Gallup: For the first time, more Americans are pro-life than pro-choice

posted at 4:02 pm on May 15, 2009 by Allahpundit

Roughly an eight-point swing in just a year with almost all of the movement attributable to Republicans and leaners, trending from 60/36 pro-life in 2008 to 70/26 now. What gives? A few diehard Sarahcuda fans theorized in Headlines that this is her influence but I think Gallup has it right. It’s the social-con equivalent of the national gun-buying frenzy since The One was elected: The more the man in the White House is perceived as a threat to an issue you care about, the more ardent your defense of that issue is likely to become.

With the first pro-choice president in eight years already making changes to the nation’s policies on funding abortion overseas, expressing his support for the Freedom of Choice Act, and moving toward rescinding federal job protections for medical workers who refuse to participate in abortion procedures, Americans — and, in particular, Republicans — seem to be taking a step back from the pro-choice position. However, the retreat is evident among political moderates as well as conservatives.

It is possible that, through his abortion policies, Obama has pushed the public’s understanding of what it means to be “pro-choice” slightly to the left, politically. While Democrats may support that, as they generally support everything Obama is doing as president, it may be driving others in the opposite direction.

Yeah, supporting infanticide will tend to do that. The news isn’t all good for passionate pro-lifers — 53 percent sill support keeping abortion legal in at least “a few circumstances” — but the trends across the board are all in the conservative direction, including among women. There’s a media assumption, I think, that this issue splits dramatically along gender lines; not only is it untrue, but more women now call themselves pro-lifers than pro-choicers (49/44). Further evidence, as Ace says, that if there’s any truth to the claim that social cons are hurting the GOP, this issue ain’t the main cause of injury.

Update: An afterthought. If my theory of what’s driving this is correct, why were the numbers so hugely pro-choice in 1995, with Clinton in his first term? One possibility is that it was a backlash to the GOP congressional wave the year before, with voters suddenly worried that a Republican Congress might try to scale abortion way back. If so, then the current numbers don’t mean much at all since they’re basically just a reaction to whoever’s in power at the time.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

It is my opinion that views have changed towards abortion because the old leftist blathering that a fetus (baby) was just splitting cells and not a baby has been firmly put to bed with technological advancements that allows us to see a baby in all it’s stages of development. Looking at these images and saying this isn’t a baby – a human being – just doesn’t wash anymore. Hence the thought of killing it becomes particularly abhorrent and no longer viable as a “choice.”

Besides, let’s face it. Being pro-choice isn’t really choice. It’s pro-abortion. Nobody talks about the choice of keeping the baby – that’s called pro-life. Pro-choice is always about being able to kill your baby.

vapig on May 15, 2009 at 5:39 PM

At the risk of turning this into yet another Palin thread, be honest. If the interviews and debate and other Palin appearances had been seen on their own, without the relentless anti-Palin spin that came after each and every Palin appearance, do you think her poll numbers would have gone down? I say, no way.

ddrintn on May 15, 2009 at 5:29 PM

I’d imagine that the media will be around in 2012. The Reagan comparisons neglect the fact that the guy was probably the best there had been with the media. Even those who hated his positions were charmed by him on camera.

Palin freezing on the SCOTUS question was a bad moment, but one she could have compensated for if she could have demonstrated a deep understanding of other issues. Energy is probably one that would have worked. Unfortunately, oil near $150 was the hot topic a few months earlier and voters had moved on to banks collapsing by the fall campaign.

dedalus on May 15, 2009 at 5:39 PM

Yup, powerless.
You had 8 years to overturn Roe an nuthin’ happened.
Obama will get to appoint 3 supremes I bet.
Nah nah hey hey
Roe v Wade is here to stay
It doesn’t matter what they say
when they never vote that way!
hahaha!
strangelet on May 15, 2009 at 5:31 PM

Yeah – hell get to replace three liberal judges with another three liberal judges – that’ll make a lot of difference.
The tide is turning against you – get used to it.

