Talk Elections

If things keep going as they seem to be, I can see the Supreme Court eventually overturning Roe vs. Wade and Planned Parenthood vs. Casey -they will have more support to draw upon for their decision:

Poll: Abortion-rights support shrinking (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/27820.html)

By MICHAEL FALCONE   
| 10/1/09 5:01 PM EDT

The proportion of Americans who support abortion rights is shrinking, according to a new poll released Thursday.

A poll by the Pew Research Center (http://people-press.org/report/549/support-for-abortion-slips) found that 47 percent of Americans said abortion should be legal in all or most cases — a 7-point drop from a survey conducted by the organization one year ago. An additional 45 percent said abortion should be illegal — up 4 points from last year.

The survey also found that 41 percent of Americans said they favor making it more difficult to have an abortion and 59 percent said it would be good to reduce the number of abortions — both measures are up 6 points from last year.

The Pew findings largely track with a Gallup survey from May (http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/More-Americans-Pro-Life-Than-Pro-Choice-First-Time.aspx) showing that a majority of Americans now call themselves “pro-life.” While the number of pro-life Americans rose to 51 percent in 2009 — a 7-point spike from the year before — those who said they were “pro-choice” slipped from 50 percent to 42 percent during the same period, the Gallup survey found.

According to Pew pollsters, no single factor explains the recent change in public opinion, but they said the election of President Barack Obama, a supporter of abortion rights, was likely a driving force.

     I find it odd that the numbers changed so much in just one year.

It appears to be some sort of Obama effect, with pro choicers becoming less anxious about Roe being overturned.

Note that one question not asked in the poll was Roe, and based on previous surveys, the public seems to be more protective (in some cases far more protective) of Roe the case than abortion rights in substance. Strangely enough (or perhaps not), Roe might be stronger in support than abortion rights itself because the public sees overturning it as a step back. As such, the Court would be wise to stick to moderate tinkering here and there as it did in 1989.

In other words, no, it didn't change, and any poll suggesting otherwise is ridiculous. Now, if there had been some especially grisly case of an abortion gone wrong in the new last week, I could see this result being reasonable, but otherwise positions on a issue that have been so incredibly stable for so long do not change rapidly without a reason behind them.

In other words, "Be like me! Be like me! I'll make sure you believe in and behave exactly what and as I do, and I'll use the force of the State to guarantee it!"

Never stop being a pissant authoritarian, Frodo.

This poll has a lot less effect upon whether or not abortion is 'legal' than would some fortuitous aneurysm in one of the five fascists on the court during Obama's remaining tenure in office, P.A. Frodo.

Yeah. I mean, surely I understand I don't fit into your Union of Soviet Reaganist Republics for a reason - I actually have an opinion that I didn't steal from somewhere else. And that hurts (you), because independent thinking hurts (you). So much more convenient to get all the answers from a Book, or a political party platform.

Here's what Gallup found, in a slightly differently worded question:

Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?


                                    Legal            Legal only        Illegal in all        No
                                 under any     under certain    circumstances  opinion
                              circumstances  circumstances
                                      %                    %                      %                %
 
2009 May 7-10              22                   53                     23                2
 
2008 May 8-11              28                   54                     17                2

Change                         - 6                   - 1                   + 6                0
 

Fixed.

Welcome news, but irrelevant. The majority does not have the right to deprive the right to life from another group of human beings any more than the minority does.

Frodo and Carl using silly polls to make their points......  ::)

Meh, it fluctuates. I wouldn't worry just yet.

Abortion should be kept legal. It dramatically reduces crime rates in the future.

That's Bollocks.

Not surprised, you're Irish.

And no it isn't. It's fact.

Would you mind proving this hate filled "fact" please?

And remember kids, Correlation is not Causation.

Er, no. That's not the argument. "Unwanted children cause crime" is the argument. There is, of course, a logical jump between "commit" and "cause" that the argument doesn't address, and it uses the police/tabloid press definition rather than the law code definition of crime (as any crime count based on police statistics will, given the <1% detection rate of most white collar crimes).

