NBC/WSJ poll: For first time, majority thinks abortion should be legal in all or most cases

posted at 9:31 am on January 22, 2013 by Allahpundit

If you’re hung over from drinking the blues away on Inauguration Day, bad news: It’s time to open another beer. New numbers on the 40th anniversary of Roe:

According to the poll, 54 percent of adults say that abortion should be legal either always or most of the time, while a combined 44 percent said it should be illegal – either with or without exceptions…

In addition, a whopping 70 percent of Americans oppose the Roe v. Wade decision from being overturned, including 57 percent who feel strongly about this…

By comparison, just 24 percent now want the Roe v. Wade decision overturned, including 21 percent who feel strongly about this position.

Much of this change, the NBC/WSJ pollsters say, is coming from African Americans, Latinos and women without college degrees — all of whom increasingly oppose the Supreme Court decision from being overturned.

Before today the highest number NBC/WSJ had recorded for keeping abortion legal in all or most cases was 49 percent in 2008. When you drill down into that data, you find that the number who want abortion legal in all cases — no exceptions, presumably not even for late term — is 31 percent, which is also a new high. Say this for Obama’s new coalition — they elected the right guy.

As for overturning Roe, despite the sturm and drang of Supreme Court confirmation hearings, Americans have never been keen on doing so. Pew’s recent poll on abortion found 63 percent opposed to the idea; in 1992, the number was 60 percent. NBC/WSJ sees a bit more movement over time but support for the status quo has been constant through the years in their data too:

Why the recent uptick? NBC’s pollsters speculate it’s partly a backlash to the Akin/Mourdock rape comments last year, but I don’t know. My sense is that backlashes like that tend to burn out fairly quickly. Obama won and Akin and Mourdock both lost, so the “threat” of a post-Roe world has passed for abortion supporters. I think the likelier explanation, as noted in the excerpt, is changing demographics. Pew published a set of polls a few weeks after the election showing that the 18-to-29 group that got Obama reelected was also the age demographic most supportive of keeping abortion legal in all or most cases. They were also far more likely — 14 points more likely — than any other age group to say that government should do more than that government is doing too much. Imagine their surprise when they find out America can’t pay for the government it has right now.

Now that you’ve digested those numbers, try to digest this one. Exit question: Do these numbers augur the eventual end of SCOTUS confirmation fights over Roe? A newly elected Republican president would be caught between social conservatives in his base, who want the decision overturned, and pretty much the entire rest of the electorate, which doesn’t. Makes me wonder if GOP candidates won’t start veering away from the idea of getting rid of Roe via new appointments and pushing the idea of a Human Life Amendment instead. They could sell it is a true democratic solution, the way the Founders intended, knowing all the while that it hasn’t a prayer of passing.

Update: Almost forgot: If you believe Pew, a majority of the 18-to-29 group that’s now steering the ship of state and that strongly opposes overturning Roe doesn’t know which issue Roe v. Wade actually dealt with.

Update: Life News notes that the poll question is misleading in how it describes the core holding of Roe. Fair enough, but assuming that the question has been similarly worded over time, you’re still seeing support increase since the late 1980s for a ruling that protects abortion within the first three months of pregnancy. And the more generic question, about whether abortion should be legal all or most of the time, has drawn majority support in other polls as well. Scroll through Polling Report’s compilation of data over the past few years. In a Gallup poll conducted last May, 50 percent identified as “pro-life” versus just 41 percent who identified as “pro-choice.” But when asked whether abortion should be legal always or sometimes, 52 percent said it should be legal sometimes and another 21 percent said always. There’s room for some optimism in those numbers — the public may be open to greater restrictions — but there’s a lot of work to be done to build a majority for an outright ban. In fact, maybe this table from Pew is the most daunting of all:


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 4 5

Hmmm… life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Deanna on January 22, 2013 at 3:26 PM

You left out the first part “…all men are created equal…”

Those ideals (written by a man who enslaved his own offspring) refer to persons. Heck, he might not have even meant woment to be included in that statement. He certainly wasn’t talking about abortion.

chumpThreads on January 22, 2013 at 3:43 PM

Those ideals (written by a man who enslaved his own offspring) refer to persons. Heck, he might not have even meant woment to be included in that statement. He certainly wasn’t talking about abortion.

chumpThreads on January 22, 2013 at 3:43 PM

So, what is that growing inside of a woman, a puppy?

kingsjester on January 22, 2013 at 3:45 PM

Hmmm… so much for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Deanna on January 22, 2013 at 3:26 PM

FIFY :)

That’s all part of that OLD thinking you know. We all need to move on from that, step into the 21st century. After all, we’re all Communists now in the new USSA. /S

Meople on January 22, 2013 at 3:49 PM

What your side is asking (demanding, actually) is to be able to engage in any kind of sexual pleasure you want, without consequences.

That’s not a “reproductive right”.

listens2glenn on January 22, 2013 at 3:40 PM

You “sex cops” give yourselves away so easily.

Whenever I see the phrase “without consequences” I know the writer wants to make sure that “sluts” are punished for their immoral ways. Because any woman who wants an abortion must be a slut by definition, right?

listens2glen, listen to me: A right isn’t a right, if one doesn’t have the right.

chumpThreads on January 22, 2013 at 3:52 PM

chumpThreads on January 22, 2013 at 3:52 PM

With rights, and with adulthood, as you will one day, when you’re older, find out, come responsibilities.

So, tell me, what is that in the mother’s womb, a puppy?

kingsjester on January 22, 2013 at 3:56 PM

They are both homicide, not murder. One is considered lawful, the other is not. What is different between them other than the age and stage of development.

njrob

Nice way of dodging the question.

If you believe abortion is premeditated murder, don’t the people involved deserve the death penalty? Yes or no?

Or is the “MURDER!” scream just another meaningless bumper sticker slogan?

If you care to know, I believe abortion is immoral, but I don’t think it’s the same as say a woman drowning her toddler where she should go to the electric chair.

I don’t know why people can’t simply advocate for the choice of life without involving politicians and bureaucrats for what has become a moral choice.

There’s MANY people on the pro-life side of the aisle that think birth control pills are a form of abortion since they stop life after conception, should the GOP also placate this fringe and lose elections on this dumb issue as well?

