2018 Gallup Abortion Poll: Dead Heat Between "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Choice"

[DC Al Fine]

Or put another way...

In another thread you argued a ten week old fetus is not a person due to their lack of brain activity (or something along those lines). You clearly relied on science to determine the brain activity of a fetus. You did not however rely on science in your claim that a certain level of fetal brain activity is required for personhood. That claim is a question of ethics.

[136or142]

Or put another way...

In another thread you argued a ten week old fetus is not a person due to their lack of brain activity (or something along those lines). You clearly relied on science to determine the brain activity of a fetus. You did not however rely on science in your claim that a certain level of fetal brain activity is required for personhood. That claim is a question of ethics.

"Higher brainwave functions."

Personhood is a question of ethics because it's not a scientific term.  That, however, also raises the issue of whether 'personhood' is even a valid part of any debate on abortion as opposed to a (conservative) religious construct.

I should have challenged the use of this term right away on those grounds, but I didn't think the terminology here was that big a deal.

I did not accuse either of you of lying.  Neither of you hardly wrote anything.  What I wrote is that 'Christian' conservatives claims on evolution and the science of abortion/fetus development are frequently based on lies or deliberate misrepresentations (which is just another term for 'lie' but is more precise).  The only person I said lied here is 'extreme conservative.'

[Strudelcutie4427]

Welcome to America, where we are the one developed western nation where this is still an issue, apparently.

Poland doesn’t count?

[136or142]

Welcome to America, where we are the one developed western nation where this is still an issue, apparently.

Poland doesn’t count?

Poland is still a developing nation.

[emailking]

"Personhood" is both abstract and arbitrary. What's most relevant for me is, is it conscious and does it suffer?

[Mr. Reactionary]

Polling over several decades tends to consistently suggest 20% think it should always be legal, 20% think it should always be illegal, and 60% have a more nuanced opinion.

[Frodo]

Will no one fix his link that is messing up the first page of this thread? 

[Mr. Reactionary]

Welcome to America, where we are the one developed western nation where this is still an issue, apparently.

Poland doesn’t count?

Plus I mean didnt Ireland just change its laws on the issue like last month?

[Person Man]

Polling over several decades tends to consistently suggest 20% think it should always be legal, 20% think it should always be illegal, and 60% have a more nuanced opinion.

Basically the dominant school of thought is that abortion is immoral/a sin, but really isn't murder. That said, there are situations where abortion is the best path forward but the most obvious cases of this are either rare with the more common situations where abortion could be needed are for abuse. Then again, it is very unlikely that those who need an abortion for emergency therapeutic or serious forensic reasons will have any access to abortion if those are the only two exceptions. Therefore, the median voters' opinion is probably that abortion should remain legal, but should be aggressively discouraged.

[here2view]

Anti-choicers really need to find a hobby that doesn't involve being consumed with a random woman's womb.

[ON Progressive]

Anti-choicers really need to find a hobby that doesn't involve being consumed with a random woman's womb.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Anti-choicers really need to find a hobby that doesn't involve being consumed with a random woman's womb.

With that snark out of the way, I am curious what the previous results were in this poll. Which side gained support and which lost? If any of that even happened at all.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Anti-choicers really need to find a hobby that doesn't involve being consumed with a random woman's womb.

With that snark out of the way, I am curious what the previous results were in this poll. Which side gained support and which lost? If any of that even happened at all.

Mostly stagnant since 2000 or so, with the pro-life side gaining ground in the 1990s.  There was a big spike for pro-life in 2009 and 2010 and then one for pro-choice around 2014, but now it's back to even.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Anti-choicers really need to find a hobby that doesn't involve being consumed with a random woman's womb.

With that snark out of the way, I am curious what the previous results were in this poll. Which side gained support and which lost? If any of that even happened at all.

Mostly stagnant since 2000 or so, with the pro-life side gaining ground in the 1990s.  There was a big spike for pro-life in 2009 and 2010 and then one for pro-choice around 2014, but now it's back to even.

Truly we are a polarized nation.

[JA]

The pro-life pro-choice discussion has always been strange to me why this is such a hot topic, although I was raised in a far more conservative country. But I hope the pro-choice camp grows, govt. has better things to do than regulating a woman's body.

