional provision like that..

Doesn't that assume the doctor's job is to perform abortions? As opposed to the job of healing?

Trooper York said...

Here's a question for you, John Althouse Cohen. Do you support the doctor killing the baby who survived a botched abortion and would you allow any measures to help it stay alive. That's your opinion not Obama's please.

I kind of made up my opinion about Obama on that issue and it really helps me determine when a person is worth listening to or should be written off.

AJ Lynch said...

The name "Planned Parenthood" still bugs me. Who was the misleading SOB who came up with that name?

John Althouse Cohen said...

Hoosier Daddy: Whatever your opinion is about the moral component of the job, the comment I was responding to was asking about the Constitution. There's no way a doctor has a 13th Amendment claim for the fact that their job involves performing abortions. Or, you'd need some pretty extreme judicial activism to have a chance with that claim.

John Althouse Cohen said...

Trooper York: if you just want my opinion, why are you bringing up "Obama"?

Palladian said...

"Or, you'd need some pretty extreme judicial activism to have a chance with that claim."

Good thing we're getting some empathetic Justices.

Palladian said...

"Trooper York: if you just want my opinion, why are you bringing up "Obama"?"

Nice dodge!

Jen said...

I don't understand how people can be opposed to access to abortion and also opposed to federal funding for things like, ah, say, welfare.

Best case scenario: people use birth control and never get into trouble in the first place.

Worst case scenario: a woman gets pregnant, cannot afford to have a child, cannot get access to an abortion because of whatever reason political, religious or otherwise, has a baby, goes on welfare (which we all pay for), lives in a high risk neighborhood, gets a shoddy education (which we all pay for). . .and on and on and on.


Hoosier Daddy: Do you think that it is reprehensible for a pharmacist (say one working in a federally funded university hospital pharmacy) to prevent access to birth control, say progestin, based on religious or ethical belief?

John Althouse Cohen said...

What's misleading about "Planned Parenthood"? Seems accurate to me. The real question is why so many people are in favor of unplanned parenthood.

John Lynch said...

Well, no, defending a "right" that's often used in ways you disagree with isn't that applicable with abortion.

Freedom of speech has many, many more restrictions than does the right to abortion. Surely we could regulate abortion more than we are without destroying it as a right.

Trooper York said...

I brought up Obama because I made my final judgement about him based on his attitude toward the most vulnerable and helpless. I asked you for your opinion. I am sorry you will not be man enough to state it clearly. Thanks anyway.

Maguro said...

Isn't it possible to "disapprove" of an act but still think someone has the "right" to do it?

But why would you disapprove of aborting a female fetus if you don't believe it's a human being?

If it's just a clump of flesh inside the woman's body nothing about it - including its potential sex - is of any moral consequence.

On the other hand, if you acknowledge that a fetus is human and you still favor abortion rights, you're saying that one human being has the "right" to murder another.

LarsPorsena said...

"Worst case scenario: a woman gets pregnant, cannot afford to have a child, cannot get access to an abortion because of whatever reason political, religious or otherwise, has a baby, goes on welfare (which we all pay for), lives in a high risk neighborhood, gets a shoddy education (which we all pay for). . .and on and on and on.'

Nope. The worst case scenario is.. the baby survives the abortion and then the doctor kills it and is protected by federal law.

EnigmatiCore said...

It is not hard to understand, really. America is, by and large, moderate on abortion and actually believes the slogan that it should be 'legal, safe and rare' with an emphasis on the word rare.

When the pro-choice side is perceived to be moving away from trying to ensure that abortions are rare, the country moves away from the pro-choice side.

Whichever side on the abortion debate comes closest to actually pursuing the 'legal, safe and rare' approach will get more of the public on its side.

Pogo said...

jen,
Then you'll be okay with forcing a female soldier to participate in what she views as torture, "because it's her job" and federally funded.

Federal funding now trumps conscience; it is conscience.

Pogo said...

As the gummint takes over more and more of the economic landscape, the individual has fewer options to disagree.

Under national health care, you could not then be a doctor at all unless, according to Obama, you agree to do abortions.

EnigmatiCore said...