I’m done with it as an abstract political issue.

BradTank on January 22, 2013 at 3:56 PM

Exit question: Do these numbers augur the eventual end of SCOTUS confirmation fights over Roe? A newly elected Republican president would be caught between social conservatives in his base, who want the decision overturned, and pretty much the entire rest of the electorate…

You’re assuming that there will be another Republican president. Good luck with that.

Good to see there are so many sheeple under 30 as wards for the Dems. It will just make it so much easier for the Chinese or the Islamofacists to conquer the US unopposed, and then proceed to kill anyone and anything.

Myron Falwell on January 22, 2013 at 3:57 PM

chumpThreads on January 22, 2013 at 3:52 PM

You can have all the rights you want in your state, just don’t try to force them on mine!

MarshFox on January 22, 2013 at 3:57 PM

kingsjester on January 22, 2013 at 3:56 PM

Get thee behind me!

chumpThreads on January 22, 2013 at 3:58 PM

chumpThreads on January 22, 2013 at 3:58 PM

I’m straight.

kingsjester on January 22, 2013 at 4:00 PM

You “sex cops” give yourselves away so easily.

Whenever I see the phrase “without consequences” I know the writer wants to make sure that “sluts” are punished for their immoral ways. Because any woman who wants an abortion must be a slut by definition, right?

listens2glen, listen to me: A right isn’t a right, if one doesn’t have the right.

chumpThreads on January 22, 2013 at 3:52 PM

Any woman that wants an abortion is definitely NOT a slut. She’s maybe irresponsible, but not necessarily a slut.

Any irresponsible woman that wants me to pay for her abortion AND the birth control that she’s OBVIOUSLY NOT USING, is a slut and an irresponsible slut at that.

If she’s a victim, that’s a different matter, and the above doesn’t apply. (just because I knew you would go here)

Meople on January 22, 2013 at 4:01 PM

You’re assuming that there will be another Republican president. Good luck with that.

Good to see there are so many sheeple under 30 as wards for the Dems. It will just make it so much easier for the Chinese or the Islamofacists to conquer the US unopposed, and then proceed to kill anyone and anything.

Myron Falwell on January 22, 2013 at 3:57 PM

Many cowardly idiots like you said the same crap when FDR won 4 elections and when Bill Clinton won two elections… You are nothing but a worthless defeatist…

mnjg on January 22, 2013 at 4:04 PM

Any woman that wants an abortion is definitely NOT a slut. She’s maybe irresponsible, but not necessarily a slut.

Any irresponsible woman that wants me to pay for her abortion AND the birth control that she’s OBVIOUSLY NOT USING, is a slut and an irresponsible slut at that.

If she’s a victim, that’s a different matter, and the above doesn’t apply. (just because I knew you would go here)

Meople on January 22, 2013 at 4:01 PM

I’m pretty sure neither one of us has any idea what you’re talking about.

chumpThreads on January 22, 2013 at 4:04 PM

listens2glenn on January 22, 2013 at 3:40 PM

.
You “sex cops” give yourselves away so easily.

Whenever I see the phrase “without consequences” I know the writer wants to make sure that “sluts” are punished for their immoral ways. Because any woman who wants an abortion must be a slut by definition, right?

listens2glen, listen to me: A right isn’t a right, if one doesn’t have the right.

chumpThreads on January 22, 2013 at 3:52 PM

.
Any woman who wants an abortion, is a “murderer” by definition.

I’m not sure what your interpretation of this, is:

A right isn’t a right, if one doesn’t have the right.

Or what point you were trying to make , with it.

People (including some Christians) do bad, evil things constantly, with no “right” to do so. We will always try to enforce the law, when possible.
I’m stating that abortion isn’t a “right”, and should be thought of and treated as murder.

listens2glenn on January 22, 2013 at 4:05 PM

You can have all the rights you want in your state, just don’t try to force them on mine!

MarshFox on January 22, 2013 at 3:57 PM

Sorry, Roe v Wade applies nation wide.

But feel free to secede. Not your state, just you.

chumpThreads on January 22, 2013 at 4:06 PM

I’m pretty sure neither one of us has any idea what you’re talking about.

chumpThreads on January 22, 2013 at 4:04 PM

I thought I might be wasting my time, guess I was right. It won’t happen again.

Meople on January 22, 2013 at 4:08 PM

You left out the first part “…all men are created equal…”

chumpThreads on January 22, 2013 at 3:43 PM

And you left out…”endowed by their Creator…”

Deanna on January 22, 2013 at 4:08 PM

Any woman who wants an abortion, is a “murderer” by definition.
listens2glenn on January 22, 2013 at 4:05 PM

You can only reach such a conclusion by creating your own facts, since objective reality blows its nose in your hair.

chumpThreads on January 22, 2013 at 4:11 PM

And you left out…”endowed by their Creator…”

Deanna on January 22, 2013 at 4:08 PM

And both you and Jefferson left out the slightest bit of evidence for such a “Creator”.

chumpThreads on January 22, 2013 at 4:13 PM

If you believe abortion is premeditated murder, don’t the people involved deserve the death penalty? Yes or no?

If you care to know, I believe abortion is immoral, but I don’t think it’s the same as say a woman drowning her toddler where she should go to the electric chair.

I’m done with it as an abstract political issue.

BradTank on January 22, 2013 at 3:56 PM

.
Women accept this option (abortion) because they have been conned into denying that it’s a “real person” in there, unless they “choose” for it to be.

Also, Capital punishment sounds good to me.

There’s nothing “abstract” about this issue, unless you choose to believe there is.

listens2glenn on January 22, 2013 at 4:15 PM

Many cowardly idiots like you said the same crap when FDR won 4 elections and when Bill Clinton won two elections… You are nothing but a worthless defeatist…

mnjg on January 22, 2013 at 4:04 PM

I’m being a REALIST. With a bit of black humor to boot.

The reason why the under-30 crowd has overwhelmingly accepted the tenants of socialism unopposed is because we as conservatives let it happen. We failed to stop the NEA and their takeover of the public school system, we failed to stop the radicals and the anarchists from conquering academia, and we failed to give them any sort of alternative to the horrible future they face.

