About That Pro-Life Majority...
You may remember that back in May, Gallup released a poll showing that for the first time, a majority of Americans in their survey described themselves as "pro-life" rather than "pro-choice." The results represented a fairly dramatic flip in abortion numbers--51 to 42, when just six months earlier the spread had been a 50 to 44 pro-choice majority.
At the time my editors asked me what I thought of the surprising shift and I said I thought it was a fluke. Yes, the poll was conducted in the midst of the brouhaha over Obama's invitation to speak at Notre Dame. And at the same time, progressive Catholics had been engaged in efforts to expand the "pro-life" label to issues beyond abortion, raising the possibility that some respondents would be more willing to identify themselves as "pro-life." But I didn't think that was enough to account for such a dramatic swing. The percentages of people calling themselves "pro-life" and "pro-choice" have remained reasonably consistent over the past decade--and the number supporting keeping abortion legal in at least some circumstances has been even steadier.
My skeptical interpretation of the poll didn't turn out to be terribly popular. The idea that just a few months after the election of a pro-choice president, Americans were racing to embrace the pro-life cause was too tempting a storyline. The poll made headlines everywhere, and we ran an essay on it anyway.
Now along comes a follow-up poll from Gallup and whaddya know, the much ballyhooed pro-life majority seems to have disappeared. The percentages of Americans calling themselves "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are essentially the same (47% for pro-life; 46% for pro-choice). Meanwhile, the positions they hold--a more useful indicator than the labels people choose for themselves--haven't budged. A solid 78% think abortion should be legal in some or all circumstances.
I'm with Mark Silk, who thinks that the most interesting finding is that approximately 60% of those who describe themselves as "pro-life" believe that abortion should be legal in at least some circumstances. Anti-abortion activists would say they're not really pro-life, just like they insist that politicians like Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio) who support the use of contraception to prevent unwanted pregnancies should not be described as pro-life. But clearly many Americans are comfortable thinking of themselves as "pro-life" and at the same time holding the belief that abortion should be legal. Now that's a story.
-
1
It's not all that revealing that many who consider themselves 'pro-life,' would have the common sense to accept abortions of necessity, such as when health is jeopardized, or under extenuating circumstances, such as rape/incest. Most people do not adhere to rigid conceptions of unwavering opposition under any and all circumstances. The majority of those who actually oppose abortion are opposed to what they perceive as mere abortions of choice, whereby there is no justification other than the mother-to-be is not ready for parenthood.
-
1.1
So basically 22% of Americans are truly anti-abortion, think it is murder, and that women should go to prison for it.
The rest of the people who call themselves "pro-life" want their daughter to have one when she canoodles with the Mexican pool guy, but reserve the right to call others who do the same "sl*t". -
1.2
You have stated my position well. Well crafted and thought out. Rationale and sensitive and reasonable.
-
1.3
Pafro
~
Yes, that was precisely my point. Sheesh. Some Swampers haven't a clue how to respond thoughtfully; it's always more of the same, tired irrational condescension. It's been a pleasure. Strike another name off the list of reasonable counterparts. -
1.4
So explain this "abortion of choice" concept if you are so thoughtful?
From what I can gather, it means that anytime a woman wants an abortion, she would go before some "death panel", so to speak, that would pass judgment on whether her situation warrants a forced birth or not. Would this be a government-run panel or set up through some private enterprise? -
1.5
The notion of 'abortions of choice' is an idealistic concept, I will concede; one in which I have not perfected a means of administering. I would assume, however, that doctors would be at the forefront of ascertaining the reason behind an abortion and would be required to follow a set of standards and meet criteria before administering an abortion. Practicality never trumps morality. Certainly it is simpler to suggest that enforcement of abortion limits would be too clumsy. However, I do not see that as a justifiable reason to reject the idea that abortions are reprehensible when sought merely for practical reasons, such as unpreparedness. You may disagree, but I see no ethical justification for allowing the termination of a life simply on the grounds that it is unwanted. Thus I advocate a system, any system, that prevents such callousness. You use the term 'forced births,' a loaded concept that ignores the responsibility of the pregnancy on the individual. Barring rape, pregnancies are not forced. There are consequences to one's actions. When a growing life is at stake I do not believe we should be so whimsical in our demand for individuality. Now, I am also an ardent supporter of the free dissemination of contraceptives for they minimize unplanned pregnancies thus reducing the instances where abortion may be sought. However, there must be a moral line drawn where the rights of individuals do not infringe upon the lives of others. Since I view life as beginning with a heartbeat, this conclusion comes in no uncertainty.
