« Pelosi Swings And Misses | Main | Obama's EPA Overreaches with the Navajo Nation »

The Majority of Americans are now Pro-Life

Since this is from Gallup I'm more likely to believe it. It's especially encouraging after learning that it's now legal in Sweden for women to abort their babies because they weren't the right sex.

A new Gallup Poll, conducted May 7-10, finds 51% of Americans calling themselves "pro-life" on the issue of abortion and 42% "pro-choice." This is the first time a majority of U.S. adults have identified themselves as pro-life since Gallup began asking this question in 1995.

The new results, obtained from Gallup's annual Values and Beliefs survey, represent a significant shift from a year ago, when 50% were pro-choice and 44% pro-life. Prior to now, the highest percentage identifying as pro-life was 46%, in both August 2001 and May 2002.

The May 2009 survey documents comparable changes in public views about the legality of abortion. In answer to a question providing three options for the extent to which abortion should be legal, about as many Americans now say the procedure should be illegal in all circumstances (23%) as say it should be legal under any circumstances (22%). This contrasts with the last four years, when Gallup found a strong tilt of public attitudes in favor of unrestricted abortion.

This is most welcome good news. While so much of the world moves in the direction of aborting the most innocent among them, Americans are moving in the direction of life for their most innocent. And the trend that Gallup recorded above is not an outlier, either:

Americans' recent shift toward the pro-life position is confirmed in two other surveys. The same three abortion questions asked on the Gallup Values and Beliefs survey were included in Gallup Poll Daily tracking from May 12-13, with nearly identical results, including a 50% to 43% pro-life versus pro-choice split on the self-identification question.

It's particularly interesting that this pro-life shift is happening now, when America has its most pro-abortion president. Back during the campaign, Obama said he wouldn't want his daughters to be "punished with a baby." That statement may not be a reason for this pro-life trend, but the concept that a baby, no matter how inconveniently timed or imperfect, is a form of punishment does not sit well with many people. No matter what the reason, I hope the trend continues.

And this should be a very important lesson for the GOP. Republicans need to stop running away from their conservative core principles. When pundits and media types say the GOP should become more moderate in order to expand its tent, their motivations are to undermine the GOP, not help it.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/35696.

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Majority of Americans are now Pro-Life:

Comments (55)

how do you reconcile that w... (Below threshold)

how do you reconcile that with the second part which shows that 75% of the population is okay with abortion at least some of the time (and only 22% against abortion all the time)?

Perhaps... it is indicative of what we can call 'squishy' pro-lifers... they wouldn't do it themselves but they wouldn't deny it to someone else?

Maybe we need a focus group... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Maybe we need a focus group, like the global warmers. You know, change the 'terminology'. We'll start calling abortion "torture" or "waterboarding".

Perhaps... it is indicativ... (Below threshold)
Tim:

Perhaps... it is indicative of what we can call 'squishy' pro-lifers... they wouldn't do it themselves but they wouldn't deny it to someone else?


That probably describes me, Steve. The only reason I don't favor making abortion illegal is because I don't KNOW when life begins. No one does. Some believe it begins at birth. I belong to the group that believes life begins at conception. But I don't know for sure. They don't either. But I look at it this way - no matter which scenario you believe, you have to concede that life may begin at conception. Therefore, it is possible that you are taking a life. Why chance it? Would you take a gun out to a street corner and fire it blindly down the street? After all, you don't know for sure that you will hit and kill someone, but you might. Or you might not. Makes sense to me that you should avoid that possibility, just in case.

Should the blunt force of l... (Below threshold)
Jonathan:

Should the blunt force of law forbid every single instance of abortion? I am thoroughly anti-abortion but I do not believe that it should. As abhorrent as I believe abortion to be I would be satisfied if it were limited to only the first trimester. I would be glad to have a compromise between those who want it to be completely eliminated and those who want it completely unlimited. People should have the freedom to make bad choices. We would be better served by treating Abortion like we treat the Death Penalty. Different States have come to very different conclusions about the laws they want. I'm OK with that.

You might think this a poor analogy but in the Bible, Jesus made the point that divorce was allowed not because God wanted divorce but because we are evil and selfish. Divorce does tremendous damage to families, children and society. It destroys the wealth of all who experience it, except for the lawyers, yet we allow it.