On a related note:

Incidence of certain crimes (coming to police notice) in Frankfurt, 1721-5, 1741-5, 1761-5, 1781-5, 1801-5. Not sure why the author of the study chose those particular years.

Murder and manslaughter - 39 (17 of them in 1741-5.)
Infanticide - 29 (not included above)
Abandonment of infants (including ones not found until after their death) - 36
Abortion (note the bit about this being police statistics) - 4.
Ah, the good ole days before legal abortion and contraception.

Oh, and btw: Suicide - 36. Getting noticeably more common throughout the century. Nowadays, of course, Germany's suicide rate is ten times the homicide rate.

I disagree with Roe V. Wade. I believe there should be restrictions on abortion. However, I do not believe it should be outlawed all together. In the cases of rape and incest, should a woman really have to go through all of that? However, if you have unprotected intercourse with your significant other, then that's too bad.

That's agreeing with Roe V. Wade. People always get that confused. The case you want is Doe V. Bolton.

This is why it's an issue for the states, or atleast why it should be.  The number of people who support or oppose abortion rights fluctuates from state to state.  It may be greater in, for example, Massachusetts, but not in Alabama.  This is why we have the Tenth Amendment.

People who say it should be left to the states when tlaking about their position annoy me. You're not federal politicians running for office. Do you think it should be legal or illegal?

Let me guess... The Pro-Lifers are the same ones who get a hard on for executing legally retarded prisoners, right?

I'm actually pro-choice.

Agreed.  Now, what about states like Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania where the majority of the populace is pro-choice, but their legislatures are some of the worst in the country on this issue due to clever GOP inspired legislative districting.  They are 3 PRIME examples of why the "States' Rights" argument is BS.

Overturning Roe v. Wade would be a Godsend to the Democrats in PA because a lot of still anti-choice GOP legislators in the Philadelphia suburbs would now have tougher re-elections.

maybe it wouldn't slip if we stopped killing people who supported it. :P

Who is killing the pro abortionists other than whack job fundamentalists?

Though I am absolutely, 100 percent personally opposed to abortion, if there is one conclusion that I am come to it is that making it illegal would do almost nothing to prevent it from occurring.  It would just drive it underground, and you would have more women performing self-abortions, which don't require a coat hanger, but can still be dangerous.  Roman women performed abortions themselves, as did Greeks, and on and on.  We should devote our energies toward finding another means of stopping it.

That's funny, because I am the child of an unwed mother, and I haven't committed a felony.  Nor has anyone else I know who was born into similar circumstances.

Anecdotal evidence = fact!

Yay!

Extremely thin correlations imply whatever I want them to prove my radical argument...

Yay!

In fact, if you can even put forward enough evidence to demonstrate correlation, I would concede the argument to you.  You don't have it.  You are basing your argument off of far less evidence than myself.

that is who. :P

They're not lessening support for abortion.

Indeed the legality of abortions is not so much the issue (if illegal it'll happen anyway), but it is made so convenient and available at no cost in many locales. It should never be promoted as "the easy way out of a pregnancy". Adoption centers should be swarming universities, however leftist authorities usually won't let them do that, because they don't want women to feel judged (not like this makes any sense to me).

Granted children raised by single parents are more likely to get involved in crime, however ending abortions does not mean more single parents, nor does it mean that we'll be going back to the orphanage business. With three-plus year waiting lists for adoption, I'm sure the next generation could have many more well-educated professionals raised by financially stable adoptive and loving parents in exchange for not killing them off in the womb when they are vulnerable.

In other words: "Liberty - except for..."

Or: "Your right of self-ownership doesn't exist, but it does for me."

The conflict within libertarianism is who's liberty matters more.  That of the mother, or the fetus.  I tend to side with the former, because I'm a godless heathen and all.