Actually, I would like to revise and extend my last comment.

There should be no emphasis on the word rare. All three tenets-- safe, legal, and rare-- are co-equal.

When either side of the debate tries to de-emphasize one of the three, that side loses support.

AJ Lynch said...

"Abortions R Us" would be much more accurate. They plan "unparenthood".

John Althouse Cohen said...

Maguro: Have you considered that the abortion issue might not involved a simple dichotomy, but might actually be more complicated than that? There are reasons for supporting abortion rights other than the conviction that a fetus is merely a "clump of cells." One can recognize the importance of a fetus, but believe the rights of the pregnant women happen to be more important.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Hoosier Daddy: Do you think that it is reprehensible for a pharmacist (say one working in a federally funded university hospital pharmacy) to prevent access to birth control, say progestin, based on religious or ethical belief? .

No but then again that's not a good comparison. A pharmacist job is to dispense drugs. Period. They can't diagnose or even prescribe drugs themselves, simply dispense them.

A doctor on the other hand isn't solely trained in abortions and in fact, has a pretty good argument that the procedure violates thier hippocratic oath. The whole do no harm thing.

lacegrl130 said...

"george tiller an abortionist who admits to performing an abortion one day before the due date has also shed light on how extreme abortion rights have been pushed.

It is this sort of travesty that has pushed me over the edge - I wuld be one of those "new" pro-lifers...

Palladian said...

"One can recognize the importance of a fetus, but believe the rights of the pregnant women happen to be more important."

Ahh, some animals are more equal than others.

AJ Lynch said...

JAC:

Unplanned parenthood is part of all life.

We protect salmon, the spotted owl, the polar bear- do they practice planned parenthood?

Do you ever think about this contradiction and find it disconcerting?

lacegrl130 said...

wuld = would

I flunked typing

Diamondhead said...

"(But I admire your creative attempt to add new meaning to the Constitution.)"

Kind of funny, given the subject matter.

Trooper York said...

I met a woman who survived a botched abortion back in the early sixties. She was at a Mass in St Patricks and was a relative of a friend of mine. She was pretty badly handicapped and disfigured. But she is a sweet and lovely lady.

Hoosier Daddy said...

There's no way a doctor has a 13th Amendment claim for the fact that their job involves performing abortions. Or, you'd need some pretty extreme judicial activism to have a chance with that claim..

Well it's certainly refreshing to know that kind of activism doesn't occur ;-)

I'm pretty certain that physicians can refuse to participate in state executions based upon moral grounds. Any thoughts as to why such waivers could not be allowed for refusing an abortion?

John Lynch said...

I'm in favor of unplanned parenthood if the alternative is someone not being here. There's an awful lot of people who weren't planned ahead of time.

I don't see how being "unplanned" makes someone more or less valuable, especially since that seems to imply that unwanted people who are born are worth less than the people who were wanted all along. Otherwise, why the justification for abortion as family planning? Are people with parents who did not initially want them better off if they never lived at all? Not all parents with unplanned children are bad, and a lot of planned children don't have good parents. I'm sure everyone knows a lot of people with bad parents who turned out fine. We can't predict.

I think abortion as a right is an argument for liberty for women, and that the virtue of "planned" vs. "unplanned" is bogus. I'm sure outcomes are better for one group, but on an individual level I don't see how it matters.

I think the moniker "pro-choice" is exactly correct, and that's about all the virtue that the pro-abortion side has.

ricpic said...

Republicans "are taking a step back" by opposing abortion? Apparently it's reactionary to oppose the culture of death.

Jen said...

Hoosier Daddy:
How about ru486?

Dumb Plumber said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dust Bunny Queen said...

I don't understand how people can be opposed to access to abortion and also opposed to federal funding for things like, ah, say, welfare.

I'm not opposed to women having access to abortion. I'm opposed to using taxpayer dollars to fund it.

If you want to fund it yourself or have a charitable foundation fund abortions, have at it. Donate away. Just don't force taxpayers who have moral reservations about the process and who think it is murder and that it is a sin, to pay for it.