To this group, government should be responsible for everything and anything, they cannot think for themselves, and they would flock towards someone like Hitler if he had charisma and wasn’t assuming room temperature at the moment. They reject faith, reject freedom, and want others to do things they could easily do if they had any motivation.

And what part of that is cowardly? What part of that is defeatist? Rather, we fail to acknowledge that we have no winning hand at all at this juncture in trying to convert them. It cannot happen; it will not happen. This generation is all but lost.

Start instead with the succeeding generation, start young, and don’t give up on them. This generation is but an ugly growth, a malignant tumor, on America as a whole.

Myron Falwell on January 22, 2013 at 4:20 PM

The simple fact is that Roe was never really about whether abortion should be legal, it was about convenience. Some states allowed abortions, some did not. So it was inconvenient for a woman to get one.
There are many procedures that are not done in every hospital today. My family lives in an area where the local hospital doesn’t deliver babies any more so they would have to drive 30+ miles to have a baby…inconvenient. My hospital doesn’t do open heart surgey, if I need that operation the nearest hospital is 80+ miles…inconvenient. So should the government force these hospitals to offer these services because it is an inconvenience?

Pro-abortion people need to be just as honest as they expect us to be. They have to admit it is about convenience, not some so-called right.

Deanna on January 22, 2013 at 4:20 PM

And both you and Jefferson left out the slightest bit of evidence for such a “Creator”.

chumpThreads on January 22, 2013 at 4:13 PM

Then why would you care what he wrote? Perhaps there isn’t the right to liberty then? If it was endowed by some(in your mind I gather) mythical being, it doesn’t exist.

Deanna on January 22, 2013 at 4:23 PM

And both you and Jefferson left out the slightest bit of evidence for such a “Creator”.

chumpThreads on January 22, 2013 at 4:13 PM

Then you believe that it is endowed by the state and thus the “state” can take away rights.

You can only reach such a conclusion by creating your own facts, since objective reality blows its nose in your hair.

chumpThreads on January 22, 2013 at 4:11 PM

Says the person who is illogical and anti-science.

melle1228 on January 22, 2013 at 4:24 PM

Pro-abortion people need to be just as honest as they expect us to be. They have to admit it is about convenience, not some so-called right.

Deanna on January 22, 2013 at 4:20 PM

It isn’t about the right to privacy. They could care less about privacy, because the same party that supports “privacy” rights in Roe are okay with taking away your private gun. They are okay with taking away your health decisions and your food decision etc.

And it certainly isn’t pro-women..Half of all abortion involve girls. More so when you consider the sex-selective abortion.

melle1228 on January 22, 2013 at 4:26 PM

Sorry, Roe v Wade applies nation wide.

But feel free to secede. Not your state, just you.

chumpThreads on January 22, 2013 at 4:06 PM

So did Plessy v. Fergueson.. Just because the SCOTUS rules something doesn’t make it Constitutional.

melle1228 on January 22, 2013 at 4:27 PM

The simple fact is that Roe was never really about whether abortion should be legal, it was about convenience. Some states allowed abortions, some did not. So it was inconvenient for a woman to get one.

Hey, Deanna, if something is unavailable by law, the state has created a prohibition, not an “inconvenience”!

*snip*

Pro-abortion people need to be just as honest as they expect us to be. They have to admit it is about convenience, not some so-called right.

Deanna on January 22, 2013 at 4:20 PM

In Mississippi the last remaining abortion provider will probably close because the state created needless rules it knew the clinic couldn’t attain as a pretext to close it down. Although abortion is technically legal, the state has made it unavailable to its citizens. Are you calling that an “inconvience”?

chumpThreads on January 22, 2013 at 4:31 PM

Modern day pagans demand child sacrifice.

Only child sacrifice can make America prosperous and strong.

tom daschle concerned on January 22, 2013 at 4:33 PM

Then why would you care what he wrote? Perhaps there isn’t the right to liberty then? If it was endowed by some(in your mind I gather) mythical being, it doesn’t exist.

Deanna on January 22, 2013 at 4:23 PM

As I recall you were the one who cited Jefferson. I didn’t bring him up. I was simply responding to your point.

And the simple fact is, Thomas Jefferson wasn’t referring to fetuses when he wrote the phrase.

chumpThreads on January 22, 2013 at 4:34 PM

Thomas Jefferson wasn’t referring to fetuses when he wrote the phrase.

chumpThreads on January 22, 2013 at 4:34 PM

So, that isn’t a human fetus growing inside a mother’s womb?

What is it…a puppy?

kingsjester on January 22, 2013 at 4:39 PM

Are you calling that an “inconvience”?

chumpThreads on January 22, 2013 at 4:31 PM

Yes. I have to go to another state for several different medical procedures. Should the federal government force the hospitals closer to me to offer them? Should all medical procedures be convenient to everyone? And what is convenient…5 miles, 20 miles, 50 miles?
There is no right to an abortion any more than there is a right to heart by-pass surgery. At least you should agree on that since it is, to you, nothing more than a medical procedure.
And on that note, I have to go start dinner. Enjoy the rest of the day.

Deanna on January 22, 2013 at 4:44 PM

In Mississippi the last remaining abortion provider will probably close because the state created needless rules it knew the clinic couldn’t attain as a pretext to close it down. Although abortion is technically legal, the state has made it unavailable to its citizens. Are you calling that an “inconvience”?

chumpThreads on January 22, 2013 at 4:31 PM

Doctors in Mississippi don’t want to perform abortions, so the clinic has to ship from outside the area. Mississippi said that abortions can only be performed if a doctor had admitting privileges, and hospitals don’t want any part of the risk that goes along with out of state doctors performing procedures.. How dare Mississippi protect women who have abortion by making their doctors have admitting privileges to hospitals..?

melle1228 on January 22, 2013 at 4:47 PM

In Mississippi the last remaining abortion provider will probably close because the state created needless rules it knew the clinic couldn’t attain as a pretext to close it down. Although abortion is technically legal, the state has made it unavailable to its citizens.

chumpThreads on January 22, 2013 at 4:31 PM

.
That sounds really familiar . . . . . oh, right … I remember now . . . . . that’s what those in the government (all levels), who don’t want common civilians to be armed, are doing.

listens2glenn on January 22, 2013 at 4:54 PM

In Mississippi the last remaining abortion provider will probably close because the state created needless rules it knew the clinic couldn’t attain as a pretext to close it down. Although abortion is technically legal, the state has made it unavailable to its citizens.