As it is today, my views on Abortion matter to no one. The Supreme Court has said they don't care what the Citizen's want, think or believe. There is no reason to argue or persuade those who disagree with me because it has already been decided by The Nine. This is why the Republican Party should focus more on Individual Freedom and Limited Government.

To the extent that I consider social issues like Abortion, Gay Marriage and the Death Penalty I want them decided at the ballot box and the Statehouse instead of the Courthouse. I am certain my State Representative would be more responsive to his constituents and I am certain these issues should not be decided by Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi or the rudderless, leaderless GOP. They are issues that should be submitted to voters.

"Perhaps... it is indica... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

"Perhaps... it is indicative of what we can call 'squishy' pro-lifers... they wouldn't do it themselves but they wouldn't deny it to someone else?"

Sure some of those people were such as those you describe, but likely most were those who opposed to abortion under most circumstances but would allow exceptions for when the life of the mother was in danger (which I agree with), and some would include cases of rape and incest (which I don't agree with).

In any case this is bad news for those on the far, far left side of this issue like Obama.

People should have... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:
People should have the freedom to make bad choices.

They already have that, it's called mistakes. And we do them every day.

We would be better served by treating Abortion like we treat the Death Penalty.

Only if you believe the child should be executed for someone else's mistake. Then you would equate the death penalty with abortion.

They are issues that should be submitted to voters.
In fact, they are moral issues that will never again be decided by the voters in our lifetime.
This is why the Republican Party should focus more on Individual Freedom and Limited Government.

As should all parties. Being the fact it is the Democrats that are supposedly in control, they are the ones to be addressing with less government. In fact, it would be best to contact your local representatives because they are not so much in the mix of the hierarchy.

Different States have come to very different conclusions about the laws they want. I'm OK with that.

Only if you are okay with the state's laws if you ever move there. When it comes to human life, the mistakes need to be better examined on a moral level, because a house divided will not stand. That is the current agenda in the government, which is to divide and control the people with emotional distraction. If you step away from basic principle, you will never come to a conclusion based on conscience and learning from past mistakes. How important is the human life to you?

This should be in blockquot... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

This should be in blockquotes:

"Different States have come to very different conclusions about the laws they want. I'm OK with that."

It's particularly ... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
It's particularly interesting that this pro-life shift is happening now, when America has its most pro-abortion president.

Guess what, most of the legal immigrants and illegal aliens from Mexico are Christians. Yes, they have been voting for democrats, but on social and economic issues they are basically conservative. The two social issues that are going to turn these people away from voting for democrats is abortion and gay marriage. Once established, most immigrants want low taxes, which will gain Republicans votes if they get back to being the party of small government and low taxes.

California is a good example of how liberals run a state into the ground with wasteful spending, high taxes, and junk science based environmental regulations. Rather then let California become a symbol of liberalism's failure, I predict Obama will find an excuse to justify singling out California for a special Federal bailout.

Re using abortion for sex s... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Re using abortion for sex selection - that can lead to serious problems down the line... as China is finding out. Regardless of the morality of an idea, the outcome is likely to be inconsistent with what's wanted.

But hey - it seemed like a good idea at the time. And it's hard to remember, sometimes, that actions have consequences that aren't necessarily foreseen at the time.

P.Bunyan, you're opposed to... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

P.Bunyan, you're opposed to permitting a girl who was raped by her father to have an abortion? I think that if you wanted restrictions on abortion tightened, that you would do well from publicly stating these views, because it comes across as creepy and sinister.

Jonathan, of course the SCOTUS should not be totally tone-deaf to the public, but if moral issues were left to the majority, mixed-race marriages would almost certainly have remained illegal until as late as the 1960s; schools would not have been forced to racially integrate; voting rights might still remain radically unequal in more racist parts of the country; and so forth. So while the SCOTUS should perhaps wait for the public to soften on an issue, there is no good reason to require that a majority (at a federal or state level) agree with a Supreme Court ruling for it to be legitimate, binding, and for all intents and purposes, held to be correct by those who respect the law and the Constitution.