I think we can make a similar argument for torture. If you object to waterboarding don't you also object to the government sponsoring what you consider to be torture with your tax dollars?

Why should your objection to waterboarding have more moral authority than those who object to the murder of the unborn child? A bit inconsistant aren't you?

Pogo said...

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude...shall exist within the United States."

CLYATT V. U S, 197 U.S. 207 (1905)
"We must not forget that the province and scope of the 13th and 14th Amendments are different; the former simply abolished slavery: the latter prohibited the states from abridging the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; from depriving them of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, and from denying to any the equal protection of the laws.

...Slavery implies involuntary servitude,-a state of bondage; the ownership of mankind as a chattel, or at least the control of the labor and services of one man for the benefit of another, and the absence of a legal right to the disposal of his own person, property, and services.

...the use of the word 'servitude' was intended to prohibit the use of all forms of involuntary slavery, of whatever class or name.'
"

But forget all that; now the federal government can coerce certain labor from you.

It's okay though, they've been forcing me to accept underpayments from Medicare that don't even cover the secretary, rent, and lights.

It's sure a brave new world.

Jen said...

Palladian:
"Ahh, some animals are more equal than others."

Yes, men are more free to judge in this circumstance. They can walk away from a pregnancy planned or unplanned (and frequently do), but a woman can't.

John Lynch said...

13th amendment doesn't apply here. The draft is legal. I don't see how it would cover a doctor.

Jen said...

Dust Bunny Queen said:
"Why should your objection to waterboarding have more moral authority than those who object to the murder of the unborn child? A bit inconsistant aren't you?"

I'm completely consistent. I object to torture. I object to abortion.

buster said...

JAC said:

"There are reasons for supporting abortion rights other than the conviction that a fetus is merely a 'clump of cells.' One can recognize the importance of a fetus, but believe the rights of the pregnant women happen to be more important."

A lot of weasel-work is being done by "importance of a fetus." If a fetus is importance because it is a live human being, it is hard to see how a the pregnant woman can have a right to kill it, except in very restricted circumstances.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Hoosier Daddy:
How about ru486?
.

If I'm not mistaken, that is a drug that is prescribed. A pharmacist's sole job is to dispense prescribed drugs.

I'm not sure why this is difficult to understand. A physician can be trained in several types of medicine and can go on to specialize. The fact that a doctor can perform an abortion doesn't mean he should be forced to do so by the state.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I'm completely consistent. I object to torture. I object to abortion.

Yet you don't understand how people can object to access to abortions? It seems you want to have the government fund abortion and force doctors to perform abortions.

Your position is inconsistant.

John Lynch said...

Pogo-- on the 13th amendment, a better way is to say that if the gov't rather than a private citizen is making you do it, it's OK!

Hoosier Daddy said...

They can walk away from a pregnancy planned or unplanned (and frequently do), but a woman can't..

Well you can 1) walk away from the act that causes pregnancy 2) take the necessary precautions to prevent it from occuring.

I'm sure you know this as a female but there isn't a pregnancy fairy who sprinkles semen dust in your uterus when you're sleeping.

Pogo said...

"13th amendment doesn't apply here. The draft is legal. I don't see how it would cover a doctor."

I was referring to Obama having "rescind[ed] federal job protections for medical workers who refuse to participate in abortion procedures", which, according to your logic means it's okay to coerce a doctor to perform an abortion because there are federal funds involved.

Since we are drifting inexorably to a national health care plan that will involve federal funding, it means the gummint can coerce doctors to do whatever the hell it wants and you can't say no, or at least you cannot practice medicine.

Seems like involuntary servitude to me, just my stupid layperson reading of control of the labor and services of one man for the benefit of another, and the absence of a legal right to the disposal of his own person, property, and services.

Of course, we need lawyers to tell us it means something else.

And "the draft is legal"???
Legal don't mean 'constitutional', but we know liberals view that document as malleable anyway.

traditionalguy said...

