Gallup first: more Americans now "pro-life" than "pro-choice"

Gallup first: more Americans now "pro-life" than "pro-choice"

blogs.reuters.com

America may have a president and Congress that support abortion rights, but a new Gallup poll suggests that for the first time such a stance is not the majority view.

Gallup said on Friday that a new poll, conducted May 7 to 10, found “51 percent of Americans calling themselves ‘pro-life’ on the issue of abortion and 42 percent ‘pro-choice.’ This is the first time a majority of U.S. adults have identified themselves as pro-life since Gallup began asking this question in 1995.”

(visit the link for the full news article)

This is not an issue that I get into, as it is something I have not had to relate to in my life or had anybody close to me involved.

But, it interests me to see that Americans may be heading in this direction.

The pro-life vs pro-choice battle is something that seems to be deeply tied into religious beliefs and political affiliations. What is the old saying? Avoid talking about religion and politics?

These issues being so closely tied to the debate makes it a very touchy subject to discuss. I'm hoping the ATS community can discuss it with dignity and respect for each other.

What are your views on the poll? Is it correct?

blogs.reuters.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

I wasn't polled.

Line 2

I wasn't polled either. I am an adamant supporter of complete separation of Church and State - and Right of Choice to all decisions regarding ones own body - including euthanasia.

This doesn't make sense - since this report in 2008: GALLUP - Americans Believe Religion is Losing Clout - December 23, 2008 - Fewer Americans than any time in the past few decades believe religion is gaining influence in America (27%), while 67% think it is losing influence. Further, an all-time Gallup low of 53% think religion provides the answers to all or most of ... www.gallup.com...

I no longer believe any "group think" in this current corporate fascist government.

This will definately not make the front page, the second page, the third page, the fourth page, etc. of the New York Slimes, etc.

I wonder if this is representative of the growing Hispanic population as they are mostly Catholic.

I wasn't polled, but am and will forever be Pro-Choice.

Im curious about how many of the "Pro Lifers" support the death penalty?

reply to post by FredT



Are you trying to make being a "pro-lifer" an absolute philosophy?
Being a "pro-lifer" has nothing to do with the death penalty.

reply to post by Seekerof


Sure,

Pro-life is a term representing a variety of perspectives and activist movements in medical ethics. It is most commonly used, especially in the media and popular discourse, to refer to opposition to abortion. More generally, the term describes a political and ethical view which maintains that human fetuses and embryos are persons and therefore have a right to live. Less commonly, it can be used to indicate opposition to practices such as euthanasia, the death penalty, human cloning, and research involving human embryonic stem cells.
en.wikipedia.org...

A death should be a death if one is truly "Pro Life"

Originally posted by Seekerof
reply to post by FredT

 

Being a "pro-lifer" has nothing to do with the death penalty.

Why not? Its taking a life.

"selective pro-lifer"?

Who says religion and pro-life are mutually INclusive?
I firmly believe in the separation of church and state as well.
I am also not a very religious person.

But I also believe if you take religion completely out of the equation, then science makes the case quite easily that life begins at the moment of conception. The lack of cells or discernible form does not preclude the totality of that growing organism from being human. Thus I am confident an abortion is the snuffing out of human life.

Religion doesn't need to be the foundation of a pro-life stance.

Originally posted by FredT
Im curious about how many of the "Pro Lifers" support the death penalty?

I do.
Taking the life of another person may forfeit your right to life.

[edit on 16-5-2009 by GuyverUnit I]

reply to post by FredT



*shakeshead*

Then under the same flawed logic, what does that make pro-choicers who condone abortion/death and yet do not condone the death penalty?

Abortion issues are not to be soley based on religion. To be pro-life does not mean you are a christian or any other religion. My pro-life stance comes from what I believe is right or wrong not what others nor a book tells me I should believe. I feel that there is something wrong emotionally and mentally if they can without massive guilt take the life of an unborn child.

I understand that the issue of abortion is not a "black and white" subject therefore there are some considerations that should be taken into effect. If the life of the mother is in limbo then yes by all means the option should be there. If the child is severly deformed from congential defects then yes it should be an option. If the pregnancy is cause by rape or incest then yes it should be an option.

If the pregnacy is caused because some one wants to not take responsibilty for their actions then no abortion should not be an option. Abortion is not a form of birth control, it is a last ditch effort to save a life or ease the suffering of a severly deformed child.

I had a partner who against all of my tactics went and had an abortion. I was devistated. To this day I almost cry when I see an ultra sound of a child in the womb. You see the loss of the child is not just to the mother but to the father as well. That created a hole in me that will never be fixed. In all of this talk of rights, when will the fathers rights be brought into the discussion? You see it isn't just the woman's choice, or at least it shouldn't be. It takes two to make a life it should then take two to decide what to do with it. How many abortions would never happen if the father was given the decision as well? I know of one that would not have.

reply to post by fooffstarr


Its easily possible to be pro-life and non-religious. You simply need to have a position that all living humans deserve all rights regardless of their stage of development. It is not my position but to say it isn't understandable seems intellectually dishonest to me.

The Christian Bible says absolutely nothing about the abortion position. Therefore, the Christians have determined it to be wrong for a reason other than "The Bible says its wrong". The Christian Bible seems fairly clear that homosexual relations are wrong but says nothing or practically nothing about abortion.

I've thought about abortion a great deal. I'm annoyed with the language used because it is not even remotely logical and it doesn't emotionally make sense except for self-delusion purposes. A common phrase is "my body, my choice" but its just so obvious that the fetus and the woman's body are two separate bodies. And that is just one example. I use the word "baby" because "fetus" is just odd to me and I'd never ask a woman "When is your fetus due?" but would say "When is the baby due?".

What is exceptionally clear to me is that anyone who is 100% confident their position is "the right one" is overconfident and frankly I find it annoying. My position is pro-8 week, meaning about after the 8th week of pregnancy the baby should be granted full constitutional rights.

My abortion position is "I think, therefore I am." If the baby thinks, then the baby is. And the baby starts thinking at about the 8-week mark. Or at least brain activity begins in measurable amounts at that point. This is possible to test with a specialized EEG equipment. Therefore, specialized EEG equipment can be used to determine whether abortion is an option. Additionally, the most common medical definition of death for legal purposes is the halting of brain waves. It is therefore perfectly sensible that the definition of life in terms of when a human should be legally alive regarding abortion would be at the start of those brain waves.

As for pretending a fetus is not an individual body separate from the mothers is intellectually dishonest. Sure it is joined by a cord but then again its pretty easy to tie any two given people together with a cord and I'm 100% sure that wouldn't mean they are one person with 20 fingers and toes. Its just two people tied together with a cord.

As for Obama's position it is frankly offensive. Any person who supports an abortion happening as the birth is taking place with a fully developed fetus emerging has the same moral ground as supporting "abortion" just after the birth of the baby. I mean simple geography (whether the fetus is past the vaginal line) is not really relevant to whether the fetus is a person deserving rights. Nothing literally magical happens while passing up a vagina.

reply to post by truthquest

Additionally, the most common medical definition of death for legal purposes is the halting of brain waves. It is therefore perfectly sensible that the definition of life in terms of when a human should be legally alive regarding abortion would be at the start of those brain waves. As for pretending a fetus is not an individual body separate from the mothers is intellectually dishonest.

An interesting point about brainwaves, and I can see where the logic is. But faulting a fetus for not having brainwaves when it shouldn't and determining there not to be brainwaves when there SHOULD be are to me an apples-oranges issue and perhaps "intellectually dishonest".

Great points throughout your post though.

A baby is a life that has done nothing wrong and was killed, putting a person to death because of a terrible act, seems like that person made a decision, so they have to deal with it. I am pretty amazed in the poll though, I guess people are coming around

Originally posted by truthquest
reply to post by fooffstarr

 

Its easily possible to be pro-life and non-religious. You simply need to have a position that all living humans deserve all rights regardless of their stage of development.

I agree.

But is it possible to be pro-choice and religious?

As I said in my OP, I have no personal views on this matter at the moment. I haven't had the need or information to form an opinion.

In general terms I am pro life, as far as capital punishment etc goes. But that is not because of any religious beliefs (or in my case lack there of). I just don't like to see harm come to other people. But as was pointed out to me in a torture thread the other day, you don't know what you believe until you are really put on the spot and it effects you.

But the abortion issue specifically has not entered my mind a lot.

I'm enjoying reading all the posts and absorbing some of the views and facts coming out.

I'm pro- "It's not my right to make decisions for millions of women (and men) that I don't know."

Personally, if I got a woman pregnant, I'd probably be against abortion.. but that's a different case. It involves me in that case, but people I don't know? I could hardly care. Not my right, and it's not my problem.

Originally posted by Annee
I wasn't polled either. I am an adamant supporter of complete separation of Church and State - and Right of Choice to all decisions regarding ones own body - including euthanasia.

This doesn't make sense - since this report in 2008: GALLUP - Americans Believe Religion is Losing Clout - December 23, 2008 - Fewer Americans than any time in the past few decades believe religion is gaining influence in America (27%), while 67% think it is losing influence. Further, an all-time Gallup low of 53% think religion provides the answers to all or most of ... www.gallup.com...

I no longer believe any "group think" in this current corporate fascist government.

You do know how polls are made right? To simply say "I wasn't polled" doesn't mean anything. Many people did not vote in this recent election, does that mean that the majority of the country did not want Obama in office? Probably not...the poll is probably closer to statistical accuracy than a guess you or any other person who says "I wasn't polled" could conjure up.