Back during the ca... (Below threshold)
Back during the campaign, Obama said he wouldn't want his daughters to be "punished with a baby."
Defines how he would he want, or at least allow, his grandchildren to be punished.
I'm one of the squishies. ... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

I'm one of the squishies. But not so squishy that I think it's "okay" to have an abortion at all. I keep hoping that many people who are pro-choice will begin moving in the direction where they make the easy choices to avoid having to make the hard ones; like "choosing" contraception or "choosing" to avoid sex if they haven't chosen contraception.

The way things are it seems the hard choice is acting responsibly. The easy choice is to erase it like it never happened. Erring on the side of caution is now a long lost and forgtten concept.

It is so typical of ... (Below threshold)
Gnossoss:


It is so typical of the conservative in America to support the rights of imaginary children. Millions of real children die every year from preventable causes. Where is the out cry for them? Where are the marches and the bumper-stickers?

The truth is that conservatives couldn't care less about real children. That would cost them money for medicine and medical treatment. Better of to create an imaginary victim, the unborn, and have a feel good cause that funnels money into the pro-life organizations.

Republicans need to stop ru... (Below threshold)

Republicans need to stop running away from their conservative core principles.

That's right. Go on a teaching tour. Forget the listing tour.

Palin sort of did that, Jas... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Palin sort of did that, Jason. Many people loved it, but many more mocked her and found her views to be further from their own than Obama's.

Abortion polling has always... (Below threshold)
Naaman:

Abortion polling has always been very unreliable. The issue is so emotionally charged that people are likely to say whatever they think the pollster wants to hear.

Furthermore, the reality of abortion policy means that simple labels like "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are not always helpful. They work fine for me, but my position is a bit extreme. To put it simply, I do not believe that innocent human beings should be killed for any reason less significant than saving another human life ... and even that should be done with a great deal of trepidation. In other words, I can tolerate an abortion to save a woman's life if and only if sacrificing the child is the only possible alternative. Other abortions are a monstrous evil and should be opposed. Some people call my position extreme, but I am just trying to be logical. We shouldn't kill innocent human beings for reasons of convenience, economics, mental stress, education, etcetera. We don't let parents kill their born children in these circumstances, so we shouldn't let them kill their unborn children in the same circumstances.

That said, I know that lots of other people don't see the abortion debate quite so clearly. The pro-choice movement has made great advances in dehumanizing the unborn, stressing the importance of "privacy" (as if it would be okay to kill a toddler in private), and generally confusing the issue. They have been assisted by their colleagues in the media and academia. So there's a lot of confusion about abortion, and that confusion tends to skew any polls on the subject.

The classic example of bad abortion polling is when pollster ask people if they support Roe v Wade. Most people say that they do. But most people also say that they want to ban or restrict late-term abortions ... which Roe v Wade (and the companion case, Doe v Bolton) does not allow us to do! So what gives? The answer is that most pollsters define Roe as allowing first-trimester abortions, which is a wildly-incomplete definition! But the confusion persists....

Kim, it always depends a gr... (Below threshold)
Paul Hooson:

Kim, it always depends a great deal how survey questions are asked how those questioned will respond. Such a big one year shift suggests some change in the way the question was asked this year whether than some sea change in public values.

Another problem is what exactly does "prolife" actually mean. I consider myself as "prolife" because I don't like abortion personally and I was raised as church attending Catholic and oppose abortion on those grounds. However because the Catholic Church believes that life begins at conception, has not convinced many of the Jewish faith that life begins at birth for example, or those who support legal abortion either.

I would still oppose overturning Roe v. Wade on the grounds that will not stop abortion in most states where it will still remain legal, and it would only complicate state legislative races and legislative sessions where important issues such as state budgets, school or police funding would be put on a back-burner for endless abortion arguments that probably would not reduce abortions to any significant degree only waste a great deal of time and money. In some conservative communities, few abortion providers already exist, while in more liberal communities, more abortion providers exist. Allowing states to decide the abortion issue isn't likely to change that equation.

State regulation of moral isses doesn't work very well. Look at the pornography issue as an example. The Supreme Court decided back in 1973 to allow local communities and the states to regulate that form of commercial speech. That certainly hasn't resulted in any shortage of pornography in most parts of the country. Court cases and decisions by local juries have allowed most materials considered to be pornographic to legally exist in most communities, where only a few types of very extreme materials are generally outlawed. Allowing states to regulate commercial speech hasn't worked to either ban pornography or to allow complete free commercial expression on the other hand, it has only created a middle-ground that was mainly worked out through wasting a great deal of money on court cases and lawyers. It's only made a few lawyers wealthy who argue such cases and not really satisfied a lot of persons on either side of that issue.

