Pro Choice / Pro Life - who is winning the "Culture war"
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 08:59:54 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2008 Elections
  Pro Choice / Pro Life - who is winning the "Culture war"
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Poll
Question: Pro Choice / Pro Life - who is winning the "Culture war"
#1
The GOP and it's allies - Clear Winner
 
#2
It's close - but the GOP has an edge
 
#3
It's close - but the Dems have an edge
 
#4
The Dems and  itheir allies - Clear Winner
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 74

Author Topic: Pro Choice / Pro Life - who is winning the "Culture war"  (Read 2838 times)
The Vorlon
Vorlon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,657


Political Matrix
E: 8.00, S: -4.21

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: June 04, 2005, 05:23:06 PM »
« edited: June 04, 2005, 05:43:40 PM by The Vorlon »

More than income, more than education, a factor that STRONGLY predicts how folks will vote is their view on abortion...

The Voting facts....

Abortion should be "alway legal"

     => Voted Kerry 73% / Bush 25%

Abortion should be "always illegal"

     => Voted Bush 77% / Kerry 22%

How did you vote, and what tactics on either side do you believe are particularly effective?

<<NOTE - this is NOT a prolife/pro choice debate - it is a discussion of the political impact/effectiveness of the tactics of the various organizations>>
Logged
Ebowed
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,597


Political Matrix
E: 4.13, S: 2.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: June 04, 2005, 05:33:24 PM »

I'm an abortion-should-always-be-illegal guy that supported Kerry.  I voted Option 2 btw.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,806


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: June 04, 2005, 05:46:02 PM »

"The" abortion debate is actually 2 debates.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: June 04, 2005, 10:20:31 PM »

The funny thing is, this is the issue the intolerants have the least traction on, compared to gay bashing and anti-porn types of legislation.  There are just too many people who might be effected adversely.

Still, there is no doubt they're ahead, but just slightly on this one.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,615


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: June 04, 2005, 10:23:14 PM »

The Democrats will eventually win. Younger people are more tolerant. A majority of those under 30 favor gay marriage (no, not civil unions, marriage).
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: June 04, 2005, 10:35:21 PM »

The Democrats will eventually win. Younger people are more tolerant. A majority of those under 30 favor gay marriage (no, not civil unions, marriage).

Younger people are always more liberal. It's not that as they grow up they will necessarily stay that way.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,615


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: June 04, 2005, 10:35:55 PM »

I'm under 30 and I am strongly against abortion and less strongly but still significantly against gay marriage.

So? You can find some blacks that voted for Peroutka. It doesn't prove anything.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,615


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: June 04, 2005, 10:37:10 PM »

The Democrats will eventually win. Younger people are more tolerant. A majority of those under 30 favor gay marriage (no, not civil unions, marriage).

Younger people are always more liberal. It's not that as they grow up they will necessarily stay that way.

It's hard to say. Gay marriage wasn't an issue not long ago. As for abortion plenty of people switched from being against it to solid for it like Ted Kennedy and Al Gore.
Logged
George W. Hobbes
Mr. Hobbes
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 962


Political Matrix
E: -0.38, S: 1.03

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: June 05, 2005, 12:02:06 AM »

A lot of the young folks in the 1960's supported legalizing marijuana too.  Good luck getting that passed today.
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: June 05, 2005, 12:07:51 AM »

Why did this thread turn to gay marraige? I don't see how it has any relation to the Vorlon's question. His question is on the pro choice/pro life debate (or debates) and what tactics are effective at swaying the electorate. Bringing in other aspects of the "culture wars" loses sight of the thread's premise.

Based on the thread, I think that the GOP has the edge. their focus on extreme cases like partial birth abortion, and on imagery of late first trimester fetuses makes a strong case with the average public.

Let's remember that medical science is far removed from its state in the late 60's/early 70's as Roe v. Wade was considered. The pro-choice faction does nothing to reflect the changing science over the last 35 years, but clings to the core arguments laid out in the original decision. That science cuts both ways (think of stem cells), but only the GOP has effetively used it in the abortion debate.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: June 05, 2005, 02:15:32 PM »

I voted option 3 because of time. Even if the GOP is making their gains now because of their control, our generation does not agree with their views on this (especially gay marriage), and so eventually they will lose (although it won't exactly be seen as a "loss" 20 years later, just a changing of standards, like blacks getting civil rights). So current victories will mean little in the end because they can't win the war of attrition. Think the Tet Offensive.
Logged
skybridge
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,919
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: June 05, 2005, 04:32:03 PM »

The Democrats will eventually win. Younger people are more tolerant. A majority of those under 30 favor gay marriage (no, not civil unions, marriage).

Younger people are always more liberal. It's not that as they grow up they will necessarily stay that way.