Sounds like the Obama approach to coal plants.

tom daschle concerned on January 22, 2013 at 5:13 PM

chumpThreads on January 22, 2013 at 4:06 PM

As a matter of fact, I already have, but that is another story, the story here is this, Roe V Wade is bad law period. It was written badly to begin with and should a state like mine challenge it, which I think s going to happen here soon, it will fall like a house of cards. Even with the SCOTUS we have now, the argument that is being fomented, by several states actually would turn the ruling on its ear. One other thing, Jefferson(TJ) has never been proven to in fact be the father of Sally Hemming’s children, and actually there is a better candidate, and one who is a closer DNA match than him, though in the Jefferson bloodline still. I get that your only repeating what has oft been rumored, but historically it just isn’t that good of a rumor.

MarshFox on January 22, 2013 at 5:24 PM

Sounds like the Obama approach to coal plants.

tom daschle concerned on January 22, 2013 at 5:13 PM

It’s the Ministry of Redistribution’s new strategy for everything they can’t bribe, coerce and extort through congress. It now also applies to everything they want to bypass the Constitution on as well. I guess they figure they can get around Congress with this strategy, why not the Constitution also?

The ends always justify any means.

Meople on January 22, 2013 at 5:38 PM

Any woman who wants an chooses abortion, is a “murderer” by definition.

listens2glenn on January 22, 2013 at 4:05 PM

.
You can only reach such a conclusion by creating your own facts …

chumpThreads on January 22, 2013 at 4:11 PM

.
Such as . . . . . . ?
Defining a life developing in a woman’s womb as a “real person” seems like the “self evident” conclusion.

You’ll have to explain the error of that “fact”.
.

And you left out…”endowed by their Creator…”

Deanna on January 22, 2013 at 4:08 PM
.
And both you and Jefferson left out the slightest bit of evidence for such a “Creator”.

chumpThreads on January 22, 2013 at 4:13 PM

.
Once again, “self evident.”

listens2glenn on January 22, 2013 at 5:44 PM

Deanna on January 22, 2013 at 4:08 PM

.
Sorry Deanna, I didn’t mean to ‘strike’ your reply above.

listens2glenn on January 22, 2013 at 5:48 PM

My conclusion: Abortion: The Linchpin of the Left.

. . .The Left protests and squawks over abortion because abortion is the sine qua non political solution to enabling their view of life as a great political collective. . . .

INC on January 22, 2013 at 6:21 PM

Sounds like the Obama approach to coal plants.

tom daschle concerned on January 22, 2013 at 5:13 PM

Hypocrite social “conservatives” have a problem when he does it, but whole-heartedly endorse using the same tactics to shut down abortion clinics.

Armin Tamzarian on January 22, 2013 at 6:49 PM

There’s MANY people on the pro-life side of the aisle that think birth control pills are a form of abortion since they stop life after conception, should the GOP also placate this fringe and lose elections on this dumb issue as well?

I’m done with it as an abstract political issue.

BradTank on January 22, 2013 at 3:56 PM

If there is conception, there is a human.

If there is an abortion, whether by cold instrument or a pill, it is still murder.

davidk on January 22, 2013 at 6:50 PM

Must be terrible being a social conservative and seeing the country move away from the views of the one true god. Must be depressing. Incredibly frustrating. And maddening. Especially maddening. But all social conservatives look on the bright side. They know that one day, one day real soon, Jesus will come and massacre all their enemies – which is almost the entire world, and 54% of America.

It’s good having friends in high places.

keep the change on January 22, 2013 at 6:50 PM

Hypocrite social “conservatives” have a problem when he does it, but whole-heartedly endorse using the same tactics to shut down abortion clinics.

Armin Tamzarian on January 22, 2013 at 6:49 PM

I have no problem killing killers.

davidk on January 22, 2013 at 6:51 PM

First, 54% is not a huge majority and could swing in the other direction pretty quickly … and it has. Just 4 years ago, we were reading about polls that cited young women under the age of 35 being less zealous about abortion rights, and the NOW and Planned Parenthood leadership was going nuts. I disagree with the analysis here that this election didn’t produce the swing. Two things provided the momentum: first, Obama has become more and more pro-abortion over his four years (just revealing his true leanings). Remember when he ran in 2008, he and his group denied vigoursly that he opposed the partial birth abortion ban and the proposed law to save babies that survived abortion procedures. That facade has dropped. Unfortunately, like the gay marriage issue, those who view him as their savior (i.e., younger minority women), are changing their opinions to follow his “evolution.”

Second, Akin, et al, really did set back the pro-life movement several years – I would argue decades. Just like in Virginia where they tried to force women to have invasive ultrasounds, their comments about the rape and incest exceptions were repulsive to many – and the media made it look like the entire pro-life movement ascribed to that view.

The solution is to step back and do what was being done throughout the 90s and early 2000s – remind people of the advances of in vitro science and how early premature babies can be born today with good survival rates. Show the minority woman the pictures of the babies in utero at early stages. Point to another, unrelated field of medical science which considers the growing fetus a hoped-for-child almost from day one of conception – the fertility industry. Ask how that medical field can talk about the changes of a woman’s body in preparation for birth from conception (both physical and pschological) and not be in contradiction to the Planned Parenthood claptrap that states that the fetus is merely a lump of cells and its removal has no affect on a woman. Demonstrate the reality of the developing human person in the womb and people will make up their own minds. They were in the 90s and 2000s and they will again. Don’t overreach, don’t call people murderers – just show them the facts. Those facts are on the side of pro-life.

studentofhistory on January 22, 2013 at 6:52 PM

Must be terrible being a social conservative and seeing the country move away from the views of the one true god. Must be depressing. Incredibly frustrating. And maddening. Especially maddening. But all social conservatives look on the bright side. They know that one day, one day real soon, Jesus will come and massacre all their enemies – which is almost the entire world, and 54% of America.