JAC...The legal rights of the Mother person(forgive the spin here)are always higher than that of silly moralist persons like the Pope. You win...unless the baby is a person and then you lose hands down.The murder of the inconvenient person on this earth is always what the laws seek to regulate. That is the purpose of the Death Penalty: to restrain the free exercise of the power to murder people you wish to replace, steal their stuff, or get out of babtsitting expenses for. Making that power to murder an unrestricted act and be seen as the "Noble Defender of Rights" at the same time is a great con job. The American people are waking up today, and the murder for hire industry is getting nervous.

dbp said...

John Althouse Cohen said...
What's misleading about "Planned Parenthood"? Seems accurate to me. The real question is why so many people are in favor of unplanned parenthood.

The only planning they help with is the prevention of parenthood. Do they also offer help for couples trying to conceive? And how does abortion fit in with plannng? It is the antithesis of planning--more like crisis management.

The term "Planned Parenthood" is at best euphemistic and that is being charitable.

Joe said...

Support or opposition of abortion very much hinges on how the question is asked. Part of the pro-life shift is due to the irrationality of extremists on the pro-choice side. Late term abortions and abortions for children without parental consent really bothers people, including many who still maintain a pro-choice attitude.

Joe said...

How about this compromise:

All women 18 or older have unrestricted access to abortion for the first 10 weeks of pregnancy. After that, abortions shall be legal in all states if the life of the mother is in imminent danger. Individual states can decide what other restrictions there may or may not be.

I know the pro-life people here will hate this. So will the pro-choice people. But you will get support from the majority of Americans.

Hoosier Daddy said...

The term "Planned Parenthood" is at best euphemistic and that is being charitable..

Well it goes back to words mean things. That is why those favoring abortion call it pro-choice because it sounds less icky. I always thought pregnancy is a choice and not a randomly afflicted condition. Mrs. Hoosier and I were married six years before we chose to procreate. Prior to that I think Trojan's stock prices were at an all time high.

Pogo said...

"Planned Parenthood" is correct, except there's no outcome called "parenthood", and the only planning is ex post facto.

But otherwise accurate.

jayne_cobb said...

Morality aside I love the battle over how to word everything. From "partial birth abortion" to "planned parenthood" it's just entertaining.

My favorite, though, is when the pro-choice people call the pro-lifers "anti-choice" as it then allows me to refer to them as "anti-life" which is just a fun comic book reference.

Eli Blake said...

I'm not surprised.

It's easy to be against something when you know that there is no chance in hell that your ideas are going to become reality.

Besides, if Republicans were really that pro-life then why, when they held the Presidency for six years with unanimous control of Congress did they not even mount a serious attempt to pass a constitutional amendment banning abortion and otherwise do next to nothing about restricting it? Heck, they didn't even vote to tax it (the usual method government uses when they want to discourage something which is otherwise legal, e.g. tobacco).

Abortion is a political football for the GOP, something they use to drive up the turnout numbers among their base but the last six years should make it abundantly clear that actually getting rid of it has never been their intent. They make too much political hay from rubes who actually do think they will do something to ban it if they vote Republican.

mcg said...

The lady in Sweden who didn't like the gender of her child. The story I read didn't mention the gender, which makes me wonder.

Hmm, the story read made the gender clear. She aborted twice upon the discovery that the children were female. But I also recall that she already had two daughters. I think that does change the nuances somewhat, because it's not like the woman was trying to avoid having any girls.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Besides, if Republicans were really that pro-life then why, when they held the Presidency for six years with unanimous control of Congress did they not even mount a serious attempt to pass a constitutional amendment banning abortion and otherwise do next to nothing about restricting it? .

The GOP had unanimous control of Congress for six years? I know they had a majority but I wasn't aware it was 100%.

Abortion is a political football for the GOP, .

A little honesty here Eli. You are one of the liberals here who doesn't tend to froth at the mouth so lets get real. Abortion is political football for both parties.

AJ Lynch said...

Pogo:

Love your retorts ...."accurately named but there are no outcomes with either planning or parenthood." LOL.

BTW there is no reasoning with blind partisans like me (I at least admit it) or JAC (who won't admit it).

Hoosier Daddy said...

the last six years should make it abundantly clear that actually getting rid of it has never been their intent. They make too much political hay from rubes who actually do think they will do something to ban it if they vote Republican..