Yes, but for the last 500 years, the trend has been away from church dogmatism. Of course a struggle always went with it but so far the liberal ideas tend to achieve more lasting victories in the long run.
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,024
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: June 06, 2005, 08:45:08 AM »

I'm an abortion-should-always-be-illegal guy that supported Kerry.  I voted Option 2 btw.

What better way to start off the tread.  Ebowed is the perfect example of what is wrong with the two-party dominated system.  You cannot take a cookie cutter to the voting population and say "Ok, you're a Democrat, so you have to be pro-choice," or "you're a Republican, so you have to be pro-life."  I think this might be part of the issue which keeps half of the eligible voters away from the booths on election day.  If Ebowed was a presidential candidate, he would most-likely not win his party nomination, even though he might be the best choice to win on election day due to his stance on abortion.  The same might hold true if someone like Rudy were to run for the Republicans.    If people vote with their heart, and not with a party, we might see election results similar to the poll numbers that Vorlon posted.

As for me, I'm a "abortion should be legal only in cases of rape, incest, or threat to the life of the mother" (which is the case my cousin was in last year when her heart started to fail due to the pregnancy).
Logged
jacob_101
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 647


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: June 06, 2005, 01:40:27 PM »

I voted Republican with a slight edge, but actually I think neither side is winning.  Polls consisantly show that America is pro-choice by a small margin.  The latest one I saw showed:

55% believe abortion decisions are to be made by the woman and her doctor.

29% believe abortion should only be legal in case of race, incest, or to same the life of the mother.

14% believe it should always be illegal.

This was an NBC NEWS/Wallstreet Journal Poll

According to Gallup:  48% are pro-choice and 44% pro life.

These numbers have been stagnant for years haven't they?

http://pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

I believe this issue is important, but it isn't my top priority anymore.  It will never change until the court reversed Roe vs. Wade and I doubt that will happen, but it could.  I don't think this issue is pulling the country in either direction.
Logged
Citizen James
James42
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,540


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -2.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: June 06, 2005, 07:03:15 PM »

The Democrats will eventually win. Younger people are more tolerant. A majority of those under 30 favor gay marriage (no, not civil unions, marriage).

Younger people are always more liberal. It's not that as they grow up they will necessarily stay that way.

I don't know if that's nessisarally true.  I think the seeming change comes from people staying the same while society becomes gradually more liberal.  For people in their 90's, the norm of their youth was women couldn't vote.  For people in their 60's and 70's, the norm of their youth was segragation throughout society.   Personally, I consider myself to have become a bit more liberal with age, and yet I consider tounge piercing 'wierd'.
Logged
Citizen James
James42
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,540


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -2.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: June 06, 2005, 07:14:21 PM »

"The" abortion debate is actually 2 debates.

Could you elucidate on that some.

I don't disagree,  I think there are two seperate debates - one of whether or not it should be legal, the other of morality, dividing people into three or four different groups depending on how you count.

Legal/ morally acceptable.
Legal/ morally questionable
illegal/morally reprehensible.

I seriously doubt there is are many supporters of the position illegal/morally acceptable.  Though one could subdivide the illegal group into those who are 'pro-life' (also opposing war, euthinasia, and capital punishment), and those who are simply anti-abortion.

Still, it could further be argued that there are even more groupings available as not everyone takes the polar positions of illegal always, or legal always.  Probably the rough center ground is 'first trimester' or the health of the mother.

In terms of winning, the anti-abortion side has been fairly successful in exploiting wedge issues to their advantage but does not completely dominate public opinion, so I vote #2.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,806


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: June 06, 2005, 07:32:17 PM »

"The" abortion debate is actually 2 debates.

Could you elucidate on that some.

I don't disagree,  I think there are two seperate debates - one of whether or not it should be legal, the other of morality, dividing people into three or four different groups depending on how you count.

Legal/ morally acceptable.
Legal/ morally questionable
illegal/morally reprehensible.

This is an interesting way of looking at it. A lot of liberals seem to fall into the middle category there, which personally to me seems a little confusing, but what I was meaning was that there are 2 separate questions being debated-- what rights should a woman (a "cultural" debate) have, and what rights should a fetus have (a "moral" debate)?

For example, among the "prolife" side, there is one strand of argument that opposes abortion rights from a "cultural" perspective. They see the ability of women to have sex without "facing the consequences" as an attack on "traditional" society, and oppose abortion rights and contraceptive education with near equal vigor.

There is another strand of argument that is against abortion rights from a "moral" perspective. They see no moral distinction between a newly fertilized zygote and a newborn baby, and have been convinced by graphic pictures and ultrasound that legalized abortion is the moral equivalent to slavery or even genocide. A considerable number of otherwise moderate or even liberal people consider themselves pro-life for this reason.

