Americans' View on Abortion Consistently Contradictory

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

This talks about the restrictions already in place on abortion. But that isn't enough for the anti-abortionists, they want want to ban it altogether (like South Dakota basically did). We will not cooperate with extremists. End of story.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/3/12/195433/116

It seems to me that, if someone feels that abortion is murder, it would kind of make sense that counselling and waiting periods would not be enough for that person.

Not that I agree with the notion that abortion in general is murder, but you can't really expect people who feel that a baby is being murdered when an abortion occurs to be fine with simply making there be a few roadblocks on the way to getting an abortion.

There really is no such thing as acceptable compromise on abortion if you view it as murder, which is why I've taken it upon myself to never, ever, ever debate abortion, because it goes absolutely nowhere.

Forcing a 12 year old rape victim to be pregnant for 9 months even if will likely kill her is first degree murder.

Anyways, most of these "pro-life" people have no moral authority because they are pro-death penalty, pro killing random Iraqis, and ignore other parts of the bible like that about how easy it is for rich men to go to heaven.

[Gabu]

Forcing a 12 year old rape victim to be pregnant for 9 months even if will likely kill her is first degree murder.

Anyways, most of these "pro-life" people have no moral authority because they are pro-death penalty, pro killing random Iraqis, and ignore other parts of the bible like that about how easy it is for rich men to go to heaven.

Most pro-life people I know support exceptions for rape and incest for basically that reason, or something thereabouts

As for the second point, "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are really stupid terms that I personally hate to no end.  Your extrapolation is correct, in my view, given the term "pro-life", but it would be equally correct to expect someone who is "pro-choice" to be in favor of promoting private schools as a "choice", or of banning gun control to give people the "choice" to own a gun, etc.  I personally wish we could just stop using those terms altogether, but then again, people tend to be really big on throwing around stupid labels.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Forcing a 12 year old rape victim to be pregnant for 9 months even if will likely kill her is first degree murder.

Anyways, most of these "pro-life" people have no moral authority because they are pro-death penalty, pro killing random Iraqis, and ignore other parts of the bible like that about how easy it is for rich men to go to heaven.

Most pro-life people I know support exceptions for rape and incest for basically that reason, or something thereabouts

Hmmm, do they support that South Dakota law that McCain said he would have signed? Remember, most people are pro-choice, so people who call themselves "pro-life" are already in the minority.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Agreed, "pro-life" is complete bullsh**t, and "pro-choice" isn't the best term either.

[A18]

Partial birth abortions were banned even in the case to save the mother's life.

Where? The federal ban contains an exception for the life of the mother.

[DanielX]

No, I'm saying the Republicans in congress and the president would simply pass a national ban.

Not likely - that would be political suicide. The best way for the Republicans to lose support in more libertarian areas like the Southwest and far Northeast would be to bypass local authority on moral issues. Besides which, the Supreme Court may rule that it isn't a federal responsibility - thus making such a ban unconstitutional.

[angus]

"pro-life" and "pro-choice" are really stupid terms that I personally hate to no end.

I do as well and I have posted exactly this before.  But it's marketing.  No one claims to be a supporter of "...unrestricted abortion..." anymore, and almost no one claims to be a supporter of "...abortion rights..."  If you listen to speeches of politicians, they are supporters of "choice" and of "the right to choose"  It carefully scripted, focus group tested, marketing.  Similarly, very few politicians will claim, in public speeches, to be "anti-abortion"  They use phrases like "right to Choice" and "right to Life" respectively.  It is good marketing too.  Who doesn't like choice?  I'd rather be able to choose stuff than have stuff chosen by others for me.  And who doesn't like Life?  I'd rather live than die.  We have a fairly sophisiticated political machinery in this country, and they have done their research and their homework.

Can we yet discern whether folks were confused?  whether the wording was as the article implies, but doesn't actually say, it was?  or whether there is any contradiction?  A fourth possibility is that the writer has misled us.  After using several search terms and various Boolean operators, I could come up with something like 500 news stories, all of which could be traced back to a an AP story by Nancy Benac which used both terms "contradictory" and "conflicted"  More importantly, she introduces the sentence "But they also think it is murder" in her original article after she points out that 52 percent of those polled say abortion should be legal in all or most cases.  Yet there is no evidence presented anywhere that any poll respondent thinks it is murder.  I have reviewed the questions asked and the response choices.  Unless I am missing something, you have all been misled.  The article has morphed as it made its way through the wires, but nearly every permutation of the story says the same thing:  there's a contradiction.  But I do not find any contradiction from the polling data.  Here are three paragraphs that show up in almost every article, and I agree with them based on looking at the original questions and responses:

In this latest poll, 19 percent of Americans said abortion should be legal in all cases; 16 percent said it should never be legal; 6 percent did not know. That left nearly three-fifths somewhere in between, believing abortion should be legal only under certain circumstances.

Dicing the same data a different way, 52 percent of those surveyed thought abortion should be legal in most or all cases; 43 percent said it should be illegal most or all of the time.

The survey, taken Feb. 28-March 2, found that men's and women's views were similar, although men were a little more likely to be undecided.

But I see nothing in the original questions (and there were only two asked, as far as I can tell) that say a majority of respondents think abortion is murder.  There is no contradiction as far as I can tell.

Submitted for your perusal, the data:

1. Which comes closest to your opinion on abortion? Abortion should be . . .

• Legal in all cases, 19 percent

• Legal in most cases, 32 percent

• Illegal in most cases, 27 percent

• Illegal in all cases, 16 percent

• Not sure, 6 percent

2. Regardless of your opinion about abortion, do you think the federal government should decide whether abortion should be legal or not, or should each state government decide?

• Federal government should decide, 46 percent

• Each state government should decide, 43 percent

• Not sure, 11 percent

[Democratic Hawk]

As for restrictions, California voters rejected parental notification.

As was the right of the state of California to do so

I don't approve of the South Dakota law because it makes no allowances for rape or incest but I'll defend the right of its legislature to determine the state's abortion law. If voter's don't like it, they know what they can do

Dave

[Sam Spade]

I think most believe that overturning Roe vs. Wade would mean automatic outlawing of most abortions, and that's why a majority doesn't support overturning it.

Why wouldn't the overturning of Roe V Wade mean the outlawing of abortion?  There are Republican majorities in both houses of congress, and a Republican president.  I think it is reasonable to assume they would make it illegal.

Because any overturning of Roe v. Wade would leave abortion in its pre-1972 state, in which individual states determined its fate. It was legal in several states, including California, before 1972; presumably different states will have different laws.

It was legal in Utah as well, interestingly enough.

It would be legal in Texas as well (for a little while).  Actually, Texas would probably go with legal in rape, incest or life of the mother.  Texas is a state that's not as conservative on this issue as say gun control/death penalty/gay marriage.

Anyway, most of this is a moot point.  Fact is, most Americans think that overturning Roe v. Wade would ban abortion and don't even recognize that PP v. Casey is the relevant decision in SC cases and that standard of "undue burden" controls the issue now.

[jokerman]

No, it is a contradiction.  Americans are pushing for the same restrictions that are declared unconstitutional under Roe v Wade, which they also happen to support.  Very confusing.  Dazzleman is right; there is a strong misconception about what exactly Roe v Wade does.

[jacob_101]

As for restrictions, California voters rejected parental notification.

As was the right of the state of California to do so

I don't approve of the South Dakota law because it makes no allowances for rape or incest but I'll defend the right of its legislature to determine the state's abortion law. If voter's don't like it, they know what they can do

Dave

I agree completely