-
1.6
Sounds confusing. A thoughtful person might say that such a hoop-filled exercise in hand-wringing might be prone to abuses from any and all sides.
-
1.7
"...hoop-filled exercise in hand-wringing..." also known as convictions, but I'll let that slide.
~
"...might be prone to abuses from any and all sides..." You have to love that rationalizing concept of condoning the indefensible status quo in the name of practicality.
-
-
2
Thanks, Amy. More good stuff to ponder and a future story for you… now please sleep in late, extra tea and muffins, “Jerry Springer”, go for it….That aside, I like to start over with issues (as in “what IS health care”, probably to KT's anguish / hysterical laughter). What IS “pro-life”? When Catholics you mentioned are expanding the term, what is it now? Which Mark Silk is asking too! Abortion is all-or-nothing, but beyond that, what are life's choices? Maybe real pro-lifers care about babies AFTER birth too, yes? Maybe terminating pregnancies aren't easy, flippant choices after all. In my early morning haze (while checking Asian / European markets and NY futures) I'd guess that given polls with all-or-nothing choices AND an “maybe” escape clause (legal in some circumstances…which ones?), those with ambiguous / uncertain beliefs (aka real people in a real world, not a Rand novel) would take the middle ground….so here's YOUR chance, Amy. Your last two sentences could start a TIME cover story on this changing view of choice / life. Imagine: “Right now, many Americans are comfortable being ‘pro-life' while maintaining abortion should be legal. But wait…what is ‘pro-life' today? What ARE our choices? Prodded with soft pillows by swampland commenters, I had to leave the beltway and go talk to real people to learn why….” ...and picture yourself on the cover too, TV face time, the works…while reporting a good story.
…exiled, are we the only ones awake? Amy, go to sleep!
-
2.1
I know, I know. I have to be at work at 5am, so I am up at horribly painful hours.
-
-
3
Stop with the propagandistic term "pro-life." What you are talking about is "forced childbirth." The pro-war, anti-child, misogynist agenda of these gun-toting, murderously angry knuckledraggers is anything BUT having reverence for life.
-
3.1
Propaganda when used by the anti-abortion crowd, but mere dumbeffery when used by a media too incompetent to do fact-checking, analysis and other hard stuff.
I don't think many of them ever think about the significance of the term "pro-life," and its implication that those who disagree are "anti-life." I'm mildly surprised when they take the time to run a spell-check on theirworktranscriptions. -
3.2
…maybe that term has too many conflicting meanings (or none at all). Thus, Amy needs to check this out (doing the hard stuff thingy). Go and sin more. My spell-check often crashes, likely from too many made-up words like “sarahdipity”.
-
-
4
If we're talking a 50/50 split in pro-life/pro-choice yet 78% of Americans think abortion should be legal to one degree or another then what are we really saying? The legal/illegal battle is the whole story, not the implied "people who love babies"/"people who want babies' heads to be smashed on the sidewalk in the public square" debate that the media wants to play up for their personal and petty "live on the scene" self-interest.
You can pat yourself on the back all you want Amy but don't think you "discovered" anything for us. Common human sense would tell us that most people who would never consider abortion think it has to be made available legally. The alternative would be every pregnant woman in restraints "just in case".
-
5
It is silly - no, idiotic - to refer to people who celebrated the murder of Dr. Tiller "pro-life."
-
5.1
you are so right! and, the majority of people who claim to be "pro-life" advocate using the death penalty and support these senseless wars!
-
5.2
It is silly - no, idiotic - to refer to people who opposed the removal of Saddam hussain as liberal thinkers, in fact I am willing to be that most of the "pro choice" people did not support removing a leader who gives his people zero-choice.