For each of these pro-life strands, there is a countervailing pro-choice strand; one defends a woman's right to an abortion on cultural (feminist/woman-centered) grounds; the other on moral (fetus-centered) grounds.

The debate originated along the "cultural" clash in the 1970s, but the "moral" debate is more of a winning issue for the pro-lifers due to the spread of ultrasound and the legality of late term abortion, and this is what accounts for their narrow recent advantage. As a result, activists in the "moral" aspect of the debate are more effective and have, barely perceptibly, become more numerous, especially in pro-life circles, in the past 10 years or so.

IMO, in order to rebalance the debate, pro-choicers must begin to also address the issue more in moral terms, even if this means re-adjusting their views. The stem cell debate shows that this can be done without giving in to the pro-lifers.
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,024
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: June 06, 2005, 08:00:08 PM »

For example, among the "prolife" side, there is one strand of argument that opposes abortion rights from a "cultural" perspective. They see the ability of women to have sex without "facing the consequences" as an attack on "traditional" society, and oppose abortion rights and contraceptive education with near equal vigor.


My view is similar to this, but a bit expanded.  While yes, "responsibility of your actions" has to be taken into consideration, the burden should not rest upon the mother alone.  The man who impregnates the woman has just as much responsibility for the child.  If the couple is not married, and has no intention to become married, he must provide child support to the mother until the child turns 18 or the child is placed up for addoption.  With the mother being the one who brought the child into the world, it would be her decision to place the child up for adoption, not the fathers.

But in either case, the decision to have sex is theirs alone.  If the woman is not a willing participant (rape, incest,....), abortion should be allowed.  Just as if her life is in danger due to the pregnancy.
Logged
Gabu
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,388
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: June 06, 2005, 08:04:00 PM »

More than income, more than education, a factor that STRONGLY predicts how folks will vote is their view on abortion...

The Voting facts....

Abortion should be "alway legal"

     => Voted Kerry 73% / Bush 25%

Abortion should be "always illegal"

     => Voted Bush 77% / Kerry 22%

How did you vote, and what tactics on either side do you believe are particularly effective?

<<NOTE - this is NOT a prolife/pro choice debate - it is a discussion of the political impact/effectiveness of the tactics of the various organizations>>

Well, here are the full results from the CNN exit poll on the matter:

Always Legal (21%) - Bush 25%    Kerry 73%
Mostly Legal (34%) - Bush 38%    Kerry 61%
Mostly Illegal (26%) - Bush 73%    Kerry 26%
Always Illegal (16%) - Bush 77%    Kerry 22%

Collapsing these together into either "legal" or "illegal" groups, we have the following:

Legal (55%) - Bush 33%    Kerry 66%
Illegal (42%) - Bush 75%    Kerry 24%

So, in terms of percent voting in favor of their view of abortion, the pro-life side has an edge.  However, in terms of the number of people who support either side of the debate, the pro-choice side has an edge - 55% of people want abortion either always legal or mostly legal, compared to only 42% of people who want abortion either always illegal or mostly illegal.  I'm assuming that the 3% left over declined to answer this question, and not that they just fell off the face of the planet.

What remains to be seen is whether or not those 55% start voting more strongly on their view of abortion.  If they do, then the Democrats will get a distinct edge in the abortion debate.  If they don't, then the GOP will stay with the edge.

Right now, the GOP has the edge, so I vote option 2.
Logged
Brandon H
brandonh
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,305
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.48, S: 1.74

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: June 06, 2005, 11:42:00 PM »

I think the issue is more polarized and there are very few people who have not taken a side.

I think the Pro-Choice side has more money on its side coming from the fact that much of the media and Hollywood are on that side. Strangly enough, I think there are many corporations which support the Republicans for reasons completely unrelated to abortion, but if it goes to the party, it helps all causes they stand for.

I think Republican and Democrat should have been left out of this question and it should have just been pro-life vs. pro-choice.

I think the Pro-Life side has several things in its favor that it did not have before that I would have to say give them the overall advantage.

1. The Pro-Life side is reproducing faster than the Pro-Choice side because future Pro-Choicers have been aborted. If everyone who believed abortion should be illegal had an abortion everytime they were pregnant, in about 50 or 60 years, there would be no one who was pro-choice. Also in the past 30 years, those whose parents chose life realized that it is their generation which has been reduced in size because of abortion and are thankful for being born, and not taking it for granted.

2. Many woman who have had abortions regret their decision and are now pro-life. They also feel that the abortion industry lied to them just to make money off of them.

3. Through the use of technology such as 4D ultrasound, people can see that a fetus is a human being with a heart beat and not a clump of tissue.
Logged
jokerman
Cosmo Kramer
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,808
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: June 07, 2005, 09:54:33 AM »

I'm generally pro-life but I supported Kerry because of economic issues.