If states were allowed to regulate abortion, only a few more extreme procedures such as partial birth abortion or extreme late term abortions would likely be banned by most states. It would be difficult for me to imagine that allowing states to regulate abortion would actually ban abortion in most states, only these extreme procedures. Further, lawsuits by the abortion industry or by feminist organizations would send many cases back to the U.S. Supreme Court at some point, likely limiting the ability of states to go too far in regulating abortion.

Overturning Roe v. Wade sounds like good business for lawyers, but a very poor way to actually limit abortions. So what does "prolife" actually mean anyway? Is it a personal belief, just like faith in God, rather than an actual public policy sentiment.

Let's have a serious discussion on Roe v. Wade here sometime. Some organizations such as the National Right To Life have long believed overturning Roe v. Wade to be a cure-all, ignoring the fact that it will only mean spending a great deal of money on local court battles to not really decide very much. Abortion would still be legal in most areas. Is that what being "prolife" actually means?

Hyper - "Jonathan, of c... (Below threshold)
marc:

Hyper - "Jonathan, of course the SCOTUS should not be totally tone-deaf to the public, "

Where have I seen that before?

Oh-yeah, obamas "empathy" with respect to Supremes nominations.

Horseshit, the Supreme Courts job is to interpret the Constitution and determine whether cases before it violate it.

"P.Bunyan, you're oppose... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

"P.Bunyan, you're opposed to permitting a girl who was raped by her father to have an abortion?"

Yes, I don't believe in killing a child for the crimes of it's father.

"I think that if you wanted restrictions on abortion tightened"

I don't want "restrictions...tightened", I want abortion outlawed with the one exception being when mother's life is significantly at risk and the fetus cannot survive outside the womb.

"that you would do well from publicly stating these views, because it comes across as creepy and sinister"

Whereas killing a child for the crimes of it's father is not "creepy and sinister"? Actually I'd call the opinion that a child conceived that way should be put to death brutal, barbaric, and primative. It's amazing sometimes, the things you far leftists convince yourselves to believe in.

Millions of rea... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:
Millions of real children die every year from preventable causes. Where is the out cry for them? Where are the marches and the bumper-stickers?

The unborn children are more real than your phony outrage. The post isn't about diseases that kill children after birth, it's about pro-life.

Btw, which one of these children is not considered "real" to you?

No, it's not creepy and sin... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

No, it's not creepy and sinister to allow a woman to abort a baby that was conceived through incestual rape. The converse is creepy and sinister. You would force a woman to carry to term the product of an evil, hateful act. And surely you don't need someone to tell you about the risks of direct family members having children with one another.

The surest way for the pro-life movement to fall totally out of the mainstream discourse would be for its champions to advocate specifically for your point of view. If you care about preventing abortions, you would do well not to speak your mind.

I think one reason for the ... (Below threshold)
Francie:

I think one reason for the change in poll numbers is that most women of child bearing age don't remember a pregnant friend permanently damaged by a back alley abortion or by using a wire coat hanger on herself.

Also, science has given us a lot more knowledge about the life of a fetus from the earliest stages. At the same time society has become willing to let unwed or school age mothers join the mainstream. Until the mid-80s, girls who got pregnant in high school, just disappeared. Does anybody remember Dan Quale (candidate for VP)being horrified at Murphy Brown (a single mother on television)? Even with the advances in science and tolerance, there are still cases where a woman should always have the right to choose a safe and legal abortion--rape, incest, to save her life, to save her baby from horrible pain in the case of terminal birth defects.

About President Obama being the most pro-choice of all our presidents, I'm not so sure that's true. Look over his votes relating to Roe v Wade during his time in the senate. His views reflect the times. A parallel to the prolife/prochoice debate is another issue from an earlier time. I don't think the Vietnam War really ended in the mindset of Americans until he was elected. He was a child then, so couldn't be identified as with the Vietnam War or against it. Compare his campaign with John Kerry's--Vietnam had everything to do with it.