Kind of how like Democrats are all about helping the poor but don't actually want them to get out of poverty? I mean how can you maintain a voting block when your constituency isn't counting on you to send them a paycheck or promise more benefits paid for by someone else?

elHombre said...

On the other hand, if you acknowledge that a fetus is human and you still favor abortion rights, you're saying that one human being has the "right" to murder another.

You can't say that! The whole abortion debate has been set by the pro-abortionists to obscure that moral issue.

We use words like "personhood," "potential human being," "legal persons," "social identity," etc., to avoid the reality that abortion terminates a human life and is, therefore, homicide. Whether it ought to be murder and at what point is the discussion the abortion crowd seeks to avoid.

If you are an Obama, you avoid the issue even when a living, breathing human child lies on the table -- or in the rag bin.

Jen said...

Oh Hoosier Daddy:
Yesterday I was reprimanded for not living in reality because I feel non-violent action is the only ending action for violence.
Today I'm being instructed on all the ways in which human beings can abstain from sex in order to prevent pregnancy. This is simply not reality. Humans are irresponsible sexual creatures. The reality is that we reproduce in great numbers. The reality is that women get pregnant and, in the vast majority of cases, are the ones responsible for the majority of the childs care. Men are physically able to walk away from a pregnancy. This is reality.

If I need to accept that i live in a violent world, you need to accept that we live in a mysogonistic one.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Yesterday I was reprimanded for not living in reality because I feel non-violent action is the only ending action for violence..

Well I wouldn't reprimand you but I might call you ignorant for that belief. Your choice not to react violently doesn't mean that's the end of violence. If someone decides they're going to beat you to death and you don't fight back you're correct that the violence ends with your death. But it picks up again when that person comes across the next person they want to beat to death.

Today I'm being instructed on all the ways in which human beings can abstain from sex in order to prevent pregnancy. This is simply not reality. .

You don't have to abstain. You can use a condom, go on the pill, get an IUD or that hormone shot, or any number of other methods to prevent pregnancy.

Humans are irresponsible sexual creatures..

Well that's a lame excuse. How about being responsible? That's actually the reality of life otherwise we'd live in a Mad Max society.

Jen said...

Hoosier: I'm on a train with no Wifi so I'm typing on my iPhone. Stick with me.
I know all the methods to prevent pregnancy. Of course I do. But what I'm addressing above, and I think it's clear, is that there is a significant population that doesn't. They mate irresponsibly because sex is what it is. There are consequences to unwanted pregnancy. Reality.

elHombre said...

All women 18 or older have unrestricted access to abortion for the first 10 weeks of pregnancy. After that, abortions shall be legal in all states if the life of the mother is in imminent danger. Individual states can decide what other restrictions there may or may not be.

Joe, I think you would be surprised by how many people who characterize themselves as "pro-life" in a generic sort of way could accept, as opposed to agree with, some variation of this as a social/political compromise.

The question is, who or what gives the authority to impose such a national policy? A constitutional amendment?

Hoosier Daddy said...

I know all the methods to prevent pregnancy. Of course I do. But what I'm addressing above, and I think it's clear, is that there is a significant population that doesn't. .

Well I don't buy that a significant population is not aware. They're fully aware but choose not to bother with it. I'm only 42 but back in my 'yout' all the birth control was sitting behind the counter at the pharmacist. I had to actually go to the pharmacist and ask for a box of Trojans thereby letting everyone else in line know I wasn't getting cough medicine. Now, it's right out in front next to the suppositories and KY lube. It's also in the local Krogers and Piggly Wiggly, most tavern bathrooms and high school nurse offices. I would accept ignorance and lack of birth control if this were 1955 but not in 2009.

They mate irresponsibly because sex is what it is. There are consequences to unwanted pregnancy. Reality..

And abortion basically is a way to avoid the consequences of irresponsible behavior.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I think that does change the nuances somewhat, because it's not like the woman was trying to avoid having any girls.


True. She just decided to kill those particular girls. That makes it much better then.

BTW: Since gender is determined by the sperm and some men tend to make more girls than boys, maybe her solution would be to screw a proven boy maker instead of killing her girl children.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

There are consequences to unwanted pregnancy.