dpierson on May 15, 2009 at 5:41 PM

I’d imagine that the media will be around in 2012. The Reagan comparisons neglect the fact that the guy was probably the best there had been with the media. Even those who hated his positions were charmed by him on camera.

dedalus on May 15, 2009 at 5:39 PM

Yeah, they will. And if Palin chooses to run, she will do so in her own campaign. I don’t know how Reagan’s acknowledged media wizardry worked out in 1976. Wasn’t he being called an unelectable madman by many at that time?

ddrintn on May 15, 2009 at 5:46 PM

Very bad pick for a headline – ‘For the first time…’ – maybe ‘first time since 1973′?

I don’t have the quant info here, but I’d be willing to bet that prior to 1973, the ‘first time’ was all of recorded history?

ElRonaldo on May 15, 2009 at 4:11 PM

It is for the first time since Gaqllup started asking this particular question. Literally the second sentence of the link states:

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.

anuts on May 15, 2009 at 5:57 PM

I have no idea what Gaqllup is.

anuts on May 15, 2009 at 5:57 PM

Yup, powerless.
You had 8 years to overturn Roe an nuthin’ happened.
Obama will get to appoint 3 supremes I bet.

Nah nah hey hey
Roe v Wade is here to stay
It doesn’t matter what they say
when they never vote that way!
hahaha!

strangelet on May 15, 2009 at 5:31 PM

What is it about abortion that would cause you to sing a celebratory tune?

anuts on May 15, 2009 at 6:00 PM

What is it about abortion that would cause you to sing a celebratory tune?

anuts on May 15, 2009 at 6:00 PM

A debased mind. reprobate. There is no perversion offensive to her.

daesleeper on May 15, 2009 at 6:05 PM

The tide is not turning against meh…..it is turning against you!
The tide is high but I’m holdin’ on
I’m going to be your number one!

If you look at the bigger picture of the Incredible Shrinking GOP over time, it’s striking: Since its 2004 heyday, the party appears to have lost roughly a forth of its base.

After I pointed out yesterday that the number of self-identified GOPers had dropped to 20%, an official with Pew Research sent over some new data dramatizing the larger trend. Take a look at this chart, which shows the party’s losses in self-identified Republicans since 2004:
[go to link for delicious graphics]
The number of self-identified Republicans has dropped from 30% in 2004, when President Bush won re-election and seemed to have a fairly stable Congressional majority, to 23% today. Since 2004, of course, Bush and the GOP’s policies caused his popularity to crater, triggering the loss of Congress in 2006, the White House in 2008, and the loss of “roughly a quarter” of the GOP’s base, as Pew puts it.

Self-identified Democrats, by contrast, have increased from 33% to 35% since 2004, which is not much of a gain and suggests that Dem numbers aren’t increasing as a result of GOP losses. Indeed, Pew also finds that since the beginning of the year the number of self-identified Democrats has dropped at the same rate as among Republicans, with Independents showing big gains.

But one other trend at work here is the gradual merging of the political views of Independents with those of Dems. So its unclear yet how detrimental the Dem losses will be to the party over time.

Either way, the larger picture of what’s happening to the Republican Party is really striking.

strangelet on May 15, 2009 at 6:17 PM

strangelet on May 15, 2009 at 6:17 PM

too bad you didn’t get aborted.

what a waste of space.

right4life on May 15, 2009 at 6:18 PM

What is it about abortion that would cause you to sing a celebratory tune?

anuts on May 15, 2009 at 6:00 PM

people like strangelove just LOVE abortion…especially partial birth abortion…cutting a hole in a babie’s head and sucking out the brains is better than sex to these evil scum…its the holiest sacrament of the dark god they worship…

right4life on May 15, 2009 at 6:20 PM

Nah nah hey hey
Roe v Wade is here to stay
It doesn’t matter what they say
when they never vote that way!
hahaha!

strangelet on May 15, 2009 at 5:31 PM

Strangelet, did you know during WWII at the concentration camps, the nazis’ literally threw babies into the air, as if they were skeet, and shot them?