Abortion isn’t seen the same way in Islam as in Christianity. It has a history of greater acceptance in Islamic cultures than Christian ones - same with things like divorce.

[Bojack Horseman]

The vast majority believe abortion should remain legal. That’s why every time a full ban on abortion has been placed before the voters, it’s always been rejected, even in states like Wyoming, North and South Dakota, and Mississippi.

[TJ in Oregon]

Maybe not a precise definition, but certainly a much more informed definition.  If you are claiming, for instance, that the experts on this can't say that there is a difference regarding the personhood between a 1 week old fetus and a baby, I'd say you're outright lying.  This holds true for a 10 week old fetus and several further weeks out as well.

The general argument I use with things like this is "Just because we don't know everything, it doesn't follow that we don't know anything."

It seems to me that is exactly what you are doing: claiming that because it's impossible for science to know everything about the personhood of a fetus, that they can't know anything.

From what I've seen, this is a fairly standard trick of 'religious' conservatives.  "There are holes in evolution, therefore 'intelligent design' is an equivalent alternative."  (A great deal of these 'holes' aren't even true either, but are also 'religious' conservatives misrepresenting the science, or stating outright falsehoods.)  "Evolution is just a theory."

It amazes me how many people who claim to be religious repeatedly and shamelessly violate the 8th Commandment.

My point was different from the argument to which you responded here. It was not that we have incomplete scientific knowledge of the fetal development process ergo science cannot adequately determine when personhood begins. It was that there is no scientific basis for personhood as a concept whatsoever. As far as science is concerned we may just as well all be naught but atoms and the void. Science does not prove we're naught but atoms and the void, yet such a question is in principle unanswerable by science.

Contrary to what some people think, there is, necessarily so, more to knowledge than what can be ascertained by science. To understand how we can be absolutely certain of this, consider the proposition that only what can be ascertained through the scientific process is true. Well, that statement can't be ascertained through the scientific process. Thus science is a subset of philosophy and simply because a concept cannot be scientifically verified does not mean it can be dismissed out-of-hand. Now, you can likely then think of many ludicrous ideas that cannot be proven by science and could then claim I should accept them since I don't think all ideas that cannot be proven by science should be dismissed out-of-hand. Simply because I accept some ideas unprovable by science doesn't mean I accept all ideas unprovable by science (which is a position literally everyone holds whether they admit it or not).

Personhood is a question of ethics because it's not a scientific term.  That, however, also raises the issue of whether 'personhood' is even a valid part of any debate on abortion as opposed to a (conservative) religious construct.

I should have challenged the use of this term right away on those grounds, but I didn't think the terminology here was that big a deal.

The exact question of "personhood" is unavoidably a question that has to be addressed in some fashion in order to have a political system of any kind (not necessarily answered in the context of abortion but necessary to have in general). For instance, without some abstract concept of personhood, a government has no idea who its citizens are or who has rights. That is why a concept that there are persons at all is a pretty important one. You are of course free to deny altogether that "person" is a meaningful category at all, but that's probably not where you're going. Thus I object to calling in only a "religious construct" unless you're willing to defend reductive or eliminative materialism.

As for abortion, it is, I think, incredibly obvious that the question of whether or not a fetus is a person (and thus should be protected under law) is very much a relevant one. Indeed it's rather hard to imagine any honest consideration of the issue at all without recognizing the relevance of that question.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Updates from the deeper dive:

-A very small gender gap exists, but only among college graduates.  The education divide is (unfortunately) significant, however, with north of 35% of college graduates backing legal abortion in all cases.

-There is an age gap (which there really wasn't if you look at the late 2000s/early 2010s polling), but it remains smaller than other social issues.  The 56-38 split in 18-29s almost exactly matches the presidential split in 18-29s in 2016.

-% Favoring generally legal abortion by trimester:
1st: 60%
2nd: 28%
3rd: 13%

-% Favoring legal abortion for convenience by trimester:
1st: 45% (yes, the majority seems to be OK with a total ban with exceptions from Day 1)
3rd: 20% (sometimes attitudes are inconsistent with themselves- see previous 3rd trimester question)

The only reasons that a majority believe first trimester abortions should be legal for are life of the mother (which is completely misunderstood, as it is never an either/or choice), rape/incest, if the baby has a life-threatening illness, and if the baby would be mentally disabled (but not Down Syndrome only got 49% in the first trimester).  In the third trimester, a majority only favor the often-mentioned three exceptions of life of the mother, rape, and incest (and only a bare majority for rape and incest).

