Support for abortion drops to record low

posted at 11:21 am on May 23, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

A new Gallup poll shows that the pro-life position has once again reclaimed — narrowly — the majority among American adults.  Support for abortion dropped to its lowest level in the 18-year polling series, and the pro-life view gained among all partisan groups:

The 41% of Americans who now identify themselves as “pro-choice” is down from 47% last July and is one percentage point below the previous record low in Gallup trends, recorded in May 2009. Fifty percent now call themselves “pro-life,” one point shy of the record high, also from May 2009.

Gallup began asking Americans to define themselves as pro-choice or pro-life on abortion in 1995, and since then, identification with the labels has shifted from a wide lead for the pro-choice position in the mid-1990s, to a generally narrower lead for “pro-choice” — from 1998 through 2008 — to a close division between the two positions since 2009. However, in the last period, Gallup has found the pro-life position significantly ahead on two occasions, once in May 2009 and again today. It remains to be seen whether the pro-life spike found this month proves temporary, as it did in 2009, or is sustained for some period.

Actually, the trending on this has been in motion for several years, as the Gallup chart demonstrates:

This could reverse in the future, but the overall trend is falling support for abortion and rising support for pro-life positions.  The same trend can be seen in the partisan demos.  Republicans have backed the pro-life position all along, but support for abortion ran in the 30s until 2009, and has now declined to a new low of 22%.  The change has been less dramatic among Democrats, but support for abortion dropped to 58% in this poll, a decline of ten points in the last year and the lowest since 2003.  Independents now favor the pro-life position 47/41, a dramatic shift from last years’ 51/41 support for abortion, and the trend lines for independents roughly mirror the trends of the overall population.

We are seeing a societal shift in attitudes in abortion.  While a majority believe that abortion should be legal under certain circumstances, that number has been slowly drifting downward over the series, too, although the “legal in any circumstance” proportion has held steady in the mid-20s.  People seem more willing to identify as pro-life despite an overwhelming media and cultural bias in favor of abortion as a liberty issue.  With the US conducting over a million abortions every year and people gain a clearer understanding of the development of children in utero, the practice cannot help seem more and more barbaric.  We may still see some hiccups and occasional spikes in the wrong direction, but the long-term prospects for abortion support look almost as grim as abortion itself.


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 3

*waves to Est* Wow, it’s like a reunion or something, I don’t see y’all too often anymore :P

JetBoy on May 23, 2012 at 12:53 PM

Missed you too, Jet! How’ve you been?

Esthier on May 23, 2012 at 12:59 PM

Oh, do elaborate. We’re waiting with bated breath for your insight as to why people disliking the killing of children preborn human beings is sad.

MadisonConservative on May 23, 2012 at 12:52 PM

FIFY ;)

Logus on May 23, 2012 at 12:59 PM

Link it too us, and then tell us why being against prenatal murder is sad development.

NotCoach on May 23, 2012 at 12:57 PM

http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2012/confirmed/final.pdf

libfreeordie on May 23, 2012 at 12:59 PM

Ahh, good to see MadCon hasn’t lost his snark :)

*waves to Est* Wow, it’s like a reunion or something, I don’t see y’all too often anymore :P

JetBoy on May 23, 2012 at 12:53 PM

Unfortunately, the site has jumped the shark. The community is overrun with Romney fanatics who attempt to destroy any critics of the self-identified anti-gun pro-choice progressive engineer of ObamaCare, the atmosphere is downright toxic with the combat twixt partisan loyalists and conservative hardliners, and the energy is just absent as we realize that nothing will be “won” in November with regards to the White House.

Combine all that with what seems like a record level of liberal trolling…and well, that’s why I made my own site(which I subsequently abandoned because I chose to open it right before my job started ensuring I would have no free time to work on it).

MadisonConservative on May 23, 2012 at 12:59 PM

The whole goal is to encourage that people have less sex. Its about control over private sexual choices and its working.

libfreeordie on May 23, 2012 at 12:58 PM

If your only goal is to have more sex, lay off trolling and start going out more. Take up some sports, too.

Archivarix on May 23, 2012 at 1:00 PM

Also wonder if Ed et al is going to post on the new study which finds Fox viewers are the least informed and NPR listeners the most informed on current events and basic knowledge.

libfreeordie on May 23, 2012 at 12:55 PM

And all you can do is deflect and attack opposing ideology en masse with off-topic slush. How predictable.

MadisonConservative on May 23, 2012 at 1:01 PM

Because the state is claiming the right to control women’s reproduction and less and less responsibility to aid parents who are financially unable to care for additional children. The whole goal is to encourage that people have less sex. Its about control over private sexual choices and its working.

libfreeordie on May 23, 2012 at 12:58 PM

WTH does any of that have to do with being against prenatal murder? Please try to focus.

NotCoach on May 23, 2012 at 1:01 PM

Also wonder if Ed et al is going to post on the new study which finds Fox viewers are the least informed and NPR listeners the most informed on current events and basic knowledge.

libfreeordie on May 23, 2012 at 12:55 PM

Define “informed”? And also “basic knowledge”. Both can be very subjective. And it seems strange that the Left is always crying about FOX News, but not a peep about any blatant bias at MSNBC…and yes, NPR…which shouldn’t be getting tax dollars either. It amounts to state-sponsored “news”.

JetBoy on May 23, 2012 at 1:01 PM

Archivarix on May 23, 2012 at 12:54 PM

So… ~ five weeks gestation is your cutoff?

Sliding scales and all that…

Logus on May 23, 2012 at 1:02 PM

Because the state is claiming the right to control women’s reproduction and less and less responsibility to aid parents who are financially unable to care for additional children. The whole goal is to encourage that people have less sex. Its about control over private sexual choices and its working.

libfreeordie on May 23, 2012 at 12:58 PM

News flash: once you’ve conceived, you’ve reproduced. No government body or law prevents that. So, no…the state has done nothing to control women’s reproduction.

What is becoming less popular is the idea that women should be able to kill their already-conceived children…which you have yet to describe in such a way as to be “sad”.

MadisonConservative on May 23, 2012 at 1:03 PM

News flash: once you’ve conceived, you’ve reproduced.

So the morning after pill is murder?

libfreeordie on May 23, 2012 at 1:05 PM

What is becoming less popular is the idea that women should be able to kill their already-conceived children…which you have yet to describe in such a way as to be “sad”.

MadisonConservative on May 23, 2012 at 1:03 PM

I think women’s loss of control over when and where they become mothers is sad. Not just for those individual parents, but society as a whole.

libfreeordie on May 23, 2012 at 1:06 PM

I cannot speak for God…but I’m guessing he wouldn’t approve of that either. Not the God I know, anyway.

JetBoy on May 23, 2012 at 12:57 PM

I’m honestly not sure about that. Ultimately, it just makes me wish we had perfect artificial wombs and could render this entire argument moot.

Esthier on May 23, 2012 at 1:07 PM

I think women’s loss of control over when and where they become mothers is sad. Not just for those individual parents, but society as a whole.

libfreeordie on May 23, 2012 at 1:06 PM

Well, if this is so beneficial for society, why shouldn’t we expand that choice to men as well?

Esthier on May 23, 2012 at 1:08 PM

http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2012/confirmed/final.pdf

libfreeordie on May 23, 2012 at 12:59 PM

100 people? Really?

NotCoach on May 23, 2012 at 1:09 PM

So the morning after pill is murder?

libfreeordie on May 23, 2012 at 1:05 PM

When did I use the word “murder”?

I think women’s loss of control over when and where they become mothers is sad. Not just for those individual parents, but society as a whole.

libfreeordie on May 23, 2012 at 1:06 PM

Women have total control over when and where they become mothers. It’s called birth control. Pretty simple, I should think.

If they choose to be reckless, then, by definition, they are forfeiting their control. Unless you’re in favor of using abortion as birth control, then your argument holds no water. If you are in favor of using abortion as birth control, then you’re a monster.

MadisonConservative on May 23, 2012 at 1:10 PM

So the morning after pill is murder?

libfreeordie on May 23, 2012 at 1:05 PM

Preventing implantation is only one method side affect. It’s far more effective if used before conception, which can be a multi day process. It all depends on when the woman ovulates.

Esthier on May 23, 2012 at 1:10 PM

So the morning after pill is murder?

libfreeordie on May 23, 2012 at 1:05 PM

Duh. Yes. Since it can be an abortifaecant, yes. A human being is formed/created at fertilization, NOT implantation… which is what at the very least the morning after pill tries to prevent. Either way, if a human being has been conceived and the pill is then taken, that human life will likely then die.

Logus on May 23, 2012 at 1:10 PM

I think women’s loss of control over when and where they become mothers is sad. Not just for those individual parents, but society as a whole.

libfreeordie on May 23, 2012 at 1:06 PM

And by the way…what about father’s control over when and where they become fathers? Do you give a damn about that? Should a woman be able to abort against the father’s wishes?

MadisonConservative on May 23, 2012 at 1:11 PM

Well, if this is so beneficial for society, why shouldn’t we expand that choice to men as well?

Esthier on May 23, 2012 at 1:08 PM

I eagerly await the day male birth control pills become widely available. Then they have all the choices in the world about when they become dads (they can also throw on a condom, and as the one with a penis have more control over the covering of said penis, and maintenance of covering during the act than a woman does). But women carry the child, give birth to the child and due to a host of biological and cultural norms are charged with the vast majority of childcare. Therefore the power and choice should lie with them.

libfreeordie on May 23, 2012 at 1:11 PM

So the morning after pill is murder?

libfreeordie on May 23, 2012 at 1:05 PM

Yes, if it kills a fertilzed egg. Next question.

Trafalgar on May 23, 2012 at 1:11 PM

So the morning after pill is murder?

libfreeordie on May 23, 2012 at 1:05 PM

Yes.

I think women’s loss of control over when and where they become mothers is sad. Not just for those individual parents, but society as a whole.

libfreeordie on May 23, 2012 at 1:06 PM

How exactly is a woman not in control of when she becomes a mother if abortion is illegal?

NotCoach on May 23, 2012 at 1:11 PM

“Because the state is claiming the right to control women’s reproduction”

Women are trying to reproduce themselves? Did I miss something and is cloning legal?

The whole goal is to encourage that people have less sex

And less grammar as well. Stupid state.

Its about control over private sexual choices

If you think sex and abortion are the same thing, you are confused.

NoDonkey on May 23, 2012 at 1:13 PM

Combine all that with what seems like a record level of liberal trolling…and well, that’s why I made my own site(which I subsequently abandoned because I chose to open it right before my job started ensuring I would have no free time to work on it).

MadisonConservative on May 23, 2012 at 12:59 PM

When haven’t there been liberal trolls? Heck, I’ve been called one numerous times over the years :P

Miss that MC snark tho, even when it was aimed in my direction…

I’m honestly not sure about that. Ultimately, it just makes me wish we had perfect artificial wombs and could render this entire argument moot.

Esthier on May 23, 2012 at 1:07 PM

Now that throws a wrench into the whole works :P

I know it’s way OT, but looks as if I was right about the whole Zimmerman/Martin shooting after all, with witnesses suddenly changing their descriptions of what happened that night.

JetBoy on May 23, 2012 at 1:14 PM

I think women’s loss of control over when and where they become mothers is sad.

libfreeordie on May 23, 2012 at 1:06 PM

Women have all kinds of ways to control when and where they become mothers. When they have already conceived a child is not the time to start thinking about it. They are already mothers at that point.

Trafalgar on May 23, 2012 at 1:14 PM

If you think sex and abortion are the same thing, you are confused.

NoDonkey on May 23, 2012 at 1:13 PM

For some people, they are, hence Madison’s comments about convincing those on the fence exactly what’s being debated.

Esthier on May 23, 2012 at 1:15 PM

So… ~ five weeks gestation is your cutoff?

Sliding scales and all that…

Logus on May 23, 2012 at 1:02 PM

Something like that, yes. Same five weeks should also cover most rape and incest cases, to avoid the controversy which is not as popular as a general pro-life approach. Once heartbeat is detectable – and with today’s technology, there is ambivalence on that – no abortion should be allowed short of qualified medical panel’s conclusion that birth will put the mother’s life in immediate danger.

Archivarix on May 23, 2012 at 1:16 PM

100 people? Really?

NotCoach on May 23, 2012 at 1:09 PM

Who are you to argue with SCIENCE?!?

:)

DRPrice on May 23, 2012 at 1:16 PM

If they choose to be reckless, then, by definition, they are forfeiting their control.

And here we come down to the rub of it. Women who are reckless lose control over their bodies and the entire course of their lives. As always within conservative rhetoric the assumption is that women have a greater responsibility to be celibate, to be pure, chaste and not be “bad girls.” This is the same rhetoric that undergirds Bill O’Reilly when he yells at girls for dressing provocatively and walking “where they shouldn’t be” after a rape. Being reckless is, apparently, a privilege that is reserved for boys, not girls. And can we also just come to grips with the fact that women are biologically able to reproduce long before they finish maturing mentally and before they are even legal adults. To cavalierly say “you shouldn’t have been a stupid slut” in response to an unwanted pregnancy is the height of misogyny. And make no mistake, that’s exactly what you are saying when you argue that recklessness should lead to the burden of motherhood. Though you claim to not view motherhood as a punishment, your language speaks for yourself. You believe girls shouldn’t be allowed to get off scott free with reckless sexual activity, they should be punished.

Unless you’re in favor of using abortion as birth control, then your argument holds no water. If you are in favor of using abortion as birth control, then you’re a monster.

Why? That’s what abortion is meant to do.

libfreeordie on May 23, 2012 at 1:16 PM

Now that throws a wrench into the whole works :P

Exactly. I don’t want to make it illegal. I want to make it irrelevant.

I know it’s way OT, but looks as if I was right about the whole Zimmerman/Martin shooting after all, with witnesses suddenly changing their descriptions of what happened that night.

JetBoy on May 23, 2012 at 1:14 PM

What were you right about? I must have missed it earlier.

Esthier on May 23, 2012 at 1:17 PM

So… ~ five weeks gestation is your cutoff?

Sliding scales and all that…

Logus on May 23, 2012 at 1:02 PM

Something like that, yes. Same five weeks should also cover most rape and incest cases, to avoid the controversy which is not as popular as a general pro-life approach. Once heartbeat is detectable – and with today’s technology, there is NO ambivalence on that – no abortion should be allowed short of qualified medical panel’s conclusion that birth will put the mother’s life in immediate danger.

(had to fix it, sorry)

Archivarix on May 23, 2012 at 1:17 PM

When haven’t there been liberal trolls? Heck, I’ve been called one numerous times over the years :P

JetBoy on May 23, 2012 at 1:14 PM

You’ve never been a liberal troll. Just an oompa-loompa lover with hat on their breath. :P

MadisonConservative on May 23, 2012 at 1:17 PM

libfreeordie on May 23, 2012 at 1:16 PM

Take a pill before assuming a leg-spread position. Is it too much to ask of a modern woman?

Archivarix on May 23, 2012 at 1:20 PM

100 people? Really?

NotCoach on May 23, 2012 at 1:09 PM

You’re adding illiteracy to your skills now? The survey is of over 1000 people.

libfreeordie on May 23, 2012 at 1:20 PM

100 people? Really?

NotCoach on May 23, 2012 at 1:09 PM

The survey by Fairleigh Dickinson University’s PublicMind was conducted by telephone from Feb. 6 through Feb.
12, 2012, using a randomly selected sample of 1185 adult residents

Did you even read the link?

libfreeordie on May 23, 2012 at 1:21 PM

That’s what abortion is meant to do.

libfreeordie on May 23, 2012 at 1:16 PM

How vile. Killing innocent life is justified as a form of birth control? The problem you, and strident pro-abortionists, have is that you see children as an inconvenient side effect of having sex, and having as much sex as possible, with as many partners as possible, is your goal…because it feels good. Pregnancy to you is a minor medical annoyance, like jock itch, that can be “cured’ with a quick swipe of a suction hose. Disgusting.

Trafalgar on May 23, 2012 at 1:22 PM

As always within conservative rhetoric the assumption is that women have a greater responsibility to be celibate, to be pure, chaste and not be “bad girls.”

libfreeordie on May 23, 2012 at 1:16 PM

Well, libs are arguing the opposite. You claim lower down that it’s somehow OK for men to be reckless, but how so? The men have no say whatsoever once the woman is pregnant, no matter how she got pregnant (even if she lied about being infertile or intentionally gave her partner damaged condoms – doesn’t matter).

Nor can a man decide to be a father if the woman says no. He has no say whatsoever after deciding to have sex. But somehow it’s wrong to force women to live up to the same standard. We can’t be equal to men. We have to have more rights, because apparently you think we’re incapable of being responsible.

Esthier on May 23, 2012 at 1:22 PM

Unless you’re in favor of using abortion as birth control, then your argument holds no water. If you are in favor of using abortion as birth control, then you’re a monster.

MadisonConservative on May 23, 2012 at 1:10 PM

Isn’t it obvious that lfod is arguing precisely that? That’s really what the hard left uses it for–e.g., that horrible mother of four featured in the NYT a few weeks ago, and Amy “No Costco Mayo For Me” Richards.

The hard cases are just what they use to sell it to the rubes.

DRPrice on May 23, 2012 at 1:22 PM

The problem you, and strident pro-abortionists, have is that you see children as an inconvenient side effect of having sex, and having as much sex as possible, with as many partners as possible, is your goal…because it feels good.

I’m glad you’re admitting that this is all about your own bitterness at other people’s sexual pleasure.

libfreeordie on May 23, 2012 at 1:24 PM

I know it’s way OT, but looks as if I was right about the whole Zimmerman/Martin shooting after all, with witnesses suddenly changing their descriptions of what happened that night.

JetBoy on May 23, 2012 at 1:14 PM

AFAIC, that makes all of those witnesses accounts worthless. When you start second guessing yourself, changing your account. Which one is the correct one? The account you gave shortly following the incident or the one two months after the fact once you’ve had time to “reflect” and be affected by “life” (environment)?

If the defense has any sense, when it comes time for the trial, they’ll ask for all of those testimonies that have been changed to be stricken from evidence. If not, then the defense can chew them up on the witness stand and spit them out.

All the defense has to do is show doubt. Changed witness accounts lends more for consideration of doubt in my estimation.

Logus on May 23, 2012 at 1:26 PM

libfreeordie on May 23, 2012 at 1:16 PM
Take a pill before assuming a leg-spread position. Is it too much to ask of a modern woman?

Archivarix on May 23, 2012 at 1:20 PM

If we truly cared about women and liberty, we would hire a government worker to go to her house and pop a pill in her mouth every morning.

And maybe make a nice bowl of yogurt and fruit. With some granola sprinkles.

NoDonkey on May 23, 2012 at 1:26 PM

I’m glad you’re admitting that this is all about your own bitterness at other people’s sexual pleasure.

libfreeordie on May 23, 2012 at 1:24 PM

You’re the one who won’t stop talking about it.

Esthier on May 23, 2012 at 1:26 PM

Did you even read the link?

libfreeordie on May 23, 2012 at 1:21 PM

Oh, so it’s a liberal self-affirmation study involving 1185 people, not 100. My bad. Since you’re linking to the press release, it’s safe to say you haven’t checked the cross tabs and controls.

Yeah, that’s a lot better. In the absence of brandishing something more than liberal comfort-food press releases, I’m going with the same GIGO as the spate of recent neo-phrenology studies performed on conservatives.

DRPrice on May 23, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Nor can a man decide to be a father if the woman says no. He has no say whatsoever after deciding to have sex. But somehow it’s wrong to force women to live up to the same standard. We can’t be equal to men. We have to have more rights, because apparently you think we’re incapable of being responsible.

Esthier on May 23, 2012 at 1:22 PM

Did you read the post I wrote in response to you earlier above? Women have greater control over the choice because its *their* body that goes through pregnancy. And also a host of cultural norms as well as the biological maternal instinct has made it such that women, more often than not, are the sole caregivers if a man chooses not to engage in his parental responsibilities. Suing for child support is an incredibly difficult thing to do, and whether succesful or not, mothers still end up with the primary childcare responsibility. If a man chooses to be a caregiver that is great, and yes men also have a set of choices to make. They can choose to not engage in vaginal intercourse, they can choose to wrap it up. But once the woman is pregnant she is the one to make the final choice about whether to give birth. She and she alone. Not you, not I, not the Congress. Its her decision.

libfreeordie on May 23, 2012 at 1:28 PM

You’re adding illiteracy to your skills now? The survey is of over 1000 people.

libfreeordie on May 23, 2012 at 1:20 PM

My mistake.

And here we come down to the rub of it. Women who are reckless lose control over their bodies and the entire course of their lives.

libfreeordie on May 23, 2012 at 1:16 PM

Is a person who loses control of their vehicle not responsible for the results? And it seems to me a woman who got pregnant is in far more control of their destiny then a person who makes a mistake at the wheel of their car.

But none of that matters anyways. What about the unborn child? What about that child’s right to life? At what pint is it OK to trump an unborn child’s right to life in order to protect the right of a mother to not be inconvenienced?

NotCoach on May 23, 2012 at 1:29 PM

I’m glad you’re admitting that this is all about your own bitterness at other people’s sexual pleasure.

libfreeordie on May 23, 2012 at 1:24 PM

Sayeth the genius who expects a subsidized sex life. Perhaps if you stopped dropping your genitals into every conversation, you’d get a better reaction to your world view. Otherwise, you just come across as a creepy obsessive.

DRPrice on May 23, 2012 at 1:30 PM

Take a pillUnderstand science/fact that sex can create human life before assuming a leg-spread position. Is it too much to ask of a modern woman?

Archivarix on May 23, 2012 at 1:20 PM

FIFY… of course, that demands that individuals taking part in sex accept that they’re personally culpable and responsible for their actions.

Logus on May 23, 2012 at 1:30 PM

And here we come down to the rub of it. Women who are reckless lose control over their bodies and the entire course of their lives. As always within conservative rhetoric the assumption is that women have a greater responsibility to be celibate, to be pure, chaste and not be “bad girls.”

Knock it off with the victimhood s**t. Are women equal to men in our society or not? If so, then they are responsible for their actions. This is the ultimate pathetic hypocrisy of what the women’s lib movement has decomposed into. You want the rights, but you don’t want the responsibility that goes with them. Grow up. I support the legality of abortion, but I sure as s**t refuse to go along with the charade that abortion is anything other than a gruesome, horrific procedure that should be as rare as possible.

Why? That’s what abortion is meant to do.

libfreeordie on May 23, 2012 at 1:16 PM

Um, no. Abortion is supposed to exist as a last-ditch alternative for people who are unable to support their child, were given that child against their will, or the birth would threaten their health. How, in the 21st century, could you or anyone else justify abortion as a method of birth control with the array of pre-birth control methods?

You’re just demonstrating moral and cultural laziness and apathy, in the same way you claim those who are against abortion are against “women”. You refuse to address the logistics and implications of abortion, so you deflect away to claim that opposition constitutes “removal of reproductive rights”. Again, the legality or illegality of abortion does not prevent women from reproducing. It simply determines whether they can lawfully kill their child after the child has been conceived.

Apparently you didn’t agree with the third part of “safe, legal, and rare“. You’re perfectly fine with high levels of extermination of human life because it’s convenient, because you’re too f**king lazy to get on the pill, get a diaphragm, get an IUD, get a shot, carry a condom, or any of the other options that have been made available to you, which you then turn around and DEMAND the government pay for. You people are f**king sickening.

MadisonConservative on May 23, 2012 at 1:30 PM

Oh, so it’s a liberal self-affirmation study involving 1185 people, not 100. My bad. Since you’re linking to the press release, it’s safe to say you haven’t checked the cross tabs and controls.

Yeah, that’s a lot better. In the absence of brandishing something more than liberal comfort-food press releases, I’m going with the same GIGO as the spate of recent neo-phrenology studies performed on conservatives.

DRPrice on May 23, 2012 at 1:27 PM

That’s a link to the entire study. What on earth is the problem with you all and reading today?

You’re the one who won’t stop talking about it.

Esthier on May 23, 2012 at 1:26 PM

Its an essential part of the debate. When it comes down to the root issues at play within the pro-life movement its all about their seething hatred at women who would just cavalierly have sex without caring about the consequences of moterhood. HOW DARE THEY! Those women, seeking pleasure, its just…its just…well its just horrible. I can barely breath to think about the prospect. The goal of the pro-life movement is to keep women celibate until they join up in “holy matrimony.” Of course such a thing has never been acheived in human history but they sure are going for it hard.

libfreeordie on May 23, 2012 at 1:30 PM

All the defense has to do is show doubt. Changed witness accounts lends more for consideration of doubt in my estimation.

Logus on May 23, 2012 at 1:26 PM

The special prosecutor is massaging these witnesses.

NotCoach on May 23, 2012 at 1:30 PM

You’ve never been a liberal troll. Just an oompa-loompa lover with hat on their breath. :P

MadisonConservative on May 23, 2012 at 1:17 PM

That Charlie Crist albatross will hang around my neck for eternity. And well deserved, I must admit.

What were you right about? I must have missed it earlier.

Esthier on May 23, 2012 at 1:17 PM

I won’t go into it much here, as I’m sure a thread will come up at some point about the Trayvon Martin case…But briefly, my initial reaction when the story broke was that I believed Zimmerman did in fact target the Martin kid because he was black. I normally don’t take that stance, but it was just a hunch on my part. It just seemed there was something not right about Zimmerman’s story, even with the witness testimony, which seems a couple of those witnesses are recanting their original statements of what really happened.

Guess we’ll have to see tho.

JetBoy on May 23, 2012 at 1:31 PM

I support the legality of abortion,

Then i’ve got nothing left to say to you on the topic.

libfreeordie on May 23, 2012 at 1:31 PM

Is a person who loses control of their vehicle not responsible for the results?

NotCoach on May 23, 2012 at 1:29 PM

A person might be, but you know women drivers. Surely we can’t hold them responsible for their actions.

Esthier on May 23, 2012 at 1:31 PM

I’m glad you’re admitting that this is all about your own bitterness at other people’s sexual pleasure.

libfreeordie on May 23, 2012 at 1:24 PM

I’m glad that you’re openly dishonest enough to totally misrepresent what your opponent is saying. We don’t give a s**t about your sexual pleasure. We give a s**t about the child that results from that pleasure, and whether or not you kill that child. 90% of pro-lifers only care about what happens AFTER you f**k.

MadisonConservative on May 23, 2012 at 1:32 PM

Then i’ve got nothing left to say to you on the topic.

libfreeordie on May 23, 2012 at 1:31 PM

Coward. Slimy little coward that won’t back up their opinion.

MadisonConservative on May 23, 2012 at 1:32 PM

The special prosecutor is massaging these witnesses.

NotCoach on May 23, 2012 at 1:30 PM

LOL You’ll believe *anything* as long as it allows you to continue to fantasize that anti-black racial profiling is justified.

libfreeordie on May 23, 2012 at 1:32 PM

That Charlie Crist albatross will hang around my neck for eternity. And well deserved, I must admit.

JetBoy on May 23, 2012 at 1:31 PM

We’ve all made mistakes. I once supported Pat Buchanan for president. True, I was ten at the time…but still…embarrassing.

MadisonConservative on May 23, 2012 at 1:33 PM

But none of that matters anyways. What about the unborn child? What about that child’s right to life? At what pint is it OK to trump an unborn child’s right to life in order to protect the right of a mother to not be inconvenienced?

NotCoach on May 23, 2012 at 1:29 PM

I would venture to say that the answer depends mightily on what one defines as “child”. I tend to have my cutoff at the heartbeat detection. Do you really see a one-week fetus as “child” because an old bearded man in the clouds said so?

Archivarix on May 23, 2012 at 1:33 PM

I’m glad you’re admitting that this is all about your own bitterness at other people’s sexual pleasure.

libfreeordie on May 23, 2012 at 1:24 PM

Having been very happily married to the same wonderful woman for the past 27 years I’m very happy and frankly could not care in the slightest about your sexual pleasure one way or another, and certainly don’t feel bitter about your relentless and irresponsible pursuit of it. A better choice of words would be that I pity you for it. But it is telling that you put your sexual pleasure over the lives of the “accidents” that result from your pursuit of it.

Trafalgar on May 23, 2012 at 1:34 PM

libfreeordie on May 23, 2012 at 1:30 PM

Lib, how about you actually address my questions? Why do women need this extra right that men cannot have? Why can’t we be expected to act responsibly just like a man?

Esthier on May 23, 2012 at 1:34 PM

AFAIC, that makes all of those witnesses accounts worthless. When you start second guessing yourself, changing your account. Which one is the correct one? The account you gave shortly following the incident or the one two months after the fact once you’ve had time to “reflect” and be affected by “life” (environment)?

If the defense has any sense, when it comes time for the trial, they’ll ask for all of those testimonies that have been changed to be stricken from evidence. If not, then the defense can chew them up on the witness stand and spit them out.

All the defense has to do is show doubt. Changed witness accounts lends more for consideration of doubt in my estimation.

Logus on May 23, 2012 at 1:26 PM

It’s not my intention to go off topic here…and I’ll save most of my thoughts on this for the appropriate thread, but in short, I agree that when witnesses change their story, it opens up even more questions about the whole incident. People do say things when they’re excited so soon after seeing the incident…especially one that gets so much national attention like this one.

We’ll just have to see how this changes things, if at all.

JetBoy on May 23, 2012 at 1:34 PM

Coward. Slimy little coward that won’t back up their opinion.

MadisonConservative on May 23, 2012 at 1:32 PM

You don’t get it. Whatever your individual moral feelings are on abortion are totally irrelevant to me. I have no interest in engaging or changing them. My problem is when you’re creepy 1950s attitudes about sex threaten other people’s lives, their freedoms and their futures. If you think abortion should be legal then you can abhor it all day and all night sweet thing. I could care less. Just fume and yell and abhor it in your journal or blog or to your wife or even on a talk radio show, wherever. Just leave it out of the court and legislative system.

libfreeordie on May 23, 2012 at 1:35 PM

That’s a link to the entire study. What on earth is the problem with you all and reading today?

I read your press release. That was all your tiny intellect felt comfortable linking to. Since, you know, you haven’t reviewed the study yourself, you don’t understand bupkis about the construction of studies, reading cross-tabs controlling for bias and the like.

You just point to crap that affirms you and say “Ta da!” You’re the mirror image of the bible thumping bumpkins you despise.

Let me guess–you want a government subsidy to help you learn how to think, too?

DRPrice on May 23, 2012 at 1:35 PM

We’ve all made mistakes. I once supported Pat Buchanan for president. True, I was ten at the time…but still…embarrassing.

MadisonConservative on May 23, 2012 at 1:33 PM

OT once again…Do you remember a while back, Allah (I think) posted a trailer for a movie “Iron Sky” about Nazis hiding out on the dark side of the moon and coming back to Earth in 2018? It’s out now…just wondering if anyone saw it yet…

JetBoy on May 23, 2012 at 1:36 PM

JetBoy on May 23, 2012 at 1:31 PM

Considering the way this has been covered though, I wouldn’t be too surprised if some recanted just because they don’t want to be associated with Zimmerman.

I’ll be happier when we have all of the facts instead of this annoying drip.

Esthier on May 23, 2012 at 1:36 PM

A person might be, but you know women drivers. Surely we can’t hold them responsible for their actions.

Esthier on May 23, 2012 at 1:31 PM

Of course not. This misogynistic society has been keeping the women driver down for centuries!

NotCoach on May 23, 2012 at 1:37 PM

Of course not. This misogynistic society has been keeping the women driver down for centuries!

NotCoach on May 23, 2012 at 1:37 PM

It’s clearly the patriarchy’s fault that women statistically are poorer drivers.

Esthier on May 23, 2012 at 1:38 PM

Lib, how about you actually address my questions? Why do women need this extra right that men cannot have? Why can’t we be expected to act responsibly just like a man?

Esthier on May 23, 2012 at 1:34 PM

You can! Which is why I support free condoms, lots of sex-ed in public schools to inform kids what happens when they engage in vaginal intercourse. And also de-stigmatizing other non-procreative sex acts. Look if kids are going to have sex shouldn’t we encourage them to do it in ways that won’t lead to a baby (Catholic virgins have been doing this for years, why not just talk about it). I’m for subsidized pre-natal care and for making it easier for poor mothers to decide to have a baby. But the problem is that the right is virulently pro life and virulently anti-assistance for the poor. Its a very odd sort of pro-life advocacy, its pro-life until birth and then “sorry kid, you’re on your own!” I don’t understand how you can hold both ideas.

libfreeordie on May 23, 2012 at 1:38 PM

My problem is when you’re creepy 1950s attitudes

Projection! Since you are in favor of all those brown people using abortion disproportionately, after all. Very Jim-Crow-y of you.

It’s people like you who make it easy to push for the outlawing of abortion. The more you talk, the more you antagonize those in the middle.

DRPrice on May 23, 2012 at 1:38 PM

you’re creepy 1950s attitudes about sex

Another hippie living their lives to offend June and Ward Cleaver. Got it.

NoDonkey on May 23, 2012 at 1:39 PM

LOL You’ll believe *anything* as long as it allows you to continue to fantasize that anti-black racial profiling is justified.

libfreeordie on May 23, 2012 at 1:32 PM

What accounts for the changing witness testimony? Enlighten us.

NotCoach on May 23, 2012 at 1:39 PM

Lib, how about you actually address my questions? Why do women need this extra right that men cannot have? Why can’t we be expected to act responsibly just like a man?

Esthier on May 23, 2012 at 1:34 PM

How is it an “extra right?” A man can not get pregnant, so it would be impossible to extend to men the right to choose an abortion for themselves. I suppose we can re-write the laws to say that if a man were to become pregnant than he would also have the right to an abortion…

libfreeordie on May 23, 2012 at 1:40 PM

It’s clearly the patriarchy’s fault that women statistically are poorer drivers.

Esthier on May 23, 2012 at 1:38 PM

Road signs are male oriented and do not take into account the cultural differences that females experience.

NotCoach on May 23, 2012 at 1:41 PM

Projection! Since you are in favor of all those brown people using abortion disproportionately, after all. Very Jim-Crow-y of you.

I *AM* Brown so…not sure what you’re referring to. Oh wait, its that BS right wing meme that tries to claim that black women who choose abortion are somehow discriminating against themselves and committing genocide against their own people. Republicans are so cute, in the 1990s they claimed black women were all welfare queens to justify ending AFDC and now they are claiming impoverished black women who get abortions are genociding themselves. All this *compassion* for black women from conservatives makes me weep.

libfreeordie on May 23, 2012 at 1:43 PM

My problem is when you’re creepy 1950s attitudes about sex…

libfreeordie on May 23, 2012 at 1:35 PM

I have no creepy 1950s attitude about sex, you ignoramus. Stop assigning views to me that I don’t hold. I’m not anti-gay. I’m not anti-gay marriage. I’m not anti-porn. I’m not against sex before marriage. I’m not a prude in any way. The argument here is about killing children that have been conceived. You keep dodging away from the topic and deflecting it towards attitudes about sex. It’s a cowardly, dishonest, despicable dodge. It’s not about sex, it’s about the children born from that sex, end of story. If you refuse to address that, and insist on deflecting away to societal attitudes about sex(when public opinion on birth control is all but completely accepted), then you’re nothing but another weasel, trying to distort the issue. I would like to discuss the issue, if you’re interested. If you’re too cowardly to admit that the crux of the issue is not sex, but the conception of children, then say so. At least show you have the balls to do that.

MadisonConservative on May 23, 2012 at 1:43 PM

My problem is when you’re creepy 1950s attitudes about sex threaten other people’s lives, their freedoms and their futures.

libfreeordie on May 23, 2012 at 1:35 PM

How do you feel about the lives, freedoms, and the futures of the babies you so callously advocate killing as a “by-product” of your pursuit of sexual satisfaction?

Trafalgar on May 23, 2012 at 1:44 PM

What accounts for the changing witness testimony? Enlighten us.

NotCoach on May 23, 2012 at 1:39 PM

One of the eye witnesses who initially backed up Zimmerman was a fellow neighborhood watch guy. Sounds like he was initially looking out for his own, but knows he can’t get away with that any longer.

libfreeordie on May 23, 2012 at 1:45 PM

LOL You’ll believe *anything* as long as it allows you to continue to fantasize that anti-black racial profiling is justified.

libfreeordie on May 23, 2012 at 1:32 PM

How does a private citizen racially profile someone who physically assaults them? Once again, you and the rest of your leftist bunch deflect from the facts of the issue and try to deflect away to emotional points.

MadisonConservative on May 23, 2012 at 1:45 PM

I would venture to say that the answer depends mightily on what one defines as “child”. I tend to have my cutoff at the heartbeat detection. Do you really see a one-week fetus as “child” because an old bearded man in the clouds said so?

Archivarix on May 23, 2012 at 1:33 PM

Human being. Moment of conception/fertilization. From the moment an egg is fertilized until that human being dies, it is a human being with value and worth. Since I believe in a soul, I’ll err on the side of caution and not something arbitrary like saying since the unborn now has a heartbeat it’s alive. Was it dead before the heartbeat?

Logus on May 23, 2012 at 1:47 PM

The argument here is about killing children that have been conceived.

And what is our basis for arguing that life begins at conception? Is there scientific consensus on that question?

You keep dodging away from the topic and deflecting it towards attitudes about sex. It’s a cowardly, dishonest, despicable dodge. It’s not about sex, it’s about the children born from that sex, end of story

You used the word “reckless” and you’re not alone in framing the issue in that way. I explained why that is actually an example of pro-life as slut shaming, you don’t have to accept it. But you also are unable to actually respond to it. Instead you limit the terms of the debate to what you want to discuss and declare any other issue as intellectually dishonest. Oh its a perfectly smart debating ploy, but it is a ploy nonetheless cher MadCon.

libfreeordie on May 23, 2012 at 1:48 PM

I *AM* Brown so…not sure what you’re referring to.

Ah. Well, every ghetto needs its Order Police, I suppose.

Deflect, deflect, deflect. All those clinics have done wonders to improve inner city life, but you knew that.

DRPrice on May 23, 2012 at 1:49 PM

“They are inconvenient, and they are not really human, anyway, so it’s not a big deal to kill them’” is pretty much the same logic the Nazi’s used with the Jews/homosexuals/gypsies. Except, Hitler only killed 10 million people. The American abortion industry has killed 54.5 million people since 1973. Anyone who calls themselves ‘pro-choice’ is siding with one of the greatest atrocities in human record. Talk about being on the wrong side of history.

bitsy on May 23, 2012 at 1:49 PM

LOL You’ll believe *anything* as long as it allows you to continue to fantasize that anti-black racial profiling is justified.

libfreeordie on May 23, 2012 at 1:32 PM

… and Zimmerman is white. The MSM said so.

Except he’s hispanic. Still irrelevant, but it was the media that tried to paint it as a racial deal, not the right.

Logus on May 23, 2012 at 1:51 PM

How does a private citizen racially profile someone who physically assaults them? Once again, you and the rest of your leftist bunch deflect from the facts of the issue and try to deflect away to emotional points.

MadisonConservative on May 23, 2012 at 1:45 PM

Who followed who?
Who accused the other of being “on drugs” or “up to no good?”
Who confronted who?
Who had a gun?

Get your life right boo boo, you don’t seem to understand the meaning of assault.

libfreeordie on May 23, 2012 at 1:52 PM

… and Zimmerman is white. The MSM said so.

Except he’s hispanic. Still irrelevant, but it was the media that tried to paint it as a racial deal, not the right.

Logus on May 23, 2012 at 1:51 PM

Hispanic isn’t a race. White cubans and Manny Ramirez are both hispanic, but they are still different races. Hispanic is a language-group not a “racial group.” I’ll also add that hispanic people can be anti-black racists. Or have you not spent any time amongst Cubans?

libfreeordie on May 23, 2012 at 1:53 PM

Pssst, millions of women day after day after day have sex with multiple partners, and have never had a single abortion. Really, it happens.

It’s called being diligent with birth control. It’s called setting a time of day to take your Pill that you know you will be awake, and taking your Pill every day at that time. It’s called using condoms when not on The Pill.

Surveys saying that women getting abortions had used birth control the month they got pregnant—yeah, but I’ll wager in most cases, not during the actual act that got them pregnant. The condom you used yesterday does you no good today. If you have a problem remembering to take a pill, there are shots, there’s even a ring you stick up in yourself and remove once a month.

Let’s face it, liberals like abortion because it keeps the flighty flibbertigibbets voting their way, and makes sure middle-class liberal women don’t reproduce and stand in line at the grocery store behind some chav with an EBT.

I myself think that sometimes abortion is justified, and it really depends on the circumstances. But I swear some folks think getting an abortion is like a trip to the effing spa!

Sekhmet on May 23, 2012 at 1:54 PM

Deflect, deflect, deflect. All those clinics have done wonders to improve inner city life, but you knew that.

DRPrice on May 23, 2012 at 1:49 PM

You’re right, inner city poverty is caused by abortion. Whatever, you don’t actually care about poverty in those communities, stop using that imagery like you give a sh*t.

libfreeordie on May 23, 2012 at 1:54 PM

You used the word “reckless” and you’re not alone in framing the issue in that way. I explained why that is actually an example of pro-life as slut shaming, you don’t have to accept it. But you also are unable to actually respond to it. Instead you limit the terms of the debate to what you want to discuss and declare any other issue as intellectually dishonest. Oh its a perfectly smart debating ploy, but it is a ploy nonetheless cher MadCon.

libfreeordie on May 23, 2012 at 1:48 PM

I’m perfectly fine with responding to it, because I already have. Talking about recklessness with regards to birth control isn’t shaming the woman for having sex. It’s shaming the woman for using abortion as a birth control method, rather than one of the many birth control methods that prevent conception. As I said, 90% of pro-lifers do not care about the sex(and those that do are the same people I’ve sparred with on many other issues).

Abortion, according to many pro-choicers in the 1990s, was supposed to be safe, legal, and rare. How can it be rare if it is used as birth control?

And once again: how does the right to an abortion not include the responsibility to use widely available and affordable methods to prevent the need for an abortion?

There. Just set up the whole kit’n’kaboodle for you, without having a thing do with sex. Now, can you show me you’re capable of addressing my points without deflecting into “you darned Republicans just hate sex!!!” bulls**t?

MadisonConservative on May 23, 2012 at 1:54 PM

The arrest of Zimmerman was an abortion of justice, to tie these two subjects neatly together.

NoDonkey on May 23, 2012 at 1:56 PM

How is it an “extra right?” A man can not get pregnant, so it would be impossible to extend to men the right to choose an abortion for themselves. I suppose we can re-write the laws to say that if a man were to become pregnant than he would also have the right to an abortion…

libfreeordie on May 23, 2012 at 1:40 PM

So it’s OK to tell a man that his decision to become a father ends when he decides to have sex, but if you say the same exact thing to a woman, it’s “slut shaming” somehow. Yeah, makes perfect sense.

Esthier on May 23, 2012 at 1:57 PM

Get your life right boo boo, you don’t seem to understand the meaning of assault.

libfreeordie on May 23, 2012 at 1:52 PM

Evidence so far is showing that Martin had Zimmerman on his back, with Martin on top. Zimmerman’s injuries, according to evidence, demonstrate a fall. Explain how that situation occurs without assault occurring from Martin against Zimmerman, sweetie pie.

MadisonConservative on May 23, 2012 at 1:57 PM

One of the eye witnesses who initially backed up Zimmerman was a fellow neighborhood watch guy. Sounds like he was initially looking out for his own, but knows he can’t get away with that any longer.

libfreeordie on May 23, 2012 at 1:45 PM

That is just pure asinine stupidity. For Fluke’s sake, what makes you think anything would happen to him if he stuck to his original account?

I understand you have too much racial animus invested in this topic to think rationally. Lord knows it is certainly impossible for witness testimony to be massaged over a month after the incident when the special prosecutor is on a mission to charge Zimmerman with murder.

“Are you absolutely positive Zimmerman wasn’t standing over Martin’s body and bragging about killing himself a n*gger?”

“Well, I can’t be absolutely positive that didn’t happen.”

Read the changes in the eyewitness accounts. Any sane person would understand they were being led in their followup interviews.

NotCoach on May 23, 2012 at 1:58 PM

All this *compassion* for black women from conservatives makes me weep.

libfreeordie on May 23, 2012 at 1:43 PM

Yes, of course. Dehumanize your opponents. Make it seem as though any concern from your political opposite is incapable of having good intentions. You do realize that’s what you’re doing, right? You realize you’re engaging in latent fascism?

MadisonConservative on May 23, 2012 at 1:59 PM

Evidence so far is showing that Martin had Zimmerman on his back, with Martin on top. Zimmerman’s injuries, according to evidence, demonstrate a fall. Explain how that situation occurs without assault occurring from Martin against Zimmerman, sweetie pie.

MadisonConservative on May 23, 2012 at 1:57 PM

Its extremely possible Zimmerman started a fight, but couldn’t finish it hand to hand and found himself on the ground. The evidence we do have shows Zimmerman pursuing Trayvon up until the moment the confrontation happened. And now witness testimony is confirming that Trayvon was not the aggressor. He may have momentarily goten the upper hand. In which case i guess that justifies Zimmerman pulling out a gun and killing him. Because its totally cool to stalk someone, confront them, fight them and when they fight back, shoot them in “self-defense.”

libfreeordie on May 23, 2012 at 2:00 PM

You’re right, inner city poverty is caused by abortion. Whatever, you don’t actually care about poverty in those communities, stop using that imagery like you give a sh*t.

libfreeordie on May 23, 2012 at 1:54 PM

The profanity suggests your residual conscience is twitching, but I’m sure you’ll beat it into submission.

Oh, I didn’t say that abortion causes poverty. Nope. It’s the people like like yourself who pat yourself on the back for your smarts who prattle on endlessly about the liberating effects of the vacuum tube on women’s empowerment. Which seems to be lacking despite the disproportionate attention to poor black women, but deflect!

By all means–keep standing with the 1%, those (usually) white businessmen with MD degrees who make a crapload of money off of black women.

Whatever helps you sleep at night, OrPo.

DRPrice on May 23, 2012 at 2:01 PM

Hispanic is a language-group not a “racial group.” I’ll also add that hispanic people can be anti-black racists. Or have you not spent any time amongst Cubans?

libfreeordie on May 23, 2012 at 1:53 PM

Other than joking about my own ethnic heritage, I don’t spend much time at all thinking about race/racism, etc.

That said, my wife and I live in a region of St. Louis that is predominately “black”. We specifically chose to live here. We want to live in a diverse community. I grew up in the deep south, most of my high school classmates were black. Heck, my best friend through much of high school was black.

My adopted brother and adopted sister are American-born “Mexican” and Gautamalan respectively. One of my step-nephews is half Latino, Hispanic or whatever you want to call it. Three of my step-neices and nephews are bi-racial white/black.

Thugs and ne’er-do-wells knows no racial boundaries. I think Trayvon was probably a thug looking for no good and I hope Mr. Zimmerman gets a fair trial and that real justice will prevail. If that means Mr. Zimmerman gets off, I hope people have the sense enough not to pull another LA riot because race means more to them than justice or the legal system.

Logus on May 23, 2012 at 2:02 PM

You do realize that’s what you’re doing, right? You realize you’re engaging in latent fascism?

MadisonConservative on May 23, 2012 at 1:59 PM

If what I’m doing is “latent fascism” then who isn’t a “latent fascist” on this board. Child please you are *over the top* dramatic as usual, and when you find yourself unable to respond substantively you cry foul. No doubt you’ll say that my increasing snarkiness is evidence that I’m not taking this debate seriously enough and you’ll throw down your IPAD and stalk away to the corner. The little violin is playing for you hunty, we’re all just *bereft* over your delicate feelings.

libfreeordie on May 23, 2012 at 2:03 PM

You used the word “reckless” and you’re not alone in framing the issue in that way. I explained why that is actually an example of pro-life as slut shaming, you don’t have to accept it. But you also are unable to actually respond to it.

libfreeordie on May 23, 2012 at 1:48 PM

It’s always difficult to respond to someone’s asinine opinion of what your position actually is when they’re pulling sh!t out of their @ss.

How is it “slut shaming” for women but not for men? The recklessness is about not using condoms or the pill, not having a lot of sex. You’re the one who keeps drawing that conclusion, because apparently it’s on your mind.

Esthier on May 23, 2012 at 2:03 PM

And as for rape, I couldn’t imagine forcing a rape victim to carry her rapists baby to term. An abortion in that case is still evil, and the rape was evil as well. So, the choice is really trying to choose the lesser of two evils, and allowing the rape victim to abort.

JetBoy on May 23, 2012 at 11:48 AM

So, the victim will only feel better if she also commits an evil against another? Lashing out and aborting the baby of a rape may sound like a viable short-term solution, but eventually the victim will realize what she did and carry the guilt of that action around with her the rest of her life. A better approach would be to put the baby up for adoption. Lots of people want to adopt.

dominigan on May 23, 2012 at 2:04 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3