God forbid this world ever goes to that again, but I suspect you’d have no problem with job performance, in that duty. You are a sick lil thing, and I will pray for you.

capejasmine on May 15, 2009 at 6:22 PM

Strangelet:

I am actually curious to know what would cause joy over abortion. An explanation would be most appreciated. Thanks in advance.

anuts on May 15, 2009 at 6:25 PM

Maybe it is just a natural swing, people do back and forth on certain issues. I think that people feel there are more and more ways to avoid pregnancy and so they are less likely to support terminating one. Just a guess.

Terrye on May 15, 2009 at 6:25 PM

people like strangelove just LOVE abortion…especially partial birth abortion…cutting a hole in a babie’s head and sucking out the brains is better than sex to these evil scum…its the holiest sacrament of the dark god they worship…

right4life on May 15, 2009 at 6:20 PM

It just breaks my heart, to see someone so enthusiastic over something, as wretched, and evil as abortion.

Shout from the mountain tops, how water boarding a confirmed terrorist, that killed 3,000 people, is immoral, but ripping the life, from an innocent baby is reason to sing. God help us all!

capejasmine on May 15, 2009 at 6:27 PM

strangelet:

Actually the overall numbers are going the way of the GOP. I know you do not believe Rasmussen which has the generic balloting at a parity, but even the RCP average is getting smaller.

Remember that when Reagan won the GOP was smaller than it is now. I think that Obama will make such a fine mess of things that people will go more to the right as his presidency drags on.

Terrye on May 15, 2009 at 6:28 PM

I always wanted children and could never have them. I could never understand why someone would think an abortion was a good thing, when childlessness is such a sad thing.

Terrye on May 15, 2009 at 6:29 PM

Ekshually, I am against third tri-abortions except in rape, incest, and health-of-the-mother-issues.
A six month old fetus has sufficient neocortical substrate for REM sleep.
But a differentiated cell clump is NOT a human life, most especially the differentiated cell clumps in terminal cryostasis.
As always, when I pick a side, I deliberately do not choose the bioluddite/ignorant/two-digit side.
You are not in my tribe.

strangelet on May 15, 2009 at 6:29 PM

Shout from the mountain tops, how water boarding a confirmed terrorist, that killed 3,000 people, is immoral, but ripping the life, from an innocent baby is reason to sing. God help us all!

capejasmine on May 15, 2009 at 6:27 PM

very true…there is no logical explanation for such a twisted morality….all I can figure is spiritual darkness…evil.

right4life on May 15, 2009 at 6:30 PM

Yeah, they will. And if Palin chooses to run, she will do so in her own campaign. I don’t know how Reagan’s acknowledged media wizardry worked out in 1976. Wasn’t he being called an unelectable madman by many at that time?

ddrintn on May 15, 2009 at 5:46 PM

Reagan almost knocked off the incumbent Ford in 1976. In 1980 he handled the media well against Carter. His “there you go again” jibe is one that candidates still try to emulate today, except few deliver it as well.

dedalus on May 15, 2009 at 6:30 PM

Ekshually, I am against third tri-abortions except in rape, incest, and health-of-the-mother-issues.

strangelet on May 15, 2009 at 6:29 PM

health of the mother….a dodge that if the mother is upset, or depressed or may get that way…she can kill the baby…see tiller the killer…

You are not in my tribe.