-
5.3
You notice how the thoughtful anti-choicers like Exiled_at_Home claim that most of their crowd are for medical exceptions for abortion? Well Dr. Tiller was on the very forefront of providing abortions for medical exceptions, largely to people who wanted a child but had to make a heartbreaking decision deep into their pregnancy when they found out their fetus's brain was growing on the outside of its skull or something gruesome like that.
His reward from the anti-choice movement was never defense for his position by any of the thoughtful majority, rather it was to call him a "baby killer" along with the un-thoughtful ones and looking the other way as he was assassinated. -
5.4
Pafro
~
That's a quite charming tactic to tie me to the death of Dr. Tiller, complicity through silence, eh? Cute.
~
As for Dr. Tiller, from his website:
At Women's Health Care Services, we specialize in "late" abortion care. We are able to perform elective abortions to the time in the pregnancy when the fetus is viable. Viability is not a set point in time. Viability is determined by the attending physician...
~ -
5.5
Complicity through silence, I like the sound of that. Thoughtful...way more thoughtful than that guy that walked up to Tiller in a church and assassinated him.
-
5.6
Yes, I thought you might like that one. I'm merely trying to give you more succinct phrasing in your lowly attempt to discredit those with whom you disagree. "Complicity through silence" just sounds so much better than "looking the other way as he was assassinated." Does it not?
-
-
6
This was one of the few surveys I participated in and was amazed by the question -- "are you pro life, yes or no?" It was only my tremendous pro-choice stance that allowed me to answer "no" to that question. Of COURSE I'm pro-life, but I am definitely also pro choice! No wonder they had the response they did to that poll!
-
6.1
Frankly, I'm more concerned that we continue to use Gallup as the polling of reference if they would promote a question wording, that they would have to know from the outset is misleading and subject to nuances in the debate. I wonder how many people thought that question pertained to assisted suicide? We can continue tot talk about how the responses are misleading, but I'm with you Mary, we ought to be examining the question.
-
-
7
Stop with the propagandistic term "pro-life."
.
Unfortunately that phrase is what the poll question she's citing is about. It might as well have read "how thoroughly have you swallowed the current framing that the Religiuous Right has managed to impose on the "Government Interference in Personal Health Decisions" controversy. -
8
I think the use of the words "pro-choice" vs. "pro-life" are so, so, so misleading. I'm sure poll numbers on this vary wildly because we're asked this question.
What does "pro-life" even mean? Am I in favor of making every attempt to preserve the life of a baby? Of course I am. No one is anti-life. But do I think women should have the legal right to ultimately choose? Yes. Absolutely.
I think if polls want to capture how people really feel, they should ask the question purely in terms of legality. Do you support women having the legal right to choose whether to terminate a pregnancy? Yes or no. Simple as that.
-
9
I will give up being "pro-choice" when women all over the world have real choices - saying "no," insisting their male partners wear condoms or allow them to use birth control, family planning, being treated with love and respect, being able to prosecute rapists instead of being stoned to death themselves...
-
9.1
so sarah, can I assume that you only support abortion under these circumstances ..... rape, sex without consent etc. or does your support also extend to simple convenience, you know, like when I don't like that a baby will give me stretch marks ... or even more "pragmatic" situations, like I thought I wanted a baby, but now I lost my job so I'm not sure any longer ... I can no longer guarantee financial support for the child, why bring him/her to the world to suffer, lets "end it now".
.
Just wondering what your limits are ...
-
-
10
Even beyond "anti-abortion", I'd call them "anti-sex". By gum, if you're gonna sin, you damn well better pay the price!
Well, women should, at least.
-
11
Really? 78% think abortion should be legal in some instances? If they think it should be legal, doesn't it stand to reason that they should then have a "choice" to have the abortion performed within those legal parameters? Aren't all 78% then by definition "pro-choice"?
I'm surprised the uses of the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" have lasted as the monikers of opposing political viewpoints for as long as they have. They aren't mutually exclusive, and they aren't opposites. Its very easy to be pro-life at the same time you are pro-choice...the word 'choice' necessarily implies that there are options, so in a way the decision to choose life is INCLUDED in pro-choice. And always has been!