I'd say pro-life definitly has the advantage.  As well, the Republicans are much closer to the center than the Democrats, so they are doing a lot better on the issue.
Logged
TomC
TCash101
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,973


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: June 07, 2005, 09:57:30 AM »

Well, abortion is legal isn't it? Dems have the edge, but the GOP has the momentum.
Logged
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,703
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: June 07, 2005, 10:15:37 AM »

I'm pro-life. Abortions should not be a matter of choice but necessity and by necessity I mean that abortions should only be allowed in the case of the woman's physical (i.e. maternal life is in danger) and psychological (i.e. if pregnancy is the product of rape or incest) well-being

It's too freely available and it should 'safe, legal and rare' (i.e. in the context of the above circumstances)

There's no clear winner but momentum is with the GOP, who have the edge, and it's an issue that will help them, rather than the Democrats. Pro-lifers need to a more vociferous/significant part of the Democratic Party because America is becoming less permissive and the party should not be out of touch with the mood on the ground. This stretches beyond abortion and into other personal, moral and social issues

Dave
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: June 07, 2005, 05:49:02 PM »

Well, abortion is legal isn't it? Dems have the edge, but the GOP has the momentum.

It doesn't really count when it's only true because of a lame court ruling that contains no legal anaylsis whatsoever, and instead reads like a history lesson.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,806


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: June 07, 2005, 05:59:22 PM »

For example, among the "prolife" side, there is one strand of argument that opposes abortion rights from a "cultural" perspective. They see the ability of women to have sex without "facing the consequences" as an attack on "traditional" society, and oppose abortion rights and contraceptive education with near equal vigor.


My view is similar to this, but a bit expanded.  While yes, "responsibility of your actions" has to be taken into consideration, the burden should not rest upon the mother alone.  The man who impregnates the woman has just as much responsibility for the child.  If the couple is not married, and has no intention to become married, he must provide child support to the mother until the child turns 18 or the child is placed up for addoption.  With the mother being the one who brought the child into the world, it would be her decision to place the child up for adoption, not the fathers.

But in either case, the decision to have sex is theirs alone.  If the woman is not a willing participant (rape, incest,....), abortion should be allowed.  Just as if her life is in danger due to the pregnancy.

Thanks, this pretty much sums up the pro-life position in one of the two debates. Not all people's policy positions are derived exclusively from either culturally-centered or morally-centered convictions, but some are. Nor is it that "cultural" issues aren't morally grounded, or that "moral" judgments cannot be culturally grounded. It's just that the two debates generally use different types of justifications based either around cultural values (Judeo-Christian mores vs. Equality/Liberty etc) or around moral appeals to the conscience; and that arguments from one debate cannot justifiably be used to rebut arguments from the other, although they are often wrongly mixed.

The rape exception provides a good illustration of this. People who oppose abortion on mostly cultural grounds should be supportive of a rape exception, while whose who oppose it on mostly moral grounds should not.

Monopolization- correct. The underlying dynamics of a debate are more important than the status quo during a period when an issue is low salience. For example, in 1893 there was a massive economic crisis but Cleveland did nothing. The public was fundamentally opposed to government intervention in the economy. Yet when economic crisis hit in 1929, the people elected a president who instituted sweeping reforms under the New Deal. Why did the government respond so differently to economic crises?

Well, the underlying nature of the debate was changed by the Progressive Movement and the government's successful mobilization during World War I. The relatively placid, lassiez-faire America of the 1920s belied the fundamental changes in the debate over government's reaction to an economic crisis that had taken place underneath the surface. These changes had taken place underneath the surface because government reaction to economic depression wasn't a salient issue from 1896 to 1932. If you had taken polls in the 1920s on the issue, they would have been relatively constant in opposition to government intervention. But in general, the "opinions" seem stable because most people aren't thinking about the issue. In reality, very few people's opinions are as stable as political obsessives such as ourselves.

When an issue emerges after many years to high salience, the factors surrounding the issue will have changed-- in the New Deal case, ideological opposition to government intervention had been quietly eviserated by the progressive movement and WWI. Most people won't recognized these changed dynamics until they return to prominence. But they could have been identified by looking beneath the surface.

The same goes with abortion. The last time the issue was really salient was during the feminist movement of the 1970s. At that time the debate was heavily cultural. Most pro-lifers fit the profile of MODU here, in their beliefs and rhetoric. Today, the pro-life rhetoric has changed, helped by new technologies and strategies, and the dynamics are shifting away from the cultural debate to the moral debate, which is totally different. This means the seeming stability of public opinion and public policy over the decades belie fundamentally shifting dynamics that may leave pro-choice identifiers in for a rude shock once the issue again becomes highly salient (which is likely in the next 2-4 years).
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.078 seconds with 16 queries.