Thank God for that….hell waits..and you belong there…

right4life on May 15, 2009 at 6:32 PM

As always, when I pick a side, I deliberately do not choose the bioluddite/ignorant/two-digit side.
You are not in my tribe.

strangelet on May 15, 2009 at 6:29 PM

oh and since you’re constantly telling us how smart you are, and how dumb we are…how do you manage to look so STUPID with every post???

professing to be wise, they have become fools…

right4life on May 15, 2009 at 6:33 PM

You see….stupid.
You could easily get support for outlawing third tri-abortion except for maternal health, rape and incest. But you don’t want that.
You want to scream blue murder about hESCR. PBA and Nazis and the morning after pill.
So you just look like stupid frothers, and people like me just walk away shaking our heads, and decide it’s better its better to leave Roe in place than to let you sociopaths socons turn the country into a modern Handmaid’s Tale.

strangelet on May 15, 2009 at 6:38 PM

strangelet on May 15, 2009 at 6:38 PM

oh yeah that was a real devestating comeback there Jethro!!

I just notice people like you sure don’t us voting on the issue…oh no keep it in the courts, where our ‘betters’ can dictate to us…

cause you lose every time…just like gay marriage 30-0…but then you wackos aren’t big on democracy…

as far as Nazis…well if the JACKBOOTS fit honey!!!

right4life on May 15, 2009 at 6:41 PM

strangelet on May 15, 2009 at 6:29 PM

Was that addressed to me? You’ll pardon me if I wasn’t sure. I am quite interested in having a actual discussion (sans attacks) with someone who (as I perceived) was celebrating abortions. I cannot fathom even a person who is pro choice believing that an abortion would cause any amount of joy.

anuts on May 15, 2009 at 6:44 PM

Was that addressed to me? You’ll pardon me if I wasn’t sure. I am quite interested in having a actual discussion (sans attacks) with someone who (as I perceived) was celebrating abortions. I cannot fathom even a person who is pro choice believing that an abortion would cause any amount of joy.
anuts on May 15, 2009 at 6:44 PM

She lacks the ability for anything requiring actual thought.

dpierson on May 15, 2009 at 6:51 PM

people like me just walk away shaking our heads, and decide it’s better its better to leave Roe in place than to let you sociopaths socons turn the country into a modern Handmaid’s Tale.

strangelet on May 15, 2009 at 6:38 PM

People like you though are a teeny minority. You’re fringe, face it.

By the way, self-identified Republicans have been “strikingly” few for quite a while. Yet they’ve won how many of the past presidential elections?

ddrintn on May 15, 2009 at 7:06 PM

You could easily get support for outlawing third tri-abortion except for maternal health, rape and incest.

strangelet on May 15, 2009 at 6:38 PM

There are women seeking abortions in the 3rd trimester because they were previously unaware that they had been raped or a victim of incest?

myrenovations on May 15, 2009 at 7:30 PM

But a differentiated cell clump is NOT a human life

Says who? You??? Science? God? The baby?

Hey! IF that’s what you have to tell yourself, so you can sleep at night….go for it. But one day, you will have to face God, and when he asks you why….what are you going to tell him?

capejasmine on May 15, 2009 at 7:35 PM

people like me just walk away shaking our heads, and decide it’s better its better to leave Roe in place than to let you sociopaths socons turn the country into a modern Handmaid’s Tale.

strangelet on May 15, 2009 at 6:38 PM

So why stop with babies? Why not off infants, toddlers, tweens, teens, adults? If murder is so easy, then why have laws that forbid it?

capejasmine on May 15, 2009 at 7:36 PM

I saw this poll today. We were having this discussion the other night. I am not surprised at all by the poll. Abortion is simply no longer fashionable.

The right won this one.

AnninCA on May 15, 2009 at 7:37 PM

strangelet on May 15, 2009 at 6:29 PM

The tone of your remarks and the particular way you use reported laboratory observations make you seem too obtuse or even Aspergerist to be a capable judge of these matters, so my reply to you may benefit others, but you perhaps not at all. However, the distinctions you make at points along a baby’s developmental path are largely irrelevant to the issue. Abortion is specific to a very important and much more general problem. Literary images may or, as I’ve said, may not help you see what I mean. Drs. Moreau, Frankenstein, and Strangelove are on one side and the rest of us are on the other side. It’s up to you to choose between those sides. Know that even if you favor the Doctors, they have no obligation to favor you other than at their whim. As for the rest of us, given what you’ve already written, it’s up to you to prove that you are not, after all, the dirty Tleilaxu you seem to be.