[Person Man]

So three things could eventually happen if the right to abortion is abrogated.

First and most likely would be that the law in most states that are not hyperpartisan would adopt laws where abortion would be available if some sort of "need" is established in the first 12 weeks and only if an unforeseen "serious need" arises in the next 10. A dozen states may keep Roe and another dozen will have some level of comprehensive personhood between what is Poland and what was in Ireland.

The second would be that fetal personhood becomes the next gay marriage and eventually is recognized everywhere. Pro-choice people go back to talking about birth control or generally making it slightly easier to qualify for an exception or making abortions slightly harder to prosecute.


Third, I could see where a dozen states quickly adopt a personhood amendment to the constitution and a dozen others just adopt blanket bans but the other states slowly legalize it and eventually Roe gets reinstated 20 years later.

[136or142]

Maybe not a precise definition, but certainly a much more informed definition.  If you are claiming, for instance, that the experts on this can't say that there is a difference regarding the personhood between a 1 week old fetus and a baby, I'd say you're outright lying.  This holds true for a 10 week old fetus and several further weeks out as well.

The general argument I use with things like this is "Just because we don't know everything, it doesn't follow that we don't know anything."

It seems to me that is exactly what you are doing: claiming that because it's impossible for science to know everything about the personhood of a fetus, that they can't know anything.

From what I've seen, this is a fairly standard trick of 'religious' conservatives.  "There are holes in evolution, therefore 'intelligent design' is an equivalent alternative."  (A great deal of these 'holes' aren't even true either, but are also 'religious' conservatives misrepresenting the science, or stating outright falsehoods.)  "Evolution is just a theory."

It amazes me how many people who claim to be religious repeatedly and shamelessly violate the 8th Commandment.

My point was different from the argument to which you responded here. It was not that we have incomplete scientific knowledge of the fetal development process ergo science cannot adequately determine when personhood begins. It was that there is no scientific basis for personhood as a concept whatsoever. As far as science is concerned we may just as well all be naught but atoms and the void. Science does not prove we're naught but atoms and the void, yet such a question is in principle unanswerable by science.

Contrary to what some people think, there is, necessarily so, more to knowledge than what can be ascertained by science. To understand how we can be absolutely certain of this, consider the proposition that only what can be ascertained through the scientific process is true. Well, that statement can't be ascertained through the scientific process. Thus science is a subset of philosophy and simply because a concept cannot be scientifically verified does not mean it can be dismissed out-of-hand. Now, you can likely then think of many ludicrous ideas that cannot be proven by science and could then claim I should accept them since I don't think all ideas that cannot be proven by science should be dismissed out-of-hand. Simply because I accept some ideas unprovable by science doesn't mean I accept all ideas unprovable by science (which is a position literally everyone holds whether they admit it or not).

Personhood is a question of ethics because it's not a scientific term.  That, however, also raises the issue of whether 'personhood' is even a valid part of any debate on abortion as opposed to a (conservative) religious construct.

I should have challenged the use of this term right away on those grounds, but I didn't think the terminology here was that big a deal.

The exact question of "personhood" is unavoidably a question that has to be addressed in some fashion in order to have a political system of any kind (not necessarily answered in the context of abortion but necessary to have in general). For instance, without some abstract concept of personhood, a government has no idea who its citizens are or who has rights. That is why a concept that there are persons at all is a pretty important one. You are of course free to deny altogether that "person" is a meaningful category at all, but that's probably not where you're going. Thus I object to calling in only a "religious construct" unless you're willing to defend reductive or eliminative materialism.

As for abortion, it is, I think, incredibly obvious that the question of whether or not a fetus is a person (and thus should be protected under law) is very much a relevant one. Indeed it's rather hard to imagine any honest consideration of the issue at all without recognizing the relevance of that question.

If you want to limit individual choice in a fundamental area such as this, I think you need something more than a vague concept like 'the soul.'