Until we find a better way to frame the argument, one that honestly reflects how people feel on both sides of the issue, I fear the contention will continue ad nauseum, with no real hope of progress.
-
12
I am a proud member of the "pro-choice" position. I believe that 7 billion people is enough and that birth control is critical for the human species to survive. I believe that the words "be fruitful and multiply" are the most destructive words ever written.
-
13
It's not all that revealing that many who consider themselves 'pro-life,' would have the common sense to accept abortions of necessity, such as when health is jeopardized, or under extenuating circumstances, such as rape/incest. Most people do not adhere to rigid conceptions of unwavering opposition under any and all circumstances. The majority of those who actually oppose abortion are opposed to what they perceive as mere abortions of choice, whereby there is no justification other than the mother-to-be is not ready for parenthood. This comments has been already introduced but expresses my feelings exactly as an Evangelical Christian who believes in the sanctity of life and that women and men are responsible for their sexual activity and the resultant consequences.
-
14
[...] Back in May, gallup released a poll that allowed the right to sleep comfortably at night whilst still dealing with the trauma of the Obama presidency. This poll said that for the first time, a majority of Americans identified themselves as “pro-life”, and because hugely generalized labels are always accurate, the right was desperate for something to cling to, and the media was unable to resist sensationalizing it concurrent to the Obama/Notre Dame flap, the story caught. Amy Sullivan over at Swampland pointed out then that the result might have simply been an outlier, as such things are wont to occur even within scientific polls, and lo she’s been proven right. Another gallup poll asking the same question last week shows that the sudden pro-life majority has melted back into the aether from whence it came. [...]
-
15
If we're going to continue the 2nd-grade level labeling, can we get new labels for these two factions:
* Pro-19th Century Thinking, and
* Pro-Education?Anyone who is "pro-choice" is also "anti-abortion-when-and-if-possible." Let's not allow those who believe that "pro-choice" means "pro-abortion", please.
If we were "pro-education" on many matters (guns, abortion, religion, etc.), we wouldn't have 2nd-grade level phrases being thrown back and forth.
Guns are a tool - respect them and handle them responsibliy as you do your car. If you'd call the police when you saw a drunk driver on the road, do the same when you see an irresponsible gun owner, as well.
Religion - "freedom of" means "freedom to choose" AND "freedom from choosing".
Abortion - does not equal "contraception" and should not be promoted as such.
Let's start reaching for the self-proclaimed greatness this country's citizens exclaim by putting a little more effort into improving our education and, thus, our dialogues.
-
15.1
I believe you have stated your case well, reasonably and in a civil tone unlike many on either side of the debate about pro-choice, pro-life. I particularly like the inclusion of being "pro-educated" in our discussions so we are responsible for what we say, how we craft our wording, how we interact in a civil fashion. I like the fact you have stated succinctly the need for being "pro-educated" when in comes to abortion, guns, religion and other controversial topics. Would that include Government sponsored health care? I would guess from the tone of your replies it would as well. As an Evangelical Christian I am guided by the Bible to speak wholesome words to build others up and not tear them down. I am also told to tell the truth and to stand for what is "right" even if the majority is in the wrong. Anyway, again it was refreshing to read your post.
-
-
16
Seems like people are having a hard time defining "pro-life" and "pro-choice." The definitions are pretty simple:
pro-life - someone who believes that abortion should be legal only if performed when the physical health of the mother is in immediate danger due to the presence of a growing embryo/fetus, such as in the case of ectopic pregnancy.
pro-choice - someone who believes that abortion is a fundamental right of women and should not be regulated at all.
Most Americans fall somewhere in-between the two categories, but a couple of facts remain: 1) allowing elective abortions non-medical reasons has not increased women's status in society and 2) an abortion leaves 1 dead and 1 wounded.
-
16.1
You make a lot of sense to me.
-
16.2
The definitions are not "pretty simple." Randall Terry calls himself "pro-life," and I guarantee you he does not believe "abortion should be legal only if performed when the physical health of the mother is in immediate danger."
If most people fall somewhere in between "pro-choice" and "pro-life," as you say, then we need to come up with other terms for people to properly identify with.
On a side note, your "facts" are clearly just your opinions. That's fine. You're entitled to them. But here's mine: abortion has nothing to do with womens' "status in society." Have you noticed that since Roe v Wade, women have steadily gained ground on equal status to men in the workplace, headed major companies, held top government positions, and even run for president?
If anything, having a child she cannot support is more likely to decrease a woman's "status in society." Maybe its just your own feelings toward women who have abortions that are affected.
-
-
17
If you asked me if I were "pro-life" or "pro-choice," I'd say yes, with the caveat that neither term suits me. "Pro-life," because of its semiotic suggestion that "not pro-life" equals "pro-death," is misleading. "Pro-choice" isn't much better as "choice" suggests a blithe "paper-or-plastic" attitude, which is not reflective of the true feelings of choice advocates. We need some new, non-loaded descriptors.
But to my original point, pollsters make the mistake of asking either-or questions to an issue that certainly would elicit a bell curve if people were asked the circumstances under which they thought abortions should be legal. Very few would answer either "never" or "whenever"; the majority would name some or many conditions under which a woman should be able to obtain an abortion.
The Constant Weader at http://www.RealityChex.com
-
18
[...] found by a Gallup poll this past spring has turned out to be a fluke, Amy Sullivan reports in TIME. As Sullivan writes, "Now along comes a follow-up poll from Gallup and whaddya know, the [...]
-
19
Something to think about...It is a sad position for any woman to be in, if a baby is not what she wants. A few months of inconvenience & discomfort is much better than the years of regret & guilt she will feel. Studies back that up. Planned Parenthood won't tell you about that. Adoption is a wonderful gift for the child and the adoptive parents. It could even be a wonderful gift for the pregnant woman.
Find "Sex Still Has a Price Tag" by Pam Stenzel (3 parts) in the archives (July 21-23) of Truths That Transform at OnePlace.com. Pam Stenzel was a product of rape, but her mother gave her life and gave her up for adoption. I found the message so powerful, I want to tell all young people to read it. Boys, too.
With love, I am respectfully yours. -
20
[...] don't do well to flaunt their opposition to a woman's right to choose. That's because most Americans believe abortion should be legal in at least some circumstances (and that's why polls that claim a “pro-life majority” are [...]
- TIME See a transcript of Obama's full remarks on Afghanistan | http://su.pr/1GtxGH - 3 hours ago
- TIME Can mammograms increase cancer risk in some women? | http://su.pr/2DJubu - 4 hours ago
- TIME See the top 10 people busted by Facebook | http://su.pr/6lQ4G6 - 6 hours ago
Most Popular »
- Piling On Desirée Rogers--Is The Social Secretary To Blame For Two Ticketless Boobs At The White House?
- Looking for Reasons to Care About Tiger Woods
- White House Hypocritical Attack on Politico
- Today Lands a Tell-None Interview With the Salahis
- Jay Leno a Failure; Also, Jay Leno a Success
- Cheney: 'No Aspirations' for Further Office
- Through The 2008 Campaign Looking Glass--John McCain on Medicare Cuts, Now And Then
- The Dreaded X
- Is Walking Away from Your Mortgage the Smartest Thing You Can Do?
- The League of Ambivalent Columnists
- Want to Boost Your Memory? Sounds During Sleep Can Help
- Helicopter Parents: The Backlash Against Overparenting
- Tiger Woods Car Crash Bad Publicity for Rich Isleworth
- The End of the 2000s: Goodbye to a Decade from Hell
- Dubai's Woes a Blow to Ambitious Ruler Sheik Mohammed
- Italian Town Dreams of a White (No Foreigners) Christmas
- The Muppets Perform 'Bohemian Rhapsody'
- The Women of Islam
- Could White House Party Crashers the Salahis Go to Jail?
- Study: Loneliness Can Be Contagious
Quotes of the Day »
RSS