Kralizec on May 15, 2009 at 7:44 PM

If murder is so easy, then why have laws that forbid it?

capejasmine on May 15, 2009 at 7:36 PM

It’s partly because murder is so easy that the laws forbid it.

Kralizec on May 15, 2009 at 7:48 PM

How does one comment on headlines? I’ve only been there when someone linked to the comments. It’s okay you can call me an idiot for not knowing. Just answer.

petunia on May 15, 2009 at 7:52 PM

I am incredulous enough to believe that Sarah Palin was entirely responsible for this swing in voter perception but I am also of the firm belief that SP articlulates a pro-life position in such a way that is like no other and thus has the ability to convince women and men sitting on the proverbial fence regarding abortion or those who assumed a pro-choice position out of fashion or peer pressure to give the issue a serious second look and perhaps come to realize that their position was not logically thought out to begin with.

technopeasant on May 15, 2009 at 7:56 PM

The main thing I took away from the Gallup results were how absolutely irrelevant the RINOs should be.

They’re driving the party to the left, why exactly? To ditch all the Christian Conservatives who support crazy, far-out ideas like being Pro-life?

12thMonkey on May 15, 2009 at 8:00 PM

strangelet on May 15, 2009 at 6:29 PM

You mistakenly think your line is less arbitrary than others.

exception on May 15, 2009 at 8:01 PM

I saw this poll today. We were having this discussion the other night. I am not surprised at all by the poll. Abortion is simply no longer fashionable.

The right won this one.

AnninCA on May 15, 2009 at 7:37 PM

I’ll set aside the problem that your victory announcement is premature with just the passing comment that it is premature.

More may be at work here than “simply” a change of fashion. It’s possible that abortions themselves have helped decrease the tendencies according to which it seems many must feel a need for abortion. For a few decades, the women who are impetuous enough to get pregnant and anxious enough or callous enough to kill their babies have been–killing their babies. If impetuosity, anxiety, and callousness are heritable traits, abortion’s natural proponents have spent decades killing the next generation of its natural proponents. On that basis, I’ll be a little sorry to see it go.

Kralizec on May 15, 2009 at 8:12 PM

I saw this poll today. We were having this discussion the other night. I am not surprised at all by the poll. Abortion is simply no longer fashionable.

The right won this one.

AnninCA on May 15, 2009 at 7:37 PM

Fashion can’t be all there is or when the “styles” change then abortion becomes the fashion again.

Pro-choice was popular because of the horror stories a generation or two ago about women in poor and desperate circumstances dying by coat hanger etc. That was a strong image that still is used but so few today have any direct experience of those times.

And the compassionate masses could relate to the unfortunate woman used by the heartless male… and in need of medical answers.

But medicine has stepped in and given us pictures of the real victim. It is no longer hypithitical that under that belly there is a human. It is there sometimes in 3-D images! And the hidden human has a gender and most importantly a NAME!

Now science supports the idea that the child in the womb feels pain, has facial expression, and has a personality along with a gender.

You can’t even find gender neutral baby clothes anymore. A newborn isn’t an unknown blob we know him/her before birth.

Baby showers used to be given when the baby was about 2-3 weeks old or so because we didn’t know the gender… Now the shower can be months before birth. And the baby’s name is on the invite.

Pregnancy in everyday life includes a named human now. That is just a fact.

Ultra sound has to be credited for making progress in recognizing those first stirrings and kicks as an actual human.

Yikes! That reminds me. I missed a shower last week I need to drop this present off before the little guy is born!

petunia on May 15, 2009 at 8:15 PM

How does one comment on headlines? I’ve only been there when someone linked to the comments. It’s okay you can call me an idiot for not knowing. Just answer.

petunia on May 15, 2009 at 7:52 PM

Click the little icon to the right of the given headline. It appears either as a tiny pair of speech balloons or as a number indicating how many comments have already been posted.