[Gass3268]

The Youth (18-29) continue to be the best on all issues, including abortion:

Pro-choice 56% (Highest of any group)
Pro-life 38%

Legal under any circumstances 37% (Highest of any group)
Legal only under certain circumstances 42%
Illegal in all circumstances 19%

Abortion morally acceptable 51% (Highest of any group)
Abortion morally wrong 45%

[Person Man]

The Youth (18-29) continue to be the best on all issues, including abortion:

Pro-choice 56% (Highest of any group)
Pro-life 38%

Legal under any circumstances 37% (Highest of any group)
Legal only under certain circumstances 42%
Illegal in all circumstances 19%

Abortion morally acceptable 51% (Highest of any group)
Abortion morally wrong 45%

Wasn't there a trend in the Bush years where people could have sworn that the youngest adults were pro-life?

[100% pro-life no matter what]

The Youth (18-29) continue to be the best on all issues, including abortion:

Pro-choice 56% (Highest of any group)
Pro-life 38%

Legal under any circumstances 37% (Highest of any group)
Legal only under certain circumstances 42%
Illegal in all circumstances 19%

Abortion morally acceptable 51% (Highest of any group)
Abortion morally wrong 45%

Wasn't there a trend in the Bush years where people could have sworn that the youngest adults were pro-life?

Early Obama years, but yeah:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/126581/generational-differences-abortion-narrow.aspx

I have seen some articles citing certain polls claiming that continued through about 2015 and then suddenly reversed itself.  I think that some of that may have to do with Trump's personal unpopularity.

[Badger]

Updates from the deeper dive:

-A very small gender gap exists, but only among college graduates.  The education divide is (unfortunately) significant, however, with north of 35% of college graduates backing legal abortion in all cases.

-There is an age gap (which there really wasn't if you look at the late 2000s/early 2010s polling), but it remains smaller than other social issues.  The 56-38 split in 18-29s almost exactly matches the presidential split in 18-29s in 2016.

-% Favoring generally legal abortion by trimester:
1st: 60%
2nd: 28%
3rd: 13%

-% Favoring legal abortion for convenience by trimester:
1st: 45% (yes, the majority seems to be OK with a total ban with exceptions from Day 1)
3rd: 20% (sometimes attitudes are inconsistent with themselves- see previous 3rd trimester question)

The only reasons that a majority believe first trimester abortions should be legal for are life of the mother (which is completely misunderstood, as it is never an either/or choice), rape/incest, if the baby has a life-threatening illness, and if the baby would be mentally disabled (but not Down Syndrome only got 49% in the first trimester).  In the third trimester, a majority only favor the often-mentioned three exceptions of life of the mother, rape, and incest (and only a bare majority for rape and incest).

Abortion "for convenience.

In addition being rather absurd concept, that is the most poorly loaded word pulling question I've seen in a long time.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Updates from the deeper dive:

-A very small gender gap exists, but only among college graduates.  The education divide is (unfortunately) significant, however, with north of 35% of college graduates backing legal abortion in all cases.

-There is an age gap (which there really wasn't if you look at the late 2000s/early 2010s polling), but it remains smaller than other social issues.  The 56-38 split in 18-29s almost exactly matches the presidential split in 18-29s in 2016.

-% Favoring generally legal abortion by trimester:
1st: 60%
2nd: 28%
3rd: 13%

-% Favoring legal abortion for convenience by trimester:
1st: 45% (yes, the majority seems to be OK with a total ban with exceptions from Day 1)
3rd: 20% (sometimes attitudes are inconsistent with themselves- see previous 3rd trimester question)

The only reasons that a majority believe first trimester abortions should be legal for are life of the mother (which is completely misunderstood, as it is never an either/or choice), rape/incest, if the baby has a life-threatening illness, and if the baby would be mentally disabled (but not Down Syndrome only got 49% in the first trimester).  In the third trimester, a majority only favor the often-mentioned three exceptions of life of the mother, rape, and incest (and only a bare majority for rape and incest).

Abortion "for convenience.

In addition being rather absurd concept, that is the most poorly loaded word pulling question I've seen in a long time.

I paraphrased.  It was "when the woman does not want the child for any reason".