Yes. They are called children

Jen said...

Piggly Wiggly!!!!! I've been out west too long.

You've helped to make my point for me. Contraception is everywhere. People STILL don't use it. Very irresponsible. People that can't get their shit together to roll on a condom should prob. not be making babies. And when they do, if the woman has a child that is unwanted, what kind of mother do you think she'll be? Especially if she's been forced into it.

42 is youthful.

If you need KY you aren't doing it right.

Is there an iphone app for this?! Safari blows.

Jen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jen said...

DBQ: Which is exactly why every one of them should be wanted and provided for.

Synova said...

Kill unwanted people. Hoo Rah!

Jen said...

Then fork over the welfare for these kids or let them starve, remain unvaccinated, malnourished, and educated by cable.
Hoo Rah!

Oligonicella said...

Jen --

"Yes, men are more free to judge in this circumstance. They can walk away from a pregnancy planned or unplanned (and frequently do), but a woman can't."

Wow. That's a buttload on several levels.



Joe --

"Late term abortions and abortions for children without parental consent really bothers people, including many who still maintain a pro-choice attitude."


Yessir. I've had very heated discussions with liberal friends whom I otherwise thought were sane over just this. The most vocal of whom is a woman who has never been, nor plans to be pregnant. I think a helluva lot of those on the fringe of the left side of this issue are like her.



Jen --

"I know all the methods to prevent pregnancy. ... there is a significant population that doesn't."


I'd have to call bullshit on that one. I doubt there's very many people who are unaware of two, three or four birth control methods if they're teenage or beyond. Hell, there's commercials.



elHombre --

"The question is, who or what gives the authority to impose such a national policy?"

And the authority was given by whom for the restrictions?



Jen --

"Safari blows."

Yet another method.

Synova said...

(Now that I got that out of my system...)

Obama might have crystalized the change, but I think it's probably due quite a lot to longer term trends away from portraying abortion as something that ought to be available for extreme cases to something that should be available just because it should be available.

I don't think that those pushing for "choice" 20 years ago ever did anything but present abortion as a response to a disaster... it was for those situations where being responsible wasn't enough. It was a serious decision, never to be taken lightly, and we were told it never would be taken lightly. It had to be available out of compassion for women or girls who's lives went all pear-shaped unexpectedly.

Now it's all... we mustn't make a woman who had an abortion *feel bad* about it, so lets be clear that the procedure is nothing at all... maybe go get a tooth pulled.

When a minor girl can legally get an abortion, but not an over the counter pain killer... something is severely unbalanced.

When an Episcopal minister can get up in front of her congregation and say "When a woman becomes pregnant within a loving, supportive, respectful relationship; has every option open to her; decides she does not wish to bear a child; and has access to a safe, affordable abortion - there is not a tragedy in sight -- only blessing."

Something is severely unbalanced.

Those people who were moved by compassion toward women facing a situation not of their making and social censure likely to destroy them (is there even social censure for an out of wedlock child any more?) are looking around and noticing that it wasn't enough to make sure that someone who *needed* an abortion could get it.

It's not even neutral anymore. It's not even that an abortion is morally equal to carrying the child. It's gone all the way over to *preferred*... because anyone born in a less than perfect situation is better off dead.

traditionalguy said...

When Stalin, Pol Pot, Chairman Mao, Adolph Schickelgruper, or Tojo found people unwanted they were always taken out side and shot. No problemo. Or they might need some slave labor for the war effort, with little food needed, and the death would be slow physical wasting away for a year or so. Maybe we need to find some labor that enfants can perform and extend their slow starvation for a year or so. That actually would be more mercyful than the quick buck earned by the government funded abortion industry.

theobromophile said...

Jen: aren't you discounting the possibility that many people aren't responsible about birth control because of the easy access to abortion? It's a lot easier to just have random sex when none of your friends are pregnant....

Synova said...

"Then fork over the welfare for these kids or let them starve, remain unvaccinated, malnourished, and educated by cable.
Hoo Rah!
"

Unvaccinated, undernourished, undereducated people are better off dead.