Kralizec on May 15, 2009 at 8:16 PM

Kralizec on May 15, 2009 at 8:16 PM

Thanks!

petunia on May 15, 2009 at 8:19 PM

Kralizec on May 15, 2009 at 8:16 PM

I see the number! I feel so stupid! I thought is was a page number or something! Thanks again.

petunia on May 15, 2009 at 8:22 PM

The Pro-Choice side of this debate should be, by all accounts, heavily winning this debate. It’s the supposedly fashionable side, they’ve got the media and Hollywood in their corner… why haven’t they put this one away yet?

One answer, which was mentioned above, is technology. Our ability to actually see inside the womb during pregnancy is dispelling a lot of false notions about when and how a fetus becomes a person.

Quick story: I has taken a previous girlfriend on a date to the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago, and one portion of the museum had a display of fetal development during various stages, all shown by real fetuses under glass.

My girlfriend was very much pro-choice, and was really amazed by what she saw. I remember her hanging around that area for a half-hour almost, marvelling at the little features of these tiny creatures’ faces and hands at very early stages of growth.

Two weeks later, out of the blue, she told me she could no longer be pro-choice, except maybe, very early on.

Technology, as in most areas of our lives, is a wonderful thing. The more information that we can get out, about everything, the more our side wins.

12thMonkey on May 15, 2009 at 8:25 PM

Kralizec

Your point about the abortions killing the babies who would have grown up like their mothers. Is a good one. I have thought for awhile that the demographics of who has children and who doesn’t would swing the country towards conservatives… but that has yet to happen. I guess we will see.

Child bearing as politics is a weird thought now isn’t it.

petunia on May 15, 2009 at 8:25 PM

Just my two cents; I think the recent discussion of Obama’s voting record in favor of late term, partial birth abortions and the botched abortion thing have disgusted most of us. Not to mention, first out of the shoot was Federal funding of abortions overseas.
This, IMO, is a step too far and reasonable people are revolted by Mr. O’s stance on these matters.
I support abortion in the first trimester and up to a year ago I would have identified as pro-choice. Not any more as the discussion has become obscene, quite frankly. Now if someone were to ask I would say I am pro-life.

Babs on May 15, 2009 at 9:21 PM

As for the rest of us, given what you’ve already written, it’s up to you to prove that you are not, after all, the dirty Tleilaxu you seem to be.

Kralizec on May 15, 2009 at 7:44 PM

lol, I’m Bene Gesserit born and bred. The Bene Tleilax have no women. They breed in vats.

This is the awe-inspiring universe of magic: There are no atoms, only waves and motions all around. Here, you discard all belief in barriers to understanding. You put aside understanding itself. This universe cannot be seen, cannot be heard, cannot be detected in any way by fixed perceptions. It is the ultimate void where no preordained screens occur upon which forms may be projected. You have only one awareness here — the screen of the magi: Imagination! Here, you learn what it is to be human. You are a creator of order, of beautiful shapes and systems, an organizer of chaos.
The Atreides Manifesto, Bene Gesserit Archives

strangelet on May 15, 2009 at 11:50 PM

I support abortion in the first trimester and up to a year ago I would have identified as pro-choice. Not any more as the discussion has become obscene, quite frankly. Now if someone were to ask I would say I am pro-life.

Babs on May 15, 2009 at 9:21 PM

I can relate to this in a sense, although it was quite a few years ago. I always felt that I had a unique way of reaching my current (and final) position. As odd as it may sound, the very same reasoning I used as a supposed pro choicer is in fact, the same reasoning I came about to be pro life. It was under the:

“there cannot be found an agreement upon the many scientists, doctors, theologians, philosophers, etc. at which an answer to the ‘when does life begin’ question. Because so, it seems we cannot actually know when life begins.”