If Roe v Wade gets overturned, there will be back alley abortions and women dying from trying to abort by themselves. Perhaps a future generation will have to fight for choice to be legal again. At least they won't have so far to go next time, considering how science and social norms have progressed.

Two more questions to consider:

Why are there so many children living in orphanages in this country? Aren't people prolife enough to give them a home?

How is it that prolife and pro death sentence reside in the same sector of society?

"Why are there so many ... (Below threshold)
marc:

"Why are there so many children living in orphanages in this country? Aren't people prolife enough to give them a home?"

Good question, and the follow-on is: Why do so many publiciy-whore "stars" scour the world for kids to adopt when so many American kids need parents?

Hyper:1) The risks... (Below threshold)
epador:

Hyper:

1) The risks of consanguinity are real but not absolute, and do not require a abortion, any more than if the mother smokes or drinks during pregnancy.

2) You are saying that a life created by a hateful act of another should be extinguished for an act it is innocent of. That does not make any sense to me and what I know of your moral compass. Think about it.

3) A fetus is alive. It can die. Then it is a stillborn or a miscarriage. My children, and the children of the people I know well, made themselves known early on in gestation, even in the first trimester. The ones that died were mourned. The mothers recognized the child and developed a relationship with it. Causing the fetus to die is a kind of murder. It has nothing to do with religion, but everything to do with science and biology.

The current arguments for and against abortion are often framed in religious terms, much to the detriment of the argument, for those for abortion can easily decry a belief system. It is a lot harder to refuse to acknowledge science.

But it happens. The "human beings are causing global warming versus global warming is occurring independent of human activities, versus humans are contributing to global warming versus there is no global warming" debate is an example of science being clouded by belief systems.

Why are there so m... (Below threshold)
Why are there so many children living in orphanages in this country? Aren't people prolife enough to give them a home?

Francie, we don't have orphanages in this country anymore. We have foster care and foster families. I understand that was not your point. I was just providing information.

"How is it that prolife and... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

"How is it that prolife and pro death sentence reside in the same sector of society?"

I would say that likely because thinking people can see the difference betweeen a criminal and an innocent person.

Still, being pro-death penalty is in no way universal among those who are pro-life. I am certainly pro-life, but I oppose the death penalty. I think the same is true for a lot of pro-lifers.

And the opposite could be said of many, many leftists. How can you oppose the death penalty, but support "the right to choose" to kill the unborn?

"The only reason I don't fa... (Below threshold)
G.:

"The only reason I don't favor making abortion illegal is because I don't KNOW when life begins. No one does."

If it's moving I would say that pretty much indicates life Tim. I'm not knocking you but I don't know anything dead that's moving.

Except Hyper and the left of course.
hahahaha

The question is not when a ... (Below threshold)
jim:

The question is not when a fetus is alive, but when it becomes a person.

The exact moment - if it is one single moment - that this occurs is unknowable.

I personally think that what separates humans from the rest of the animals, is our mind. So I consider human personhood to have occurred when the fetus' cortex has advanced to a level where a mind can inhabit it.

I'm currently satisfied with the later-term abortion laws. I don't see a collection of cells as being a child, anymore than I consider a blueprint of a building to be a building.

I do also think that all of this concern over "lives of the unborn" makes more sense to me when people the same amount of concern for kids after they're born. That's unfortunately pretty rare, as far as I've seen.

Not being an animal I can't... (Below threshold)
G.:

Not being an animal I can't comment on that Jim. When does one feel superior enough to say I'm of sufficient intelligence to say this innocent life no longer has the right to live simply because I will it to be so. Seems pretty shallow to me.

Not knocking you either.</p... (Below threshold)
G.:

Not knocking you either.

Personally I believe what s... (Below threshold)
G.:

Personally I believe what separates us from animals is a "soul".

I apologise. I see that thi... (Below threshold)
Hyperapologist:

I apologise. I see that this poll regards American attitudes. Let me know when they poll know-it-all douchebag Canadians.

Hyper"P.Bunyan, you'... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Hyper
"P.Bunyan, you're opposed to permitting a girl who was raped by her father to have an abortion? I think that if you wanted restrictions on abortion tightened, that you would do well from publicly stating these views, because it comes across as creepy and sinister."

As opposed your views that doctors should be allowed to let newborns die in certain circumstances.