Or isn't that your meaning?

So much hardship and injustice in the world can be solved by such a simple thing. Kill unwanted people. You're probably even right about that.

I wonder if Ghandi would agree. He was all big on the spiritual benefit of suffering, so he might not be. Though he doesn't ever feel that anyone should defend themselves against being killed.

It might be a toss-up.

Revenant said...

It doesn't seem "sudden". It looks like there was a general trend in the pro-life direction for the past several years, with a brief reversal during the last election.

The labels are pointless, anyway. The large majority of the country agrees with neither the pro-choice (i.e., unrestricted abortion) nor the pro-life (i.e., virtually no abortion allowed) positions. Most of the people who answer that they are "pro-life" or "pro-choice" do so because they don't understand what the position represents.

Jen said...

No. That's not what I'm saying.

If you want to have some consistency in your political party with respect to this issue, then dealing with the reality that there are a lot of irresponsible people having children, you should happily pony up the dough to support them.

But repubs are the party of less government support / funding ESPECIALLY welfare!

It's not right. Parents should love and support their children. But they don't always and the kids suffer the most.

So. If you want to be consistent, provide a spectacular healthcare and social programs for underprivileged people.

Pogo said...

True story:

When I lived in Omaha in the early 80s, I walked past the Planned Parenthood building every day on the way to school. For a long time, I kept a photo of the sign on the wall in front of their office:

"Use Rear Entrance".

Pogo said...

Next door was an Army Surplus store with the huge sign, also helpful to the Planned Parenthood clientele:

"Working Men's Mud Rubbers"

Pogo said...

I am easily amused, however.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

dealing with the reality that there are a lot of irresponsible people having children, you should happily pony up the dough to support them.

Why?

If you want to be consistent, provide a spectacular healthcare and social programs for underprivileged people.

I am consistant. The government should stay out of the abortion business and the babysitting business the health care business and isn't in the business of being everyone's sugar daddy.

This is what charities are for. Churches. Families.

Personal responsibility is the issue here. If you aren't responsible enough to use simple birth control measures, including keeping your knees together, why is it MY responsibility to take care of you and your kids?

Bissage said...

It makes perfect sense that abortion clinics should also administer needle exchange programs.

Bissage said...

Pogo, there is a proctologist's office not too far from us in one of those big Victorian houses with a wraparound porch.

It is painted 100% brown.

Pure, ordinary, everyday brown, if you catch my drift.

I go for a physician with a sense of humor. Still, I hope I never require his services.

Jen said...

DBQ

That's ideal. But not reality.

Just like no war is ideal. But not reality. Kids suffer in social systems where there is no support for them. You talk about each little clump of cells, oh so precious, and then when they are born. . . Well, fuckem! I'm not paying for someone elses mess!

Dust Bunny Queen said...

You talk about each little clump of cells, oh so precious, and then when they are born. . . Well, fuckem! I'm not paying for someone elses mess!

What I said was that people who believe that abortion is murder shouldn't be forced to pay for it or to perform abortions. However, if you want an abortion or want to pay for somebody's procedure, have at it. I don't care. As far as I can see, it is a personal decision to have an abortion or to carry a child to term and doesn't require my tax dollars or my permission.

So these are your choices? If the baby is unwanted kill it first? If the baby IS born, didn't get killed, and the parents are flakes, unsuitable parents we (the public) are now responsible for life for the child?

Should there be support systems for the poor unfortunate children? Of course. The support should come from, in this order, Family, Church, Charities, the kindness of strangers. The government isn't our Nanny, as much as it wants to be.

You know there are other alternatives to abortion. Adoption comes to mind. There are loving parents out there just waiting for those unwanted children.

Salamandyr said...

So extermination is morally superior to negligence?

Somehow this doesn't seem right to me.

Synova said...

Consistency would be to actually require some sort of support *test* of those soon to be neglected, abused, and forlorn unwanted babies.

I'm sure that telling women who get abortions that it's a good thing they got one because they are proto-child abusers would go over fabulously.

"Yes, you ought to get an abortion, you baby-shaker, you!"