It’s good having friends in high places.

keep the change on January 22, 2013 at 6:50 PM

Those words will haunt you for a very long time.

davidk on January 22, 2013 at 6:52 PM

Armin Tamzarian on January 22, 2013 at 6:49 PM

smoke another bowl reprobate.

tom daschle concerned on January 22, 2013 at 6:53 PM

Wonder how many of that majority would volunteer in an abortion clinic for a day, or at least watch one on film?

Dr. ZhivBlago on January 22, 2013 at 6:54 PM

BTW, I don’t believe that poll for a second.

davidk on January 22, 2013 at 6:54 PM

davidk on January 22, 2013 at 6:52 PM

Thanks for the being the first to confirm that, yes, this is how you people think.

keep the change on January 22, 2013 at 6:55 PM

Armin Tamzarian on January 22, 2013 at 6:49 PM

smoke another bowl reprobate.

tom daschle concerned on January 22, 2013 at 6:53 PM

I could smoke a dozen bowls and I still wouldn’t be as dumb as the average social “conservative”.

BTW, I don’t believe that poll for a second.

davidk on January 22, 2013 at 6:54 PM

You probably didn’t believe all the polls showing Obama beating Mittens either.

Armin Tamzarian on January 22, 2013 at 6:56 PM

Wonder how many of that majority would volunteer in an abortion clinic for a day, or at least watch one on film?

Dr. ZhivBlago on January 22, 2013 at 6:54 PM

.
THREAD WINNER ! ! ! ! !

listens2glenn on January 22, 2013 at 6:56 PM

hey principal Skinner, keep raging against the strawmen you construct in your drug-addled peabrain. no skin off my back.

confess away reprobate.

tom daschle concerned on January 22, 2013 at 6:58 PM

Armin Tamzarian on January 22, 2013 at 6:56 PM

My intelligence or my political astuteness is irrelevant.

I cannot wrap my mind around why you would defend the wholesale slaughter of innocent life.

Why?

davidk on January 22, 2013 at 6:58 PM

Must be terrible being a social conservative and seeing the country move away from the views of the one true god. Must be depressing. Incredibly frustrating. And maddening. Especially maddening. But all social conservatives look on the bright side. They know that one day, one day real soon, Jesus will come and massacre all their enemies – which is almost the entire world, and 54% of America.

It’s good having friends in high places.

keep the change on January 22, 2013 at 6:50 PM

I’m not sure this was really necessary, was it? First, Christianity started in civilization and culture that was far more numerous than, and violently opposed to, their group. They survived. I think they can survive this … and you. Unfortunately, I think you are getting far more glee out of the movement away from social conservative beliefs than is merited. Even so, you demonstrate the very attitude you seem to be glad is in decline: judgmentalism.

studentofhistory on January 22, 2013 at 6:58 PM

Thanks for the being the first to confirm that, yes, this is how you people think.

keep the change on January 22, 2013 at 6:55 PM

What “you people” think is irrelevant. What God, the Creator and Sustainer of all, has decreed is. You can mock me all you want.

Mock God at you eternal peril.

davidk on January 22, 2013 at 7:02 PM

Abortion is murder. Enablers of abortion are complicit in murder.

davidk on January 22, 2013 at 7:03 PM

I cannot wrap my mind around why you would defend the wholesale slaughter of innocent life.

Why?

davidk on January 22, 2013 at 6:58 PM

I can’t wrap my mind around why people who are, at the very best suspicious about the role of the federal government in the affairs of individual states, think that it would be just dandy to impose their beliefs about abortion from the highest levels of that same federal government.

Armin Tamzarian on January 22, 2013 at 7:04 PM

Hypocrite social “conservatives” have a problem when he does it, but whole-heartedly endorse using the same tactics to shut down abortion clinics.

Armin Tamzarian on January 22, 2013 at 6:49 PM

You mock the intelligence of socons and you such a comparison.

Shutting down coals plants = shutting down abortion mills?

You are one sick puppy.

davidk on January 22, 2013 at 7:06 PM

I can’t wrap my mind around why people who are, at the very best suspicious about the role of the federal government in the affairs of individual states, think that it would be just dandy to impose their beliefs about abortion from the highest levels of that same federal government.

Armin Tamzarian on January 22, 2013 at 7:04 PM

Abortion is murder. Plain and simple. Should not the Federal Government stop murder?

davidk on January 22, 2013 at 7:08 PM

Must be terrible being a social conservative and seeing the country move away from the views of the one true god. Must be depressing. Incredibly frustrating. And maddening. Especially maddening. But all social conservatives look on the bright side. They know that one day, one day real soon, Jesus will come and massacre all their enemies – which is almost the entire world, and 54% of America.

It’s good having friends in high places.

keep the change on January 22, 2013 at 6:50 PM

I guess we all need our happy daydreams to keep ourselves sane. I like to imagine myself hiking beside my favorite mountain stream.

thuja on January 22, 2013 at 7:10 PM

davidk on January 22, 2013 at 6:58 PM

.
I can’t wrap my mind around why people who are, at the very best suspicious about the role of the federal government in the affairs of individual states, think that it would be just dandy to impose their beliefs about abortion from the highest levels of that same federal government.

Armin Tamzarian on January 22, 2013 at 7:04 PM

.
Because we believe in God.

We believe he holds us accountable for “failing to do good”, even when atheists disagree over what is “good”, and what isn’t.

listens2glenn on January 22, 2013 at 7:10 PM

A two-​minute video overview of abor­tion: what it is, who it af­fects, how it is per­formed, why it hap­pens, and why it is un­just. A small portion of this video presentation graphically depicts what abortion actually does to the most helpless members of the human community. Viewer discretion is advised.

http://www.abort73.com/videos/an_overview_of_abortion_in_2_minutes/

Here’s the same video with the graphic portion pixelized.

http://www.abort73.com/videos/an_overview_of_abortion_in_2_minutes_pixelized/

INC on January 22, 2013 at 7:11 PM

I can’t wrap my mind around why people who are, at the very best suspicious about the role of the federal government in the affairs of individual states, think that it would be just dandy to impose their beliefs about abortion from the highest levels of that same federal government.