Admittedly, there was a time in my life when this was true justification for my old position. Then, after serious reflection over the issue and after finding religion again (specifically accepting Christ as my Lord and Saviour), I realized something. A true paradigm shift. Because life (or really a soul) enters a body at some point in the womb, one side of the issue is wrong. Wrong in the sense of timing. The question I asked myself that gave me literal physical chills was this:

“If one side is wrong, which would you rather have on your conscience?”

It begs of compassion and decency, I understand. But that’s humanity for us.

Apologies for the rant.

anuts on May 16, 2009 at 12:09 AM

would swing the country towards conservatives… but that has yet to happen. I guess we will see.

Child bearing as politics is a weird thought now isn’t it.

petunia on May 15, 2009 at 8:25 PM

nevah happen.
Your children will be atheists, like Allah says….at least the smart ones.
And the beautiful ones.
You see….your chidren that are intellectually gifted or talented or beautiful…..become one with the elite.
Hollywood is made up of atheists and scientologists.
lol

strangelet on May 16, 2009 at 12:17 AM

I was listening to Medved discussing this poll today…

One possible explanation: The Left has been rollicking in the baby-killing fields for so long now, and it is so much ingrained in their psyches, and into the psyches of the remaining kids they don’t kill off… That it is all becoming self-limiting. Those who support abortion “rights” will become a smaller and smaller fraction of society as they “exercise” their choice to wipe themselves out.

Thus, a larger percentage of society that remains will naturally be pro-life.

Ain’t “natural” selection grand?

seanrobins on May 16, 2009 at 12:45 AM

If so, then the current numbers don’t mean much at all since they’re basically just a reaction to whoever’s in power at the time.

This statement from ellafunditz, and the whole speel at the head of this comment line is an example of how defense lawyers try to sway a jury that their client on trial for murder is really just misunderstood.

Hey ellfunditz: Figure it out — a majority humans do not like the killing of tens of thousand un-born humans.

I am wonder if you mother had any children that lived?

jarhead0311 on May 16, 2009 at 6:03 AM

atheists and their children (those that survive) will become MUSLIM….LOL

right4life on May 16, 2009 at 10:20 AM

In times of economic distress,people turn to more conservative values.Maybe that is why Obama is destoying the economy,to hasten Islamic take-over.After all,there is nothing liberal about Sharia.

DDT on May 16, 2009 at 11:04 AM

atheists and their children (those that survive) will become MUSLIM….LOL

right4life on May 16, 2009 at 10:20 AM

Ironic, ain’t it? LOL

In times of economic distress,people turn to more conservative values.

DDT on May 16, 2009 at 11:04 AM

They didn’t last November.

ddrintn on May 16, 2009 at 12:44 PM

Ekshually, I am against third tri-abortions except in rape, incest, and health-of-the-mother-issues.
A six month old fetus has sufficient neocortical substrate for REM sleep.
But a differentiated cell clump is NOT a human life, most especially the differentiated cell clumps in terminal cryostasis.
As always, when I pick a side, I deliberately do not choose the bioluddite/ignorant/two-digit side.
You are not in my tribe.

strangelet on May 15, 2009 at 6:29 PM

A wonderful fog of misathropic words. It hides a utter lack of moral decisions.

If you wish to make it a debate about pure biology, the evidence has started to swing heavily towards the child in the womb being human (it seems almost redundant to say). Notice that doctors will NOT come out and say definitively where life starts, because to do so is to define where abortion ends and murder begins.

If you wish to argue the LEGAL side, the purpose of the law is to error on the side of caution. If there is a reasonable chance that a child in the womb is human, then they have individual rights.

I go along with the thought Ed brought up, that Obama is so horrifically radical (his support of partial birth abortions), he has swung the definition of what it means to be pro-choice to something too extreme for Americans.

Thanks Obama.

itsspideyman on May 17, 2009 at 11:51 AM

Comment pages: 1 2