[stupendousman]

Gallup: 61 Percent Say All or Most Abortions Should Be Illegal

As has been the case for sometime, the majority of Americans think that abortions should not be totally outlawed, but should be severely restricted as compared to current court legislated standards.

Until the Supreme Court legislated "Roe V. Wade" 40 years ago based on a load of untruths, states could make laws and this sort of thing could be decided on a more local level, as our founding fathers intended. At this point, if the courts took an actual Constitutional stand (based on what it says, and not what they would like for it to mean) some states would keep the standards we currently have, while others would likely restrict it to just true emergencies and instances where the life of the mother.

We'd stop this "choice" farce (men never are given equal choice, so it's an illogical stand) and bring standards back to where the American people (and our founders) wanted them and not based on where some out of touch liberal judges wish our standards to be. "Life" could be decided on a consistent scientific standard and not based on convenience issues.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Said founding Americans were also very careful about instituting a political system wherein the minority held a disproportionally large amount of power - i.e. the majority don't get to make decisions just because they're in the majority. America's leaders are handed the power of controlling where the country should go on an informed basis - and that's a lot different than Gallup poll results IMO.

Abortion in some form or other is probably as old as religion, and it's come a long way in the past 50 years. It's here to stay. Period. I'd put your energies towards making it safer, better and extremely well-regulated, rather than trying to return to the days when 20-year-old women have to go to some unlicensed doctor or cross state lines to avoid an unwanted pregnancy.

[nonhuman]

An early form of abortion is proscribed in the Bible for unfaithful wives...

Regardless, I can't support making abortion illegal. I don't particularly like it, but I think that, on balance, it does more good than it does harm. We already have far too many children without homes or, sometimes worse, in abusive homes that we can't help, why would we want to create even more?

[SpaceMonkey]

What a misleading thread title.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Abortion: Is it time - to NOT?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Gallup: 61 Percent Say All or Most Abortions Should Be Illegal

As has been the case for sometime, the majority of Americans think that abortions should not be totally outlawed, but should be severely restricted as compared to current court legislated standards.

Until the Supreme Court legislated "Roe V. Wade" 40 years ago based on a load of untruths, states could make laws and this sort of thing could be decided on a more local level, as our founding fathers intended. At this point, if the courts took an actual Constitutional stand (based on what it says, and not what they would like for it to mean) some states would keep the standards we currently have, while others would likely restrict it to just true emergencies and instances where the life of the mother.

We'd stop this "choice" farce (men never are given equal choice, so it's an illogical stand) and bring standards back to where the American people (and our founders) wanted them and not based on where some out of touch liberal judges wish our standards to be. "Life" could be decided on a consistent scientific standard and not based on convenience issues.

Bernard Nathanson, one of the cofounders of NARAL (the group behind "Roe" V Wade), stopped doing abortions(75,000), not for religious reasons (he was an atheist at that time), but due to the development of ultrasound imaging. He said himself the data used in Roe was bogus.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

We'd stop this "choice" farce (men never are given equal choice, so it's an illogical stand)...

If a woman is pregnant as a result of incestial rape, who gives a what the man thinks.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

"Life" could be decided on a consistent scientific standard and not based on convenience issues.

Yeah, it could be, but you'll be one of the first people on this board to complain about how it's wrong because it doesn't coincide with your personal or religious beliefs. No amount of scientific evidence will change your mind or settle the issue unless it agrees with you.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

An early form of abortion is proscribed in the Bible for unfaithful wives...

This cannot go unchallenged.

Where?

[The Final Dakar]

Abortion will not be going away.

Will it be eroded? Yes, conservatives have been making progress in this area.

[reader50]

Is it time to increase the crime rate ~20 years from now?

Legalized abortion and crime effect (Wikipedia)

I read about the above effect a couple years ago and found the argument interesting. Basically, the US crime rate made a big drop ~20 years after Roe, and has remained at the lower level since. Most crimes are committed by males 18-24. If one assumes unwanted children are more likely to be neglected, given less resources, etc - then there is a good correlation between the missing population segment and your missing not missing car or other household goods.

I'm not sure that bringing unwanted kids into the world would be an improvement. It has to suck to be such a kid.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

What a misleading thread title.

Indeed. But given the tagline of the site ... "The right news. Right now." ... it's not particularly surprising. If one actually takes the time to look at the actual Gallup poll that was cited you will see the following:

Americans are closely divided between those calling themselves "pro-choice" and those who are "pro-life," now 49% and 45%, respectively, in Gallup's 2011 update on U.S. abortion attitudes.

Gallup's longest-running measure of abortion views asks Americans if abortion should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances.

The plurality of Americans, 50%, continue to choose the middle position on this, saying abortion should be legal under certain circumstances, as majorities or pluralities have since 1975. However, nearly as many, 49%, now hold one of the two more doctrinaire views. This includes 27% wanting abortion legal in all cases and 22% wanting it illegal in all cases.

Since 1994, Gallup has also asked those who think abortion should be legal under certain circumstances to say whether it should be legal in "most" or "only a few" circumstances. On this basis, Americans are rather conservative in their stance on abortion, with 61% now preferring that abortion be legal in only a few circumstances or no circumstances. By contrast, 37% want abortion legal in all or most circumstances.

The problem here is that the article is doing some rather, uh ... "creative" math to come up with this "61%" figure from the actual Gallup poll. The bottom line from the actual poll itself:

1. 50% of Americans believe that abortion s/b legal under "certain circumstances". 27% of Americans believe that abortion s/b legal under "all cases". So that's a 77% pro-choice majority right there.

2. Of the 50% of Americans who believe that abortion s/b legal under "certain circumstances", 61% believe that "certain circumstances " equates to "few circumstances". And 37% believe that "certain circumstances" equates to "most circumstances".

3. If you add those who say "all cases" s/b legal with those who say "most circumstances" s/b legal you have 27% + (37% * .5) respectively ... totaling 45.5%.

4. If you add those who say "all cases" s/b illegal with those who say "few circumstances" s/b legal you have 22% + (61% * .5) respectively ... totaling 52.5%.

#4 is how you would calculate the "all or most abortions should be illegal" figure. Which shows this position to be a slim plurality at best. Quite a ways off from the 61% the article claimed.

OAW

[hyteckit]

Is it time for another dumb CNS article that twist the facts?

Looking at the Gallup Poll.

More people are pro-choice than pro-life.

More people are now pro-choice compared to 2 years ago; 42% in 2009 compared to 49% today.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by reader50 

Is it time to increase the crime rate ~20 years from now?

Legalized abortion and crime effect (Wikipedia)

I read about the above effect a couple years ago and found the argument interesting. Basically, the US crime rate made a big drop ~20 years after Roe, and has remained at the lower level since. Most crimes are committed by males 18-24. If one assumes unwanted children are more likely to be neglected, given less resources, etc - then there is a good correlation between the missing population segment and your missing not missing car or other household goods.

I'm not sure that bringing unwanted kids into the world would be an improvement. It has to suck to be such a kid.

Margaret Sanger would be proud.

[reader50]

In this case, we *could* have it both ways. Full pro-choice if the fetus is male. Strict limits on abortion if the fetus is female. So we get the lower crime rate, cut the unwanted children in half, and please both groups.

No wait, we displease both groups. But at least this way, there are more girls for the rest of us. Let's do it.

[Chongo]

Pro-choicers; Where would you set the limit? 20 weeks, 24?

[subego]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

We'd stop this "choice" farce (men never are given equal choice, so it's an illogical stand)

Why should men get an equal choice?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by reader50 

In this case, we *could* have it both ways. Full pro-choice if the fetus is male. Strict limits on abortion if the fetus is female. So we get the lower crime rate, cut the unwanted children in half, and please both groups.

No wait, we displease both groups. But at least this way, there are more girls for the rest of us. Let's do it.

Abortions for some. Miniature American flags for others.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Said founding Americans were also very careful about instituting a political system wherein the minority held a disproportionally large amount of power - i.e. the majority don't get to make decisions just because they're in the majority.

Actually, they do. Unless there are prohibitions against what they want to do in the Constitution. There are no real prohibitions to states legislating on this matter in the Constitution.

Abortion in some form or other is probably as old as religion, and it's come a long way in the past 50 years.

The same can be said about cold blooded murder. Cain and Able come to mind.

It's here to stay. Period. I'd put your energies towards making it safer, better and extremely well-regulated, rather than trying to return to the days when 20-year-old women have to go to some unlicensed doctor or cross state lines to avoid an unwanted pregnancy.

Why would we keep a system that makes unjustifiable behavior easier to engage in? Seems counterproductive to progress towards the shared goals of the majority.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Abortion: Is it time - to NOT?

Is it time to finally deal with this in a way that doesn't require extra-Constitutional and intellectually dishonest song and dances, and reflect the will of the people, based on non-arbitrary standards.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

If a woman is pregnant as a result of incestial rape, who gives a what the man thinks.

Personally, I agree and I think most others would as well

Yeah, it could be, but you'll be one of the first people on this board to complain about how it's wrong because it doesn't coincide with your personal or religious beliefs.

False.

No amount of scientific evidence will change your mind or settle the issue unless it agrees with you.

False. I've been pretty consistent in my stands. See the "birther" threads.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OAW 

I50% of Americans believe that abortion s/b legal under "certain circumstances". 27% of Americans believe that abortion s/b legal under "all cases". So that's a 77% pro-choice majority right there.

Generally speaking, the "pro-choice" side has always submitted that abortion should be legal under most circumstances, not just "certain circumstances." All the polls I've ever seen of late, that breaks it down, shows that most people do not want abortion to be legal for circumstances that could be described purely as elective. That is not "pro-choice" as it's known to the majority.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Is it time for another dumb CNS article that twist the facts?

Looking at the Gallup Poll.

More people are pro-choice than pro-life.

Self assessed. Essentially, meaningless when it comes to what they actually believe. The fact remains that more American believe that abortion should be severely restricted than those who feel it should be something elective granted via easy access.

[The Final Dakar]

Please learn to use multi-quote.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

This cannot go unchallenged.

Where?

Numbers 5:12-29

If a man suspects a woman of being unfaithful he's to take her to the priest who will give her 'bitter water'. If she has not been unfaithful she will conceive a child, if she has been unfaithful she will be cursed and made very ill.

Hmm, a woman drinks a special 'bitter water' after having sex that might cause her to not have a child as a result of the union. I wonder how we might describe that in modern terms?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by subego 

Why should men get an equal choice?

Because they are forced to take equal responsibility.

A man has no opportunity to opt out of providing for offspring as a woman does. If it's "her body," then it logically should be her responsibility.

Unless of course you feel that choosing to have sex is consent to have to later be forced to have to be enslaved for 18 years via confiscation of the fruits your body creates due to your labor. If that's the case, it would seem illogical to suggest that a woman couldn't be forced for 9 months to be slightly inconvenienced as well.

Seems to be an example of unequal protection to me.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Hmm, a woman drinks a special 'bitter water' after having sex that might cause her to not have a child as a result of the union. I wonder how we might describe that in modern terms?

"Bitter Water" is just water mixed with dust, as it applies here.

Chances are, no unborn children were ever damaged in such a ceremony.

[SpaceMonkey]

Well that's a bizarre tack to take.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Generally speaking, the "pro-choice" side has always submitted that abortion should be legal under most circumstances, not just "certain circumstances." All the polls I've ever seen of late, that breaks it down, shows that most people do not want abortion to be legal for circumstances that could be described purely as elective.

Well as it stands we can't derive that from this particular Gallup poll. All we have is this rather nebulous "all, most, or few circumstances" question that was asked. Now having said that, if you really want to honestly delve into this topic then we would need recent polling data on whether or not abortion should be legal in the following specific circumstances:

A. Prior to fetal viability
B. After fetal viability

1. Rape
2. Incest
3. Severe deformity
4. To protect the life of the mother
5. To protect the health of the mother

I do believe the clear majority of the American people have consistently favored the legality of abortion in circumstance A. As well as a clear majority consistently being opposed to the legality of abortion in circumstance B ... unless 1 - 5 are involved. Do you have polling data to the contrary?

OAW

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

"Bitter Water" is just water mixed with dust, as it applies here.

Chances are, no unborn children were ever damaged in such a ceremony.

Maybe, maybe not. I'm pretty sure water mixed with dust wouldn't have any of the effects mentioned in any circumstance, unless it were some very special kid of dust in which case your point is irrelevant. (Unless you're suggesting that the Bible is not a reliable source, in which case I agree; but that won't get us very far in this discussion.)

The point, however, is not whether or not this represents an historical practice that actually occurred and actually had the effect intended. The point is that, in the Bible, God essentially says that the fruits of an unfaithful coupling should be aborted.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Is it time to finally deal with this in a way that doesn't require extra-Constitutional and intellectually dishonest song and dances, and reflect the will of the people, based on non-arbitrary standards.

So, if I were to find a poll that supported something you didn't agree with would it be a good argument for making this become reality? You can't be selective with this sort of stuff.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Maybe, maybe not. I'm pretty sure water mixed with dust wouldn't have any of the effects mentioned in any circumstance, unless it were some very special kid of dust in which case your point is irrelevant. (Unless you're suggesting that the Bible is not a reliable source, in which case I agree; but that won't get us very far in this discussion.)

The point, however, is not whether or not this represents an historical practice that actually occurred and actually had the effect intended. The point is that, in the Bible, God essentially says that the fruits of an unfaithful coupling should be aborted.

It doesn't say that the woman should choose to abort. It says that as part of the ceremony, unfaithful women would become sick and due to a "curse" by God, would become ill and not give birth.

I'm pretty sure that the Bible is pretty consistent that you'll "reap what you sow" and that (in the Old Testament at least) when you do bad things God won't protect you from bad things from happening.

Can women normally abort a baby by ingesting some dust? If not, I think you are stretching.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So, if I were to find a poll that supported something you didn't agree with would it be a good argument for making this become reality? You can't be selective with this sort of stuff.

If you provided evidence that the majority desired something that was not expressly consitutionally banned, would that make a good argument for it becoming reality?

Sure.

Even if I don't agree with it.

Still, sure.

My desire isn't for the laws to reflect my personal beliefs. It would be nice if they did, but I'd settle for if they were actually Constitutionally based and reflected the will of the people.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It doesn't say that the woman should choose to abort. It says that as part of the ceremony, unfaithful women would become sick and due to a "curse" by God, would become ill and not give birth.

I'm pretty sure that the Bible is pretty consistent that you'll "reap what you sow" and that (in the Old Testament at least) when you do bad things God won't protect you from bad things from happening.

Can women normally abort a baby by ingesting some dust? If not, I think you are stretching.

Thus providing a Biblical justification for abortion in certain cases (such as rape).

Of course a women can't abort a baby by ingesting regular dust, as I said, that's not the point. Besides there are all sorts of ways that could be interpreted into something slightly more than superstitious nonsense.

[SpaceMonkey]

The implication (to me) is that the priest would take the role of essentially resolving the conflict by deciding, through selecting whatever substance he gave the woman (or not), whether the child would be aborted.

Pennyroyal was an ancient traditional abortifacient, for example.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

The implication (to me) is that priest would take the role of essentially resolving the conflict by deciding, by selecting (or not) whatever substance he gave the woman, whether the child would be aborted.

Yeah, that's pretty much what it sounds like to me.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Can women normally abort a baby by ingesting some dust? If not, I think you are stretching.

Can we normally put two of every animal on a boat?

[ironknee]

isn't that called government intervention?

[ironknee]

And Rep. Barbara Bollier, a Mission Hills Republican who supports abortion rights, questioned whether women would buy abortion-only policies long before they have crisis or unwanted pregnancies or are rape victims.

During the House's debate, Rep. Pete DeGraaf, a Mulvane Republican who supports the bill, told her: "We do need to plan ahead, don't we, in life?"

Bollier asked him, "And so women need to plan ahead for issues that they have no control over with a pregnancy?"

DeGraaf drew groans of protest from some House members when he responded, "I have spare tire on my car."

Kansas backs bill restricting abortion coverage - McPherson, KS - The McPherson Sentinel

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Numbers 5:12-29

If a man suspects a woman of being unfaithful he's to take her to the priest who will give her 'bitter water'. If she has not been unfaithful she will conceive a child, if she has been unfaithful she will be cursed and made very ill.

Hmm, a woman drinks a special 'bitter water' after having sex that might cause her to not have a child as a result of the union. I wonder how we might describe that in modern terms?

This refers to a jealous husband who is suspicious of his wife's faithfulness, yet has no proof of infidelity. It is a curse to make her barren if she has been unfaithful.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

This refers to a jealous husband who is suspicious of his wife's faithfulness, yet has no proof of infidelity. It is a curse to make her barren if she has been unfaithful.

If she was already pregnant as a result of her infidelity, making her barren would surely abort that child.

[ort888]

I don't understand why babies conceived via rape and incest should get less protection. Isn't that like saying that people conceived this way have less rights? If the goal is to protect human life, then why make these exceptions?

[Dork.]

The abortion debate is nothing more than a classic case of competing rights. The mother's right to choose when to have a baby, vs. the fetus' right to be born. But what rights does a fetus have under the law? It's complicated. The law doesn't consider the fetus to be a full person until he/she is born, but does recognize that a fetus exists and is alive. If a pregnant woman is murdered, there is a good chance the murderer will face two counts of murder. But if a pregnant woman miscarries, nobody tries to arrest the mother.

I am convinced that this ambiguity is so pervasive in our laws that it makes banning abortion impossible: an adult woman's right to have control over her body must take precedence over the ambiguous rights of a fetus. The only way to outlaw most abortions would be to introduce a Constitutional Amendment that definitively establishes the rights of the unborn. I think that has a slim chance of happening.

[Railroader]

In Numbers 5 there is no mention of the woman being pregnant. On the contrary, this is only a test for infidelity and a harsh punishment if any infidelity occurred. This "test" would not need to occur if a conception and pregnancy took place, that would be evidence enough of the woman's fidelity.

The only version[s] of the Bible I can find that mentions "miscarry" is the various NIV translations, which are poor versions regarding translations. The original Hebrew does not say miscarry, but alludes to the reproductive organs by euphemism and threatens barrenness, not miscarriage. Even The Message, which is a pretty liberal interpretation only makes mention of causing the "womb shrivel".

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Is it time to finally deal with this in a way that doesn't require extra-Constitutional and intellectually dishonest song and dances, and reflect the will of the people, based on non-arbitrary standards.

Wait, you're using an intellectually dishonest article to say that we need to avoid intellctual dishonesty?

[brassplayersrock²]

Isn't giving birth, and then putting the kid up for adoption technically the same as an abortion? You're not keeping the thing, yes you're giving birth, but since the parent didn't care about the kid, she's just letting it go anyways.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

The abortion debate is nothing more than a classic case of competing rights. The mother's right to choose when to have a baby, vs. the fetus' right to be born. But what rights does a fetus have under the law? It's complicated. The law doesn't consider the fetus to be a full person until he/she is born, but does recognize that a fetus exists and is alive. If a pregnant woman is murdered, there is a good chance the murderer will face two counts of murder. But if a pregnant woman miscarries, nobody tries to arrest the mother.

I am convinced that this ambiguity is so pervasive in our laws that it makes banning abortion impossible: an adult woman's right to have control over her body must take precedence over the ambiguous rights of a fetus. The only way to outlaw most abortions would be to introduce a Constitutional Amendment that definitively establishes the rights of the unborn. I think that has a slim chance of happening.

Very insightful and well said... 5 stars. I like you!

[Buckaroo]

I've given this some thought. I believe that anytime someone wants an abortion, that the Embryo or Fetus be gently removed from the patient and the Embryo or Fetus must be treated as a human and attempt to give it life saving care.

If the Embryo or Fetus survives, then great, if not it is sad. At no time should a woman be required to carry a Embryo or Fetus for one or 40 weeks. What is wrong is the courts have allowed the murder of human life. There are plenty of people that would love to adopt these young babies but don't have the chance.

I don't think women should ever be required to carry a life form, but I am against out right murder. As I mentioned previously, if the life form survives out of the womb great, if not that's sad, but it is life.

After the woman agrees to the abortion, all knowledge of the life form and where it ended would be kept 100% secret. No one who agreed to an abortion would ever find out if the life form lived or died, or where it ended up.

I have had friends that believe that on the day of delivery, that if the mother even after 9 months and after delivery, if they are not satisfied, the baby should be killed on the delivery table. I had a hard time believing anyone could have such a low value of human life, but I also didn't believe that any woman should be required to carry a life form that she did not want. I just don't believe the life form should be terminated, it should be removed, but treated as a patient not a bug.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

I have had friends that believe that on the day of delivery, that if the mother even after 9 months and after delivery, if they are not satisfied, the baby should be killed on the delivery table.

w u t

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Thus providing a Biblical justification for abortion in certain cases (such as rape).

Not even close.

In one instance, you are actively choosing to kill your offspring. The other, God is cursing a woman due to her sins so she will not have offspring.

Romans 12:19
"Do not take revenge, dear friends, but leave room for God's wrath. For it is written, "Vengeance belongs to me. I will pay them back, declares the Lord."

Using that logic, that verse also provides Biblical justification for revenge. However, in both cases the "Lord" will take action to do as he sees fit.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Can we normally put two of every animal on a boat?

Not that I'm aware of. If it happened, it was God who made it so. Same as the quotes involving women engaged in sin getting cursed. But, I don't think that anyone here is arguing based on whatever the Bible says. Sounds kind of like a red herring to me.