Armin Tamzarian on January 22, 2013 at 7:04 PM

I can’t fathom a side that strives for “privacy” rights when it talks about killing an innocent child thinking it is fine and dandy for the federal government to have control of all their other healthcare decisions..

melle1228 on January 22, 2013 at 7:16 PM

Abortion is murder. Plain and simple. Should not the Federal Government stop murder?

davidk on January 22, 2013 at 7:08 PM

Murder prosecution is and always has been within the purview of state and municipal governments.

Because we believe in God.

We believe he holds us accountable for “failing to do good”, even when atheists disagree over what is “good”, and what isn’t.

listens2glenn on January 22, 2013 at 7:10 PM

This is not a conservative argument or justification for federal action, and in fact could easily be repurposed to promote federal intervention in literally anything.

Armin Tamzarian on January 22, 2013 at 7:16 PM

I can’t fathom a side that strives for “privacy” rights when it talks about killing an innocent child thinking it is fine and dandy for the federal government to have control of all their other healthcare decisions..

melle1228 on January 22, 2013 at 7:16 PM

I don’t know whose side you have in mind here, but the libertarian position is strictly opposed to the nationalization of healthcare (or anything else).

Armin Tamzarian on January 22, 2013 at 7:17 PM

Because we believe in God.

We believe he holds us accountable for “failing to do good”, even when atheists disagree over what is “good”, and what isn’t.

listens2glenn on January 22, 2013 at 7:10 PM

Oh, ok, so faith in God means you get to be a hypocrite about the role of government. Great set of objective moral truths you got there!

thuja on January 22, 2013 at 7:18 PM

I don’t know whose side you have in mind here, but the libertarian position is strictly opposed to the nationalization of healthcare (or anything else).

Armin Tamzarian on January 22, 2013 at 7:17 PM

You are not a libertarian. You are a stingy liberal who doesn’t like taxes. If you are perfectly find with Roe v. Wade which completely takes away states rights then you are as hypocritical as the “socons” you accuse.

Oh, ok, so faith in God means you get to be a hypocrite about the role of government. Great set of objective moral truths you got there!

thuja on January 22, 2013 at 7:18 PM

The government’s job is to guarantee public safety. If that means making sure on person doesn’t murder another; that that is its role.

melle1228 on January 22, 2013 at 7:20 PM

Harvard Geneticist no longer desperately seeking “adventurous woman”:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/01/lost_in_transla068551.html

davidk on January 22, 2013 at 7:21 PM

I can’t wrap my mind around why people who are, at the very best suspicious about the role of the federal government in the affairs of individual states, think that it would be just dandy to impose their beliefs about abortion from the highest levels of that same federal government.

Armin Tamzarian on January 22, 2013 at 7:04 PM

I think you know why, but I’ll spell it out. Pro-life advocates believe that the fetus is a life from conception – or at least a developing human being that reaches the stage where protection is required very early on in development (i.e, conception or very near afterward). For some who are religious, that belief is based on the idea that God created each life as something to be valued and preserved, not taken unjustly (hence, the talk of “just wars” and the difference of opinion regarding capital punishment). For others who are not religious, they see the development of human life as beginning at the moment the cellular process of development begins, and they believe that humans are special and that humanism (which values human life, its creativity, and its capabilities) demands the protection of that life. In either case, abortion represents a failure of (i) responsible behavior on the part of the couple who had sex without acknowledging the highly probable ramafications of the short-term gratification, (ii) a society to support responsible behavioral lifestyles or support economically struggling members of the society; and (iii) a society to value innocent life and ensure that the life is protected.

studentofhistory on January 22, 2013 at 7:23 PM

This is not a conservative argument or justification for federal action, and in fact could easily be repurposed to promote federal intervention in literally anything.

Armin Tamzarian on January 22, 2013 at 7:16 PM

Who pushed federal action? Did socons bring Roe v. Wade to federalize abortion?

melle1228 on January 22, 2013 at 7:25 PM

You are not a libertarian. You are a stingy liberal who doesn’t like taxes. If you are perfectly find with Roe v. Wade which completely takes away states rights then you are as hypocritical as the “socons” you accuse.

Where did I defend Roe v. Wade? Point it out. I oppose Roe v. Wade as an infringement of states’ rights, though my preference would be for all 50 states to allow unrestricted abortion access.

The government’s job is to guarantee public safety. If that means making sure on person doesn’t murder another; that that is its role.

Gee, I wonder what other kinds of things might fall under the rubric of “guaranteeing public safety”? How about protecting the environment and ensuring free healthcare for all?

So I reiterate: your position is not conservative. It is liberal. It allows for unchecked growth of the federal government because practically anything can be argued as necessary for guaranteeing “public safety”.

Armin Tamzarian on January 22, 2013 at 7:26 PM

Can We Defend the Dignity of Human Life in Secular, Even Scientific Terms?

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/06/can_we_defend_t060861.html

davidk on January 22, 2013 at 7:27 PM

What is a Human Embryo?
Michael Egnor January 15, 2011 12:27 PM | Permalink

Tantalus Prime and I have been discussing abortion. Tantalus takes exception to my observation that human life begins at conception. He believes that the humanity of a human zygote/embryo/fetus isn’t a scientific fact, but merely a matter of linguistics:

The exact moment at which a fertilizing egg becomes human… is a horrible scientific question! Is asking the exact size beyond which a stream becomes a river a good scientific question? Of course not, because this is not an empirical problem but one of definition. Define the term human however you want, but don’t pretend it is an empirical question to be solved. Scientists can’t even agree on what constitutes a living organism, so what makes you think pinpointing the demarcation between human being and not human being is easily solved in a testable and falsifiable manner….

Tantalus doesn’t like to mix definitions with his science. Especially definitions that aren’t congenial to his ideology.

Yet a human embryo is surely something. But I’m not going to ask Tantalus that nasty beginning of life question. I’ll ask Tantalus a different question, hopefully one that he finds less irritating:

What is a human embryo?

There would seem to be 5 different things that a human embryo in the womb could be:

1) The human embryo is part of the mother.
2) The human embryo is not part of the mother, and is of a non-human species (i.e. not Homo sapiens).
3) The human embryo is some hitherto unclassified thing, neither of any species nor a part of the mother.
4) The human embryo is a proto-human being.
5) The human embryo is a human being.