But that's not at all the case, is it... no matter how much you want to portray all abortions as having to do with poverty and neglect, Jen.

The fact is that *most* women have some measure of support available to them. They just would rather not have a child NOW. Not THIS child, with THIS man, and not NOW.

But most of those women *do* want a child at some point, will *care for* a child, and do have family support for a child. While it might be better, later, the baby they abort would probably NOT be malnourished or abused if it were allowed to be born.

And there is always adoption, where other people will and do take on the expense and rearing of unwanted or ill-timed people.

Pogo said...

If bearing unwanted children is such a burden to society, maybe a better proposal would be to abort all females.

Better than taking the risk someone grows up unwanted. 'Cause that would be bad.

traditionalguy said...

Justice Souter needs a monument to his stellar services to the dead kids he helped prevent going thru a life containing pain,rejection, embarassment, hard work...and joy and love and social honors earned by selfless courage and dedication to saving lives from evil murderers... just like my life has been. Come to think of it, Souter was a worthless piece of trash.

Synova said...

Makes me think of Tarzan, traditionalguy. He'd be tortured and tied out on a stone altar with whatever monster it was this time just about to eat his guts out and rather than despair he'd shout, "I Live!" Because as long as he was alive... it could get better.

Synova said...

"If bearing unwanted children is such a burden to society, maybe a better proposal would be to abort all females."

My "if I ruled the world" solution is the "one of each" rule.

One elective abortion. One sterilization.

I suppose I'd have to allow for a court petition process for extraordinary circumstances where the "one of each" rule might be deemed unjust, but I bet elective abortions would immediately drop to near zero.

(Being a pedant about "elective" because without it someone will assume that I'm including true medically necessary procedures.)

Bart DePalma said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bart DePalma said...

Ann:

The shift took place within the GOP, it's important to see. Democrats did not change. But why did the change take place? The big difference between '08 and '09 is that Obama took over the presidency

The shift occurred politically among the GOP and self identified independents, and ideologically among conservative and moderates. The only groups who are unchanged are Dems and liberals.

It will be fascinating to see of this polling is just an outlier or a long overdue breakthrough. Maybe Rasmussen can follow up.

Bissage said...

Wait a minute.

I’m confused here.

Am I the only one at Althouse who aborted his kids because they needed money for college?

* slaps forehead *

Cedarford said...

These sort of polls tend to be rather meaningless because they ask citizens "what they personally feel" rather than ask "what laws and controls related to abortion do you demand be imposed on others or lifted from others."

I personally oppose abortion. I personally oppose killing people without trial. But I recognize that there are cases when abortion is the least morally objectionable alternative. Just as there are valid reasons to pull the plug on a hopeless vegetative patient and allocate scarce medical resources to other more productive areas - and valid reason to launch a Hellfire missile into an Iraqi bomb-making factory even if "innocent children and women of the bomb-makers" happen to be killed or maimed without trial in the process.

I am comfortable with imposing certain abortion laws. No late-term abortions for the convenience of the woman only. But later term abortions for severe fetal genetic defect. For counseling being mandatory before an abortion, as other advanced nations require. (OK, you need an abortion. You and your partner did not want a kid. How did you screw up and what can you do to prevent abortion from becoming a regular habit with you...And did you know that we have childless couples willing to pay up to 30,000 dollars if you carry to term and let them legally adopt?)
And only very early abortions for the pure convenience of the woman. Other advanced nations are going to a standard of 60 days. After that, no go....

The biggest obstacle to a rational policy has been the zealots on both sides.

Synova said...

"It's not right. Parents should love and support their children. But they don't always and the kids suffer the most.

So. If you want to be consistent, provide a spectacular healthcare and social programs for underprivileged people.
"

To edge away from abortion to more general issues... these two things don't necessarily follow. It is wrong to assume that government programs, spending, and all those things done out of a desire to help underprivileged people actually have good results just because that is what was intended.

Caring people do not agree that government programs, no matter how well funded or spectacular, do more good than they do harm. There is no standard of consistency that requires a particular solution. Nor does a failure to advocate spectacular programs prove a failure to care.