"you would do well not to speak your mind.
"

All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.


Hoosoon -
"Let's have a serious discussion on Roe v. Wade here sometime"

We did back when Jay Tea was moderator. Hyper was your champion.

He ended up stating doctors should allow newborns to die under certain circumstances.

He also said that people should be able to cut off perfectly good limbs. Hyper, the liberal champion has spoken.

You would force a ... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:
You would force a woman to carry to term the product of an evil, hateful act.

Now fetuses are products? Wow, hyper, your assembly-line thinking is exactly why we need a moral reality check when comes to the sanctity of life. What an evil little beast you sound like when you would rather see the blood of an innocent child shed over the crime of another.

It's my opinion that humans... (Below threshold)
jim:

It's my opinion that humans are animals too; animals who think in more complicated fashions.

Other animals communicate, solve puzzles, use tools, and even plan for the future, as evidenced by that orangutang you may have heard of, a few months ago, who was storing rocks so he could throw them at visitors later...

I go back and forth on whether or not humans have souls in ways that the rest of nature doesn't. But two things are clear: souls can't be measured by any current scientific method, and opinions about them are wide and varied.

G, all I'm saying is that u... (Below threshold)
jim:

G, all I'm saying is that up to a certain point in development a fetus is not a person, not an independent life. It's just a collection of cells. In the same way that some human heart-muscles cells which are kept alive in a solution aren't "a" life, even though the cells are individually alive.

I don't go so far as some, to define a fetus as alive at the point it can live independently - that to me avoids the issue of individuality and personhood...

Regardless, I do think this whole debate will be rendered irrelevant by advancing science. I think in the next few years it will be possible for a woman to not become pregnant at all unless she wants to - by a method surer than the pill. Which will really be the best solution.

It could even be nanobots that surround the egg and drive off sperm - who knows? Sounds like sci-fi now - but so did genetic engineering, just 20 years ago.

And we'll all be able to move forward.

BTW Here is Chuck Schumer.<... (Below threshold)
retired military:

BTW Here is Chuck Schumer.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/15/theres-a-few-ants-in-the
-ladys-pants/
Here's Chuck Schumer, the highly partisan senator from New York, talking
about "torture" at a Senate hearing: "I'd like to interject a note of
balance here ... I think there are probably very few people in this room
or in America who would say that torture should never be used,
particularly if thousands of lives are at stake. Take the hypothetical:
If we knew there was a nuclear bomb hidden in an American city and we
believed that some kind of torture, fairly severe maybe, would give us a
chance of finding that bomb before it went off, my guess is that most
Americans and most senators, maybe all, would say: 'Do what you have to
do.' "

But that was in 2004, before common sense in the party of FDR, Harry
Truman and John F. Kennedy suffered grievous wounds.


"Republicans need to stop r... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

"Republicans need to stop running away from their conservative core principles."-LB

The abortion issue has been diminished by the self-avowed culture warriors' quest to surf the news cycle with faux issues such as "holiday trees", militantly secular cashiers, Muslim cabbies, and what college kids might be doing after 4pm.

These things have come to be symbols of "core principles". The term "first things" might separate the chaff better, but since modern political parties are essentially sales devices, the strategy seems to be demographic coverage to include the pet issues of "people persons", voyeurs, stick-in-the-muds, etc.

As a pro-life voter in a fairly conservative town in the newly-crowned most-Republican state in the Union, I can tell you that the abortion issue is seen by many as either a fait accompli or as a loaded political argument.

As for your heading, I must submit that the nation is comfortably pro-CHOICE, Gallup notwithstanding. It's better to face facts, I say, with the right foot on the starting block.

Kim, If you google orphanag... (Below threshold)
Francie:

Kim, If you google orphanages in usa, you will see a long list of links. In Tucson it's called Casa de los Ninos, in Seattle it's the Washington Children's Home. These places are bursting at the seams with kids. They are everywhere, run by faith-based groups and governments. Foster parents are a start, but there are so many more children being raised in institutions. I believe prolife intentions are good, but I can't imagine growing up knowing that no one ever wanted me.

P. Bunyan, Yes, in a perfect world, the goal would be to have zero abortions and zero death penalties. If you believe that life starts at conception, abortion is killing an innocent person. How many convicted felons have been put to death and later found to be innocent?