Let’s explore Tantalus’ dilemma:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/01/tantalus_primes_nobel_prize_in042411.html

davidk on January 22, 2013 at 7:28 PM

Who pushed federal action? Did socons bring Roe v. Wade to federalize abortion?

melle1228 on January 22, 2013 at 7:25 PM

What does it matter who initially pushed for the federalization of abortion? The social “conservative” response to this encroachment has not been to advocate for the issue being returned to the states, where it was for 200 years without incident. Instead, they demand federal legislation or even a constitutional amendment forbidding abortion.

Armin Tamzarian on January 22, 2013 at 7:30 PM

What distinguish an unborn child from his/her mother aren’t genetic differences; a child in the womb is not the same organism as his/her mother because the child and the mother are different members of the species Homo sapiens. Half the time, mother and child are not even the same gender. The mother is a human being and the child is a human being. They are not the same human being. The child in the womb is located within the mother’s body and is dependent on her for many things. But location and dependency are not biological criteria for being a member of a species. ‘Homo sapiens’ does not include exemptions for location or for dependency. Unborn children at any stage do not “fall on that border” between human life and “everything else” (e.g. cancer). An unborn child is a human life, beginning at conception:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/12/jason_rosenau_unborn_children_041281.html

davidk on January 22, 2013 at 7:32 PM

Where did I defend Roe v. Wade? Point it out. I oppose Roe v. Wade as an infringement of states’ rights, though my preference would be for all 50 states to allow unrestricted abortion access.

You keep bi+ching about socons and their push to federalize abortion. Roe v. Wade federalized abortion and it wasn’t the socons doing it.

So I reiterate: your position is not conservative. It is liberal. It allows for unchecked growth of the federal government because practically anything can be argued as necessary for guaranteeing “public safety”.

Armin Tamzarian on January 22, 2013 at 7:26 PM

So you don’t think someone ending someone else’s innocent life without due process is in the purview of the government. Better tell the states that they can no longer prosecute murder.

And I am not for the federalizing of abortion. I am for strict state oversight. I live in a red, red state and I know that my state would ban it or restrict it to the point- it would be impossible to get. And they certainly wouldn’t fund it. I am perfectly fine with that.

melle1228 on January 22, 2013 at 7:32 PM

Slightly O/T, but really interesting:

A 2010 Yale study found that mothers who expressed the greatest amount of positive emotion towards their babies (rating them as “perfect” or “beautiful”) set off structural changes in their brain, boosting its information-processing capacity.

INC on January 22, 2013 at 7:33 PM

Instead, they demand federal legislation or even a constitutional amendment forbidding abortion.

Armin Tamzarian on January 22, 2013 at 7:30 PM

Because it is murder!

davidk on January 22, 2013 at 7:34 PM

Expanding on my last post:

Social “conservatives” have, essentially, fully embraced the liberal position that abortion is an issue of federal concern, and they do so based on the same kind of faulty reasoning (usually the 14th Amendment, which any honest, informed conservative knows was strictly intended to overrule Dred Scott and grant citizenship to black slaves, nothing more).

Armin Tamzarian on January 22, 2013 at 7:34 PM

You keep bi+ching about socons and their push to federalize abortion. Roe v. Wade federalized abortion and it wasn’t the socons doing it.

No, but they’re struggling to keep it a federal issue, and worst of all doing so under the auspices of conservatism. They are devaluing the most fundamental conservative principle that exists: federalism.

So you don’t think someone ending someone else’s innocent life without due process is in the purview of the government. Better tell the states that they can no longer prosecute murder.

Are you incapable of distinguishing between state and federal government or what? I can’t understand how anyone could otherwise so misinterpret my post. I was clearly referring to the role of the federal government.

Armin Tamzarian on January 22, 2013 at 7:38 PM

Perhaps in your next life you can have the role of aborted baby. It sounds as though it would make you happier than you are now.

Bmore on January 22, 2013 at 7:42 PM

“We should have known”

Published by Andrea Mrozek at 3:17 pm

Father Raymond de Souza writes about Lance Armstrong. Nothing much to do with life or abortion, but I really like his writing style.

Finally, this:

“Lance may well prosper again, for a dishonest age honours its own,”

made me think about how some have honoured Henry Morgentaler. If it’s a dishonest age then it should come as no great surprise when cheaters (or murderers, as the case may be) prosper.

http://www.prowomanprolife.ca/2013/01/17/we-should-have-known/

davidk on January 22, 2013 at 7:42 PM

Of course in your next life as an aborted baby, you won’t have any opinions.

Bmore on January 22, 2013 at 7:43 PM

(usually the 14th Amendment, which any honest, informed conservative knows was strictly intended to overrule Dred Scott and grant citizenship to black slaves, nothing more).

Then why immortalize it in an amendment? Why not specify that it only extends to black slaves and no more?

Social “conservatives” have, essentially, fully embraced the liberal position that abortion is an issue of federal concern

Again sweetie, you keep saying this, but I don’t believe it means what you think it does. Who again federalized abortion?

melle1228 on January 22, 2013 at 7:44 PM

What if there is no next life? Will you still treasure abortion as you do? In this life. Seeing as how you were not aborted. You have opinions because you were not aborted. In this life. Do you see how this might work?

Bmore on January 22, 2013 at 7:45 PM

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

davidk on January 22, 2013 at 7:45 PM

No, but they’re struggling to keep it a federal issue, and worst of all doing so under the auspices of conservatism. They are devaluing the most fundamental conservative principle that exists: federalism.

Wrong, when states try to restrict abortion- who takes it back to court. Who made abortion a federal issue to begin with?

Are you incapable of distinguishing between state and federal government or what? I can’t understand how anyone could otherwise so misinterpret my post. I was clearly referring to the role of the federal government.

Armin Tamzarian on January 22, 2013 at 7:38 PM

Yes, I know but apparently you don’t realize that those of us who want Roe v. Wade overturned are not getting the federal government involved. We are giving power back to the states.

BTW, the federal government also prosecutes murder.

melle1228 on January 22, 2013 at 7:47 PM

Because we believe in God.

We believe he holds us accountable for “failing to do good”, even when atheists disagree over what is “good”, and what isn’t.

listens2glenn on January 22, 2013 at 7:10 PM

.
This is not a conservative argument or justification for federal action, and in fact could easily be repurposed to promote federal intervention in literally anything.

Armin Tamzarian on January 22, 2013 at 7:16 PM

.
Using government on all levels to define “standards of acceptability and normality” based the laws of the Christian God is how the country started.

Unless you believe that law enforcement (on any level) should not intervene in an attempted murder, you can’t win the argument based on the what you presented there.

listens2glenn on January 22, 2013 at 7:49 PM

Then why immortalize it in an amendment? Why not specify that it only extends to black slaves and no more?

Not sure what you’re getting at here. Are you suggesting that the 14th Amendment was not, in fact, strictly meant to overrule Dred Scott and enfranchise the former black slaves (as the historical and legislative records suggest)? If so, this puts you in the same company as people who argue that gay marriage is a federal right based on this same amendment.

Again sweetie, you keep saying this, but I don’t believe it means what you think it does. Who again federalized abortion?

And who wants to ensure that it remains a federal issue, even after Roe v. Wade is overturned? People clamoring for federal action against abortion.

Armin Tamzarian on January 22, 2013 at 7:51 PM

listens2glenn on January 22, 2013 at 7:10 PM

.
Oh, ok, so faith in God means you get to be a hypocrite about the role of government. Great set of objective moral truths you got there!

thuja on January 22, 2013 at 7:18 PM

.
Reposting:

Unless you believe that law enforcement (on any level) should not intervene in an attempted murder, you can’t win the argument based on the what you presented there.

listens2glenn on January 22, 2013 at 7:49 PM

listens2glenn on January 22, 2013 at 7:56 PM

Are you suggesting that the 14th Amendment was not, in fact, strictly meant to overrule Dred Scott and enfranchise the former black slaves (as the historical and legislative records suggest)? If so, this puts you in the same company as people who argue that gay marriage is a federal right based on this same amendment.

There are a lot of amendments that were passed for a specific purpose; it doesn’t mean that they don’t translate to other things. I mean the 1st amendment doesn’t just cover things written on parchment and with a quill pen.

And who wants to ensure that it remains a federal issue, even after Roe v. Wade is overturned? People clamoring for federal action against abortion.

Armin Tamzarian on January 22, 2013 at 7:51 PM

Who is fighting for federal amendment? Most pro-lifers would be thrilled with just Roe v. Wade being overturned. Abortion will be won and lost on the local level. Overturning Roe will even the playing field and allow state to restrict or regulate it.

melle1228 on January 22, 2013 at 7:57 PM

Yes, I know but apparently you don’t realize that those of us who want Roe v. Wade overturned are not getting the federal government involved. We are giving power back to the states.

Maybe that’s what you personally want, but most of your collaborators very much believe in a constitutional amendment or federal law criminalizing abortion.

BTW, the federal government also prosecutes murder.

That’s a good thing? Do you know what kind of murders the federal government prosecutes? Ones arbitrarily deemed to be “hate crimes” mostly.

Using government on all levels to define “standards of acceptability and normality” based the laws of the Christian God is how the country started.

This is not a conservative or federalist position. Try reading the Federalist Papers for once.

Unless you believe that law enforcement (on any level) should not intervene in an attempted murder, you can’t win the argument based on the what you presented there.

Unbelievable. It’s like I’m arguing with a brick wall here. Murder (and attempted murder) prosecutions are, in the American legal tradition, handled by local and state governments. It’s like you really can’t distinguish between the proper role of state and federal government. In fact, I think you don’t. The concept of federalism is obviously meaningless to you.

Armin Tamzarian on January 22, 2013 at 7:59 PM

Again sweetie, you keep saying this, but I don’t believe it means what you think it does. Who again federalized abortion?

.
And who wants to ensure that it remains a federal issue, even after Roe v. Wade is overturned? People clamoring for federal action against abortion.

Armin Tamzarian on January 22, 2013 at 7:51 PM

.
People who believe that everyone (including government) should intervene in an attempted murder.

listens2glenn on January 22, 2013 at 8:00 PM

There are a lot of amendments that were passed for a specific purpose; it doesn’t mean that they don’t translate to other things. I mean the 1st amendment doesn’t just cover things written on parchment and with a quill pen.

That’s because we know from the historical and legislative records that the founders intended for the First Amendment to broadly apply to all forms of speech. This isn’t the case with the 14th Amendment. It was written and signed into law solely in order to grant citizenship to newly-freed black slaves.

Who is fighting for federal amendment? Most pro-lifers would be thrilled with just Roe v. Wade being overturned. Abortion will be won and lost on the local level. Overturning Roe will even the playing field and allow state to restrict or regulate it.

This and other conservative sites are full of people who fully support federal action on abortion. Open your eyes.

People who believe that everyone (including government) should intervene in an attempted murder.

listens2glenn on January 22, 2013 at 8:00 PM

Oh, that’s just dandy. What other crimes typically prosecuted by state and municipal governments should be handled by the federal government? Shoplifting, maybe? Assault?

Armin Tamzarian on January 22, 2013 at 8:05 PM

Unbelievable. It’s like I’m arguing with a brick wall here. Murder (and attempted murder) prosecutions are, in the American legal tradition, handled by local and state governments. It’s like you really can’t distinguish between the proper role of state and federal government. In fact, I think you don’t. The concept of federalism is obviously meaningless to you.

Armin Tamzarian on January 22, 2013 at 7:59 PM

.
But the states and local governing civil authorities can’t currently legally intervene in an abortion-murder, thanks to the idiots who were on the SCOTUS for the Roe vs. Wade decision.

It demands / requires Federal legislation to overturn the Roe vs. Wade decision, FIRST.

Then state and local authorities can begin handling it legally as a “murder”.

listens2glenn on January 22, 2013 at 8:07 PM

Oh, that’s just dandy. What other crimes typically prosecuted by state and municipal governments should be handled by the federal government? Shoplifting, maybe? Assault?

Armin Tamzarian on January 22, 2013 at 8:05 PM

.
What I just said ABOVE.

listens2glenn on January 22, 2013 at 8:09 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5