"How many convicted felo... (Below threshold)
914:

"How many convicted felons have been put to death and later found to be innocent?"

How many unborn children have been aborted having always been innocent?

My Father was adopted by a ... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

My Father was adopted by a loving family that raised him well. Obviously I'm quite happy he wasn't aborted instead.

Kim, If you google orpha... (Below threshold)
sue:

Kim, If you google orphanages in usa, you will see a long list of links. In Tucson it's called Casa de los Ninos, in Seattle it's the Washington Children's Home. These places are bursting at the seams with kids. They are everywhere, run by faith-based groups and governments. Foster parents are a start, but there are so many more children being raised in institutions. I believe prolife intentions are good, but I can't imagine growing up knowing that no one ever wanted me.

Those are not orphanages. They are childrens homes. They 5-7 live with house parents in a family setting. Is it ideal? NO, of course not, but what is the alternative--other than killing them, which is what you seem to be advocating. (How exactly are you going to figure out which ones would end up in these childrens homes so they can be aborted when their mothers are pregnant? And how are you going to know which ones will grow up feeling like no one wants them-so they can be aborted first? They certainly all won't grow up believing that.)

Most of these kids ARE NOT adoptable because they have parents who will not allow them to be adopted-even though they cannot provide a home for them.

If you believe that life starts at conception, abortion is killing an innocent person. How many convicted felons have been put to death and later found to be innocent?

So, another reason to keep abortion legal, killing innocent children is because sometimes (very few) a death row inmate is killed with the death penalty and then found to be innocent?

Just how logical a conclusion it that?

hyper has very little to ar... (Below threshold)
nehemiah:

hyper has very little to argue, so he brings the most extreme hypothetical to the table to argue (incestuous rape). How many are there of those cases vs just unwanted pregnancies that did not involve anything illegal. Even if we gave hyper his extreme hypotheticals, he would then have to give us his opinion on the MUCH more common pregnancy that was just inconvenient --
what is your opinion on that hyper? You better not speak as you would damage those working to promote infanticide as choice. Anyway, from my years here, whenever you've spoke you've disgraced those for which you argue, and your loose mom as well.

Choose life! Your mo... (Below threshold)
G:

Choose life!
Your mom did.

Sue, You need to check your... (Below threshold)
Francie:

Sue, You need to check your facts on orphanages. There are many, many "adoptable" children in them. Sure, there are some with parents who won't give up rights, but most are there because they are no longer infants or not white. I'm not arguing for or against anything, just pointing out that there are kids who need a home and parents. I know this from experience. Some foster parents take as many as they can be approved for, including newborn drug babies. Those people are selfless and wonderful. The problem is that there are not enough foster homes for the huge number of unwanted kids. The places I know about are big institutional-type housing, not private homes with 5-7 children.

I've said it before, I'll s... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

I've said it before, I'll say it again: I would gladly protest the death penalty and work to abolish it IF abortion were knocked back to medical emergencies.
But I don't see the left backing away from abortion in favor of getting their pal Mumia off of death row.

Prolife needs to include re... (Below threshold)
Francie:

Prolife needs to include real live children, not just unborn fetuses. I don't see where Sue picked up that I advocated killing anyone. Just keep your laws off my body!

"Prolife needs to include r... (Below threshold)
G.:

"Prolife needs to include real live children, not just unborn fetuses. I don't see where Sue picked up that I advocated killing anyone. Just keep your laws off my body!"

1) Francie, and you others, men included, try to be an adult and be responsible for your actions. Cross your legs, control your urge, take a (the)pill, abstain,etc. If you fail you can still pony up and be a responsible adult and not give in to selfishness by giving life.
2)It's not your "body" that's being aborted, now is it?
3) It is APPALLING, that the very place human life is to be nurtured and cared for has instead become a temporary tomb, a slaughterhouse,a place of, whats the word...hmmm MURDER, or murder the worse kind, infanticide?

"Just keep your laws off my... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

"Just keep your laws off my body!"

Francie, if you're that concerned about the laws being on your body, just wait until marshall law is implemented and you're taken to "a safer place". All because you focused too much attention on having an easy exit instead of applying self-discipline. You are already affected by what is and isn't allowed, so see it for what it is.

Eventually, there may even be a law as to how many children you can have to the point you may be forced to abort or give up the child you are carrying. Don't ever think that kind of thing only happens "somewhere else". If you really want your freedom, be willing to take responsibility for it.

LaMedusa: "Ju... (Below threshold)
retired military:


LaMedusa:
"Just keep your laws off my body!"

Following your logic then men should be able to force women to get abortions even if they dont want to. After all it is the work men's body do to pay child support. Also it is part of the man's body that helps to make the baby so therefore he should determine whether his contribution lives or dies.

Following your log... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:
Following your logic then men should be able to force women to get abortions even if they dont want to.

Not at all RM. My statement to Francie was for her to take responsibility for her own actions. We have so many laws controlling us that people are not aware of. The govt's objective is to desensitize and depopulate, and that is the agenda behind all of these laws. The more they impose, the more they control so it is up to each adult to think clearly about what they are doing. I am very much against abortion, myself, but this would not be an issue if the govt regulations allowed the media to control people's values. Free will and choice are tantamount when making decisions, but is it really our will or what we are made to believe. Think outside of the box of sexual influence that leads to irresponsibility, and the individual is making a sound choice other than protesting a law that hasn't affected him/her yet.

And is it only men making t... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

And is it only men making these laws? Women's lib was funded by the Rockefellers in order to divide the family, and women bought right into it. Surely, a woman has a right to make her own choices, but without the media influencing a woman's attitude and appearance, would those issues even exist?

I'm 55 and pro-choice. My ... (Below threshold)
Francie:

I'm 55 and pro-choice. My parents are staunchly in the pro-life camp and always have been. My choice has always been to not have abortions. Choice. Free will. Don't forget the Christians did away with any power women had long after the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. Equal rights is only the concept that women are people, too. Get a grip. Listen to each other, love, and try to be tolerant. Every year there are fewer and fewer abortions. More education and fewer posters of bloody babies will achieve your goal. I don't even know who Mumia is and, as far as I can tell, the Rockefellers were pro-money. Every person shapes their own world view. I'm not in favor of abortion, but I am in favor of letting a person choose the best course, or perhaps a couple making the decision together.

In the 1970s, things were so different from now. In the suburbs and even in rich city districts, there were no children of color in the schools. All white. In 1970, my school district changed the rules and suddenly girls could wear pants to school. Always before, it was skirts or dresses with the only exception being snowy days. I worked in retail management and it was the norm for women to have to do whatever the male boss wanted them to do, if they ever wanted a promotion--picture tight angora sweaters, lots of sex and saying yes to ridiculous ideas. It was ok for him to address your chest instead of your face. There were hardly any women in government. It was no wonder that people advocating power for women had a huge audience. I expect there will be loud calls of denial about my recounting of the experiences I lived, similar to the denial of orphanagess in the US. That's ok, but I'm telling you the truth--as I know it.

LaMedusa, the focus on appearance in the late 20th century until now, is crazy, isn't it? It's so foreign to me. There has always been a fashionista crowd, but these days everyone is influenced by them. Take a look at some old pictures of Janis Joplin or any media pictures of Americans before the late 1980s. Roe v Wade was born in a different time. I agree that the demands of being perfect have undue influence on everyone's choices these days. Why does anyone care what Paris Hilton does? Or Miss California or any of them? (btw, I hold the opposite view from her on gay marriage, but applaud her for standing her ground. I thought her honest answer should have ended any discussion right then and there.)

I believe there are lots of places were we can all agree and many where we will either need to let go or keep using energy to fight. I choose to use my energy elsewhere. I am trying to communicate with those of you who hold other views and not disparage those views, only express mine. Listening is key.

"Listening is the ke... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:


"Listening is the key."
True, Francie. But who hears the cries of the unborn child, or are we talking about a"product" of convenience or inconvenience who has no choice? Listening shouldn't be selective.

Kim,It is legal in... (Below threshold)
Andy T:

Kim,

It is legal in this country for a woman to abort a child because it isn't the right sex. She does not need any reason. I didn't understand the issue in Sweden. It had always been legal there too. Perhaps when people are forced to confront the issue it makes them cringe. For obvious reasons, it is now illegal to abort a baby in China if you KNOW it is a girl. Doesn't